handofdave
|
Re: God V Science (again)
Sep 16, 2008, 01:13
|
Well, Darwin DID believe in a god, this much is historical fact.
What drives me mad about the schism between 'faith' and 'science' is that there really isn't any reason for one, other than there are partisans on both sides that MUST HAVE A SINGLE ANSWER. Either, or. Nothing in between.
Who the fuck knows? Maybe some passing entity DID start the ball rolling on our earth. But the preponderance of evidence supports the notion that this wasn't the final word.
Dawkins, and the fundamentalists, are both on opposite sides of the extremist coin. Neither are much interested in the fact that they cannot prove their positions... they just expect their natural allies to rally to their statements and serve in the army of their ideological war on 'the other'.
And that is where the ideologues ARE, in any battle... they aren't interested in THE TRUTH, even if that's not totally achievable. They are defined by their 'enemies', and that's where their identities are born and where they find their calling.
|
shanshee_allures
|
Edited Sep 16, 2008, 09:59
Re: God V Science (again)
Sep 16, 2008, 09:58
|
I read Darwin gave up God after his daughter died (and he had trained to be a clergyman), so no, 'faith' didn't influence his work.
The quotes give a little insight into his relationship with religion.
He wasn't a tubthumper/zealot as is the trend, he simply 'could not be sure'.
The difference is science always has the big 'Why' hanging over its head (a healthy thing I'd say) whereas religion will tell you 'just because'.
x
|
handofdave
|
Re: God V Science (again)
Sep 16, 2008, 11:33
|
|
Some people are profoundly uneasy with 'why'.
|
shanshee_allures
|
Re: God V Science (again)
Sep 16, 2008, 11:47
|
Yeah, suppose I am too.
Quite scary to think there may be some ulterior motive!
:-)
x
|
nigelswift
|
Re: God V Science (again)
Sep 16, 2008, 12:17
|
[quote="handofdave"]What drives me mad about the schism between 'faith' and 'science' is that there really isn't any reason for one, other than there are partisans on both sides that MUST HAVE A SINGLE ANSWER. Either, or. Nothing in between.
Well there IS a single answer for many Christians. It's only the fundamentalists that don't get it.
People in the Free Christian Church in Shrewsbury worship under a wall plaque proudly proclaiming Darwin used to attend there.
It ain't rocket science to unite evolution and science - you just accept there's a Creator of Evolution (if you want) rather than a Creator of Species - and millions have. "He/She" can also take credit for the Big Bang (if you want).
|
handofdave
|
Re: God V Science (again)
Sep 16, 2008, 12:24
|
|
shanshee_allures wrote: Yeah, suppose I am too.
Quite scary to think there may be some ulterior motive!
:-)
x
I think it's the possibility of a LACK of a motive to the universe that freaks out the fundamentalists.
I realized some time ago that the meaning of life is quite simple. It's merely 'To Live'... every organism possesses it. It's not even within the realm of philosophy, really...
All life experiences suffering, but it's us übermonkeys who have done that one better- we create our own!
I think when most people talk about 'the meaning of life' what they're really talking about is the meaning of happiness, or fulfillment of their life towards... what? Self gratification? Service to a higher good? That's where all the arguments arise. Some people cannot conceive of anything other than the position they've adopted as being valid. Hence Dawkin's hostility to all faith, which is throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and the fundamentalists hostility to all that does not hew to 'faith', which also casts scorn in a prejudiced way.
I think for all of the two opposing camps mutual dislike, they have a lot in common... an arrogant assumption that nobody else but them possesses the 'truth'.
|
handofdave
|
Re: God V Science (again)
Sep 16, 2008, 12:34
|
Yes, exactly. I don't have a beef against all religion, as the fact is that the vast majority of people raised with religion are not zealots out to drag us all back to some neo-dark ages, like the bloody Taliban, or in a slightly less drastic way the Xtian fundies.
I concede that there is a possibility that we are the product of some other creature's doing. The universe is chock full of recursive, scalar patterns... physics creates the same pattern in the pinwheel of a galaxy, a hurricane, and the water going down a drain, for example.
The fact that we humans exist, and have developed the capability to mold our environment, build things, even tinker with our own DNA actually is a point the 'creationists' can employ in their argument... if we are so talented, who's to say there isn't some older race of being out there who had a hand in our world?
That said, creationism does not belong in the science classroom, of this I am absolutely sure.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: God V Science (again)
Sep 16, 2008, 14:25
|
"That said, creationism does not belong in the science classroom, of this I am absolutely sure."
Yes yes yes yes.
Back in the good old days, long ago, when I were a lad and teachers taught stuff, my Biology teacher spent weeks on evolution and in the last ten seconds she said "Of course, some people believe Genesis instead".
T'was adequate....
|
Vybik Jon
|
Re: God V Science (again)
Sep 16, 2008, 14:41
|
|
Given that Gabriel, Rutherford, Banks, Hackett and Collins have never been the answer to anything, I think it was completely unnecessary.
|
handofdave
|
Re: God V Science (again)
Sep 16, 2008, 18:13
|
|
Nyuck.
|
