The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: MrsSmith on May 16, 2008, 05:39:09 PM
-
Scientists, Theologians Debate Whether God Exists
WASHINGTON — Scientists hate God. Or find God very disturbing. In fact, modern science has found no evidence of God, and so it's stupid to think God exists.
The above statements are often presented as conventional wisdom, but are they true?
A new collection of short essays, discussed here Thursday at an event at the American Enterprise Institute, responds to that question with a more diverse set of voices than is usually offered.
>>>
Yet many scientists — 40 percent according to a 1997 poll cited by Shermer — believe in God. This isn't big news to scientists, but might surprise people who rely on mainstream views of science.
>>>
In the booklet, philosopher Mary Midgley, who was not at the AEI event, states that science is just one worldview that has come to prevail. Science and religion need not be at odds.
"What is now seen as a universal cold war between science and religion is, I think, really a more local clash between a particular scientistic worldview, much favored recently in the West, and most other people's worldviews at most other times," she writes.
"Scientism ... by contrast, cuts [the setting of human life in] context off altogether and looks for the meaning of life in Science itself. It is this claim to a monopoly of meaning ... that makes science and religion look like competitors today."
>>>
Miller, the lead witness for the plaintiffs in the Dover trial of 2005 (in which Judge John E. Jones III barred intelligent design from being taught in a Pennsylvania public school district's science classes), takes the classic Darwinian "grandeur in this view of life" approach. God is behind it all.
He rejects claims that the God hypothesis makes no sense, stating that "... to reject God because of the admitted self-contradictions and logical failings of organized religion would be like rejecting physics because of the inherent contradictions of quantum theory and general relativity."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356376,00.html
www.templeton.org
-
That some scientists choose to believe in God does not suprise me in the least.
-
Every mathematician should be a Holy Roller.
-
To my mind, it is never a question of whether God exists. That is a given.
I sometimes have serious doubts that we exist as the very nature of reality is often indistinguishable from a dream. And when I am dreaming, I am often only aware of that after the fact. In other words, the dream seems totally real. Until I wake up.
There are no atheists in reality, therefore this must not be reality.
-
To my mind, it is never a question of whether God exists. That is a given.
I sometimes have serious doubts that we exist as the very nature of reality is often indistinguishable from a dream. And when I am dreaming, I am often only aware of that after the fact. In other words, the dream seems totally real. Until I wake up.
There are no atheists in reality, therefore this must not be reality.
All I can say is, if I wake up, you will so disappear...
-
To my mind, it is never a question of whether God exists. That is a given.
I sometimes have serious doubts that we exist as the very nature of reality is often indistinguishable from a dream. And when I am dreaming, I am often only aware of that after the fact. In other words, the dream seems totally real. Until I wake up.
There are no atheists in reality, therefore this must not be reality.
All I can say is, if I wake up, you will so disappear...
I think that is part of the Hindu belief system isn't? They have a great sleeping god who dreams the world and when he wakes up we all disappear, I think Lewis Carol references it with the sleeping Red King in Through the Looking Glass.
The short answer is yes. And so would you. If the dream theory is true.
-
That some scientists choose to believe in God does not suprise me in the least.
:???:
-
:???:
:???:
-
:???:
:???:
Thank you for demonstrating why I hate smilies.
-
:???:
:???:
you're okay on this one. sorry for intruding.
please carry on.
-
:???:
:???:
Thank you for demonstrating why I hate smilies.
smilies are actually "emoticons", and I consider them of great value.
-
:???:
:???:
Thank you for demonstrating why I hate smilies.
smilies are actually "emoticons", and I consider them of great value.
I find them ghey and of little use. The old fashioned character based emoticons are good enough for anyone.
-
:???:
:???:
Thank you for demonstrating why I hate smilies.
smilies are actually "emoticons", and I consider them of great value.
I find them ghey and of little use. The old fashioned character based emoticons are good enough for anyone.
back in the day that _this_ meant this?
-
:???:
:???:
Thank you for demonstrating why I hate smilies.
smilies are actually "emoticons", and I consider them of great value.
I find them ghey and of little use. The old fashioned character based emoticons are good enough for anyone.
back in the day that _this_ meant this?
No, THIS meant this. But *this* would work as well. I don't mind fonts, but smilies are like icons -- subject to significant misinterpretation. As a simple example, the "whatever" smiley looks like a wink or a whistle. Unless you knew better, you would have no idea it means "whatever."
Also, I stand behind my appalachian -- smilies are not emoticons. Smilies are graphics based on stupid smiley faces. Emoticons are what I use.
(/thread hijack)
-
threadjack complete.
were you are around for the usenet days?
-
threadjack complete.
were you are around for the usenet days?
Yep -- used to use UUDECODE to put pictures together. Um, you know, lovely landscapes and landmarks like Stonehenge and the Taj Mahal... ;)
-
threadjack complete.
were you are around for the usenet days?
Yep -- used to use UUDECODE to put pictures together. Um, you know, lovely landscapes and landmarks like Stonehenge and the Taj Mahal... ;)
hang on,I got a funny one for ya!
-
the dodgers have started.
I need to concentrate. :-)
-
the dodgers have started.
I need to concentrate. :-)
What did they start? :fuelfire:
-
the dodgers have started.
I need to concentrate. :-)
What did they start? :fuelfire:
loosing.
-
the dodgers have started.
I need to concentrate. :-)
What did they start? :fuelfire:
loosing.
3-0 in the sixth, in favor of the identity crisis of anahole.
-
threadjack complete.
I read a while back that scientists shouldn't use God as the reason for anything because it He can't be proven. Well , then scientists and scientific evidence shouldn't be used to prove the existence of God because religion is faith based. No need for science there.
Thread terrorists dispatched, thread back on track! :-)