Andrew, my first question is what are the sources of truth? Another way of asking that is, "Is science the only true source of truth?"
I think that atheists put a lot of stock into scientific truth and argue that because God cannot be proved scientifically, then He cannot be proven at all. I think this is wrong for two reasons. First, science does not reach ultimate truth. Second, there are other sources of truth beyond science. Also, science ultimately points toward a Creator. So on one hand, I am arguing that science is not the end all of truth. On the other hand, I also argue that if one wants to rely on science, ultimately it points to God.
Society tends to view science as the ultimate search for truth, and that "scientific laws" are absolutely true. I am not so sure this is correct, however. For example, we used to think that atoms are the smallest, most basic elements that make up everything. Now science is telling us that atoms are comprised of strings, and that the elements that make up everything are some sort of harmonic string theory. The point is that there are few, if any, "laws" in science which will not be disposed of as science continues to investigate things. Our society lauds scientific truth, yet that truth is rarely absolute.
Also, science cannot speak to certain things. For example, it is true that a mother loves a child, yet it could not be proved scientifically. There may be evidence of love such as hugs and kisses, yet, science cannot measure the content of a person's heart. Science, therefore, is not the only source of truth. Recently, Stephen Hawking made headlines by essentially declaring that there was no heaven. Yet, science has nothing to say about the existence of heaven. There is no way to discover heaven through the scientific process. Thus, the atheist reliance on science to say that God does not exist is misplaced.
Finally, I would take issue with the one who says that we cannot prove God through the scientific method, therefore, He must not exist. I am not saying we can prove God through the scientific method. I am arguing, however, that science points toward a Creator. For example, I believe it is more rational to believe that God created the earth (perhaps through a Big Bang) than it is to believe that we came to exist through some primordial soup.
Are you willing to admit, then that science is not the only source of truth? Are you willing to admit that science points to a design and that, therefore, there must be a Designer?
Tim, your post is based on nothing. You are obviously unqualified to debate. You beliefs are the reason why this blog exists, and they hold no value outside of your head. So, if you do not have any evidence to present, all of your posts shall be ridiculed by me, because, frankly, people like you irritate the hell out of me.
ReplyDeleteOtter, thanks for your comment and thanks for reading. Instead of insulting me, however, please provide an argument. Why do you value your beliefs over mine, i.e. why do my beliefs have no value?
ReplyDeleteWhy should "I don't know" not be an option? As reasonable, rational-minded atheists, this should be okay. As one who carries on the role of the subservient human unable to comprehend his/her god's "master plan," it should be okay there, as well. Science matures and becomes more significant and accurate over time. Sure, there was the cotton gin and the telephone, now there's touch-screen technology and gizmos that hold massive amounts of data in packages so small it's baffling. I'm willing to say "I don't know." There might be a creator. It seems implausible and there's no evidence to imply such a thing, but as far as a wishing well filled with potential answers to unanswerable questions, it's in there. The difference is, when "believers" come across one of these unanswerable questions, rather than "I don't know," an absurd leap of logic is posited: "God did it." So, by the standard of bleievers, if I don't know, absolutely, God did it. See why that sounds absurd? It's a possible solution to the problem but no more founded (probably less-so, actually) than any other claim.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, to jump to such conclusions, to exert such hubris in your understanding of the workings of the universe and the causes of things, you forego the humility that is supposedly paramount to christian followers. Do you know the mind of your god? Of course not-- to say so would be blasphemy. Then, why debate at all? Why not curl up in a dark corner and wait for your divine trinity to come and make it all make sense to the plebian humans? It is a contradictory stance because while claiming knowledge, your very belief-structure insists you remain ignorant so that things can remain "magical" as they were in the bronze age when the ideology you defend came to the fore.
And finally, if you'll minimize science, will you take an active stand against it and live a meninite lifestyle? Will you pray the sick away rather than visit a hospital? If some witch doctor had a definite cure for a loved-one's cancer that involved the brewing of twenty stem cells and fifty frozen embryos over the flames of one hundred christian bibles to keep your family member alive, would you think any longer than ten seconds before replying "Do that shit," to the doctor? No. Science enriches your life. Being active all seven days of the week enriches your life. Ties to family that veto your superstitions enrich your life. When a census card or some sort of intrusive questionnaire that asks your religion, you'll mark the box that says "Christian" (or what-have-you), but when it comes down to it, less than .00001 percent of the faithful really follow that book of theirs and the ones who do are scary-- those are the guys who blow up federal buildings in Oklahoma or take up modern day crusades in Norway. Is that your lot? No.
Wise up, sir.
Nic Hamilton
You can measure the content of the human heart. Is it the organ you are talking about or are we talking about metaphors? just kidding :)
ReplyDeleteYou cannot throw out science based on the fact that it is always changing based upon new discoveries.
"Also, science ultimately points toward a Creator. So on one hand, I am arguing that science is not the end all of truth. On the other hand, I also argue that if one wants to rely on science, ultimately it points to God."
There is no logic to this.
"There is no way to discover heaven through the scientific process."
"Are you willing to admit that science points to a design and that, therefore, there must be a Designer?"
So you throw the scientific process out the window and then want me to "admit" to revealing god.
You are saying that science points to the truth, but it can't. It does, but it doesn't. Your argument runs in circles and is making me dizzy.
"Tim Thurman said...
ReplyDeleteOtter, thanks for your comment and thanks for reading. Instead of insulting me, however, please provide an argument. Why do you value your beliefs over mine, i.e. why do my beliefs have no value?"
I do not speak for Otter. I'm not sure if I can answer for your particular beliefs Tim but I can answer for why a "belief" may hold value.
In anthropology there are two terms known as the Emic and Etic.
In a nut shell,
Emic- This is what the member of a culture "believes" in regard to action, or tradition within their culture. For example A Hindu believes the cow is a sacred creature.
Etic- This is the outsiders perspective on why a person is doing or the "real" "logical" reason to why the Cow is sacred is that the cows are a key part to the survival to the members of this culture. Without the cows they may die, they need its manure for fertilizer and it's milk for nutrition. There various other uses they get from the cows.
The cow being so key to the survival of these peoples slowly became part of their belief system over time.
Tim,
I would really urge you to read
"Good to Eat: Riddles of Food and Culture"
By Marvin Harris
formerly titled
"The Sacred Cow and the Abominable Pig"
You can find both titles online. I am sure you can find one of them in a library. The former title looked cheaper on amazon.
I think you will find it intriguing. :)
Sorry I made everyone dizzy. That was certainly not my intention. I think, however, that my points stand. I am not saying that science is not A source of truth. Only that science is not the ONLY source of truth. Also, science does ultimately point toward a Creator. Not one of you has addressed my point that it is irrational to believe that we came from a primordial soup.
ReplyDelete"I am not saying we can prove God through the scientific method. I am arguing, however, that science points toward a Creator."
ReplyDeleteDoes this mean in your view that a "creator" and a "god" are separate entities?
You claim it is irrational because you are claiming it to be a belief, and you don't like the way it sounds. "Orange is ugly because it is in vomit" is a statement with the same efficacy. Try again.
ReplyDeleteThe comment reactions that Tim is somehow "minimizing science" are completely misplaced. I studied science. In fact I studied critical thinking under the most well-known atheist/scientist of my day, Dr. Carl Sagan. I agree with Tim that there are other ways of knowing beyond science. Sure it's fine to say "I don't know". However, it is also fine to admit our limits using one picture to discern truth and be willing to look at another.
ReplyDelete