(June 18, 2009 at 6:05 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:(June 18, 2009 at 5:36 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: To you wanting to understand from the perspective of science. No none.
Or any other it seems.
That's an extreme case of blinkered thought.
(June 18, 2009 at 6:05 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:(June 18, 2009 at 5:36 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: 'Science of the gaps' seems very succinct.
Science is built on accumulated data, it's rationale is inductive not deductive, it makes no absolute claims ... on the other hand religion is NOT built on accumulated date or inductive reasoning yet it's claims ARE absolute. The strength of science is that it is honest in its limitations, religion by definition is not.
The point is that scientific explanations (allowing for human frailties) are flexible, they change with new evidence, they are non-teleological ... religious explanations are inflexible, they change only with bludgeoned evidence (in other words when a scientific explanation becomes so convincing that religions have no choice but to recognise them or end up looking like a bunch of fucking prats), they are entirely teleological.
So no, "science of the gaps" is an incredibly naïve concept.
Religion has (here, as I have pointed it out) stated that God is timeless. This interpretation isn't 'absolute' and it is at the same time consistent with current scientific understanding of the universe.
You're dreaming thinking that religion ever changed it's mind bludgeoned by facts. Show me one tenet of Christianity that has changed at all. How come the bible isn't constantly being re-written if it had ever realistically been proved to be wrong? I get the feeling that being slapped with a wet kipper you'd still insist everyone else was imagining it.
(June 18, 2009 at 6:05 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:(June 18, 2009 at 5:36 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You know very well that it would be absurd to suggest a demonstration that god exists. This shows blatantly that science is totally inadequate. I don't entertain such ludicrous notions, yet you do taking the scientific philosophy tach.
Of course I know it would be absurd but not, I suspect, for the reasons I think you would think I think it absurd ... I think it absurd because I am well aware that you have no bloody evidence and never will do, that you are FORCED to wax philosophical/metaphysical and to claim that we would expect no evidence for deity precisely because you know you CANNOT supply it.
Well I told you first that there was no evidence nor would there ever be. It's not me that's insisting on evidence. I've explained many times why it isn't relevant. Scientific philosophy apparently requires a certain amount of blind repetition
@ Evie
You know I love you mate. I can't read this regurgitated stuff, it's making my eyes bleed! You start off with those same old phrases and my mind is now turning off. I hope you'll grant me the grace to not respond for the zillionth time to those words. If you want to make a fresh point, don't start with those, cos it hurts to read them and I'll miss it. k?
