Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
Atheist Penelope
pwhodges:
--- Quote from: Spluff on 20 Dec 2008, 04:34 ---How exactly would you like a God to affect our world?
--- End quote ---
I am content that science is taking our understanding of the world in the right direction. When we find that there is something that needs to be explained for which the appropriate explanation would be God, then we can study that and come to a suitable conclusion.
Where we differ is in whether we think there is something of that nature now. There is a clear division between those who think that "mind" is something that cannot be explained physically, and those who think it can even if we don't yet know enough to derive that explanation. The first group have a space into which the idea of God can be plugged, and the second do not. Since the two groups differ by a yes/no difference in a single matter, they can never come to any compromise or agreement except in individual cases where someone changes their mind.
Spluff:
Whilst I agree, it is probably also appropriate to point out that I am (if anything) an atheist. I just think it is pertinent to consider both sides of the argument.
Jeff7:
--- Quote from: Saints on 19 Dec 2008, 23:19 ---Who says that god is necessarily interventionist?
....
--- End quote ---
Anyone who prays.
Surgoshan:
--- Quote from: Saints on 20 Dec 2008, 04:48 ---It amuses me that you neglect the mass amount of people that completely disagree with the idea of a god that performs miracles on an hourly, daily, or even regular basis. Or should I assume that you suddenly know how every person thinks?
And belittling my argument by saying "Because..." is all it boils down to. Good way to attack me I suppose, but it does little to actually address the argument. So again,why we should attach human reasoning and logic to something that is inherently separated from our perceptions of the world and reality? You never did bother to answer this.
As for science not being able to explain the existence or non-existence of an omnipotent being...well, that should be pretty well addressed by the above. Or, you know, simple thought. As for the bit about all religion seeing god as a"n incredibly large, potent, weighty phenomenon that changes the world around us". I refer you to my first point. The one about you apparently tossing aside the vast amount of people(even Christians *gasp*) who don't see a god in that light at all.
--- End quote ---
Even those faiths that don't believe in an interventionist god believe in a supernatural order. Buddhism has its reincarnation, and also its demons, spirits, and deities. Shintoism has its animist spirits. The vast majority of the world believes that there is something or some things other that influence and alter the world daily.
And I belittled your reply as "because", because that's what it is. The common reply (espoused unfortunately by far too many scientists) is that science cannot comment on god because god is somehow beyond the ken of science. When asked why, any who espouse the belief reply, "Because god is not something science can study." That is to say...
Q: Why can science not study god?
A: Because science can't study god.
The answer may be more sophisticated (saying that god is somehow outside the universe or indelibly part of the fabric of the universe), but the answer always boils down to a stubborn "Because". Because if there's a supernatural being of any sort (omnipotent Christian deity, spirit of a Japanese home, or German kobold), then that being is still interacting with the world and those interactions must necessarily be detectable. Because science is the practice of making observations, cataloging them, and drawing inferences from the catalog, the effects of a supernatural being are within the bounds of science. Therefor, however indirectly, the being itself is subject to the scrutiny of the scientist.
Medieval barber-surgeons may not have been able to observe a bone mending, yet they nevertheless knew how to properly set it so that it might heal. And they also recognized when it was too badly broken and only amputation could prevent a deadly infection, even when they didn't know what the true cause of the infection was.
The only remaining argument is that, interact though it may with the world, the supernatural is still somehow, ineffably different. Why? Because.
And as for your vast number of supposed semi-deists... look to the analogy of the gardener. What's the difference between an undetectable completely inactive being and one that doesn't exist?
Dotes:
You know, the funny thing about the "that's not my God" argument, or the argument that many people believe in a God who isn't an "incredibly large, potent, weighty phenomenon," is that it seems like, as time goes on and science progresses, "God" keeps getting smaller and smaller.
Hopefully, some day he'll get so small that people realize we don't need him anymore.
I also never understood the argument that God is undefinable and beyond the scope of science, yet so many people tell you he's real. Whether religious believers like it or not, the statement that there is a supernatural being that created the universe and may or may not be omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and interventionist is a scientific hypothesis. It just happens to be one that fails on a number of levels. Falsifiability, logic, evidence, there are just so many reasons to be skeptical, it baffles me sometimes how certain people are of their beliefs.
Edit: Surgoshan makes excellent points as well.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version