Lets Talk About Things Science Cannot Explain

[BAYLOR]

Richard Dawkins' radical atheism makes it hard for me to hear his insights on biology and evolution.

He's an expert on biology and evolution . But I find his insights on the topic of religion to be lacking.

 

[Cathbad]

In my case, I accept evolution but I also believe in God. There is room for both.

Having studied both, I agree. It's too bad Darwin was so personally anti-Christian.

 

[JunkMonkey]

In my case, I accept evolution but I also believe in God. There is room for both.

Yep. But there's only evidence for one.

 

[Cathbad]

Yep. But there's only evidence for one.

Untrue. There is "evidence" for both. It's just that many on both sides discount the evidence of the other.

 

[Old_Man_Steve2016]

The Christian Post had an interesting article on Dawkins recently.
Dear News Media, These Richard Dawkins Stories Aren’t Stories

Well, interesting for them. But to atheists, it's nothing surprising. Why would an atheist pray? An atheist doesn't believe in god.

 

[JunkMonkey]

So where is it, Cathbad? And shoving evidence in quote marks is not acceptable. I'm talking about real evidence. Opinions and beliefs aren't evidence, nor are the opinions and beliefs of people long dead. Heresay is not evidence. Where is the quantifiable and testable and falsifiable evidence for the existence of god?

There is no evidence for the existence of any supernatural beings. (For one thing if there were they would no longer be 'supernatural').

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Science is not a belief system - it is a method of grasping the real world.
Religion is a belief system.
One assumes the independence from human imagination of the real world, the other doesn't.

 

[Brian G Turner]

So where is it, Cathbad? And shoving evidence in quote marks is not acceptable.

Er, we're not discussing belief on chrons, and definitely not challenging any other member's, thanks. Everyone here has their own personal belief system, and that's all we need to know.

 

[JunkMonkey]

Han blasts the comlink and it explodes.

HAN
Boring conversation anyway.​

 

[Tracy]

Just my two cents on Dawkins. He's annoying. I've got a feeling that ever since he came along the meaning of "atheist" has changed from "someone who doesn't believe in God" to "someone who believes God doesn't exist". While I am the furthest possible thing from a believer and, unlike Dawkins, I won't even state that I'll change my mind if evidence of God's existence surfaces (I'm simply convinced that it won't, because the entire premise of "God" as is the popular definition is a lot like the multiverse - completely untestable) I have no problem with people believing in God, I don't give a heck, really, unless they try to preach unto me. Dawkins' behaviour seems very similar to preaching to me and, judging by my own experience, this has the exact opposite effect of convincing religious people that there is no God, i.e. those who believe in God get pissed off and believe harder and those who don't nod their heads and scream "Yeah!". Either way, the only way I would attend a discussion on the issue would be if it were done online and the voices of the debatees were delivered in a mechanized robot voice that wouldn't trigger either side's amygdalas, because people just seem to care too much about this for some reason.

 

[BAYLOR]

So where is it, Cathbad? And shoving evidence in quote marks is not acceptable. I'm talking about real evidence. Opinions and beliefs aren't evidence, nor are the opinions and beliefs of people long dead. Heresay is not evidence. Where is the quantifiable and testable and falsifiable evidence for the existence of god?

There is no evidence for the existence of any supernatural beings. (For one thing if there were they would no longer be 'supernatural').

Unfortunately , our science and understanding the of universe around us is rather limited. There is so much we don't know and we may not live long enough as species to know.

I remember a certain fantasy story , I cannot remember the title , but suspect it was by Lord Dunsany. In this story a man in searches of gods more powerful then his.His goal is to find the most powerful of all Gods . He travels to different places and each local ,he keeps finding even more powerful deities and just when you think he going to find the most powerful of all, He ends up back to where he began with the first set of Gods that he started out with.

 

[BAYLOR]

Han blasts the comlink and it explodes.

HAN
Boring conversation anyway.​

But it fails to answer two important questions.

1. How can you have a reactor leak in the Detention center ?

2. Was Luke Skywalker really the brains here ?


And while we're on the subject , What is a Nerf herder and are they all in fact scruffy looking ? And did Lea really have a preference of being kissed by a Wookie rather then Han Solo?

 

[Cathbad]

But it fails to answer two important questions.

1. It was maintained by unpaid inmates, duh.

2. It was his sister, giver of his first kiss.

The other questions you raise are absurd.

 

[BAYLOR]

Thing that science has a hard time explaining ? Human greed and stupidity.

 

[Cathbad]

Thing that science has a hard time explaining ? Human greed and stupidity.

AMEN!!

 

[Mirannan]

Thing that science has a hard time explaining ? Human greed and stupidity.

I disagree, actually - at least in the case of greed. Wanting to gather resources is an obvious evolutionary adaptation to hard times - which were all tthe time, for 99.9% of human history and we haven't had time to adapt.

Also, what looks like stupidity isn't, much of the time. Take the recent financial problems, caused by greedy and irresponsible bankers and the like. Simple: If there is a huge reward for success and no significant penalty for failure, then it's perfectly rational to take grossly irresponsible risks. And that is precisely the situation that the City traders were (and still are!) in. Similar remarks apply to creating pollution you won't be personally affected by.

The stupid ones are the rest of us, for letting them get away with it. Personally, I think the top two or three levels of the management of every City bank ought to have been hanged in 2008-9.

 

[Cathbad]

Oh, I agree... we are al personally responsible for letting this bull go on.

 

[Andrew Lambert]

If it exists in my head, then it must be true.

 

[Parson]

Why? Because if he's right about evolution he may just be right about god/s too?

Was this aimed at me? I'm an evolutionary deist. This means that God worked through evolution to bring the earth to exactly this point at this time. So Dawkins being right about the evolutionary process has no bearing on my theology.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Thing that science has a hard time explaining ? Human greed and stupidity.

We've only had 120 years of grasping the basics of the human condition, since Freud's game-changing work on the unconscious. Before then, no human being had any idea that 99% of their self was beneath their conscious perception.

A scientific description of the human condition is absolutely essential before any major changes in how humanity culturally evolves, and we're only 30 year since we started to understand consciousness. There's still a very very long away to go… But we are on the right road, I think. At last.