Leo Rcc, you say: 'Science has no problem with being proven wrong. It is not dogmatic as most/all religions are.' I would agree with this. I have no problem with things being proven wrong e.g the earth isn't flat, the earth wasn't made in 6 literal days etc.
Allan 175, you said: ' ''Belief" in Intelligent Design cannot be explained by anyone, it is purely a way to shoehorn a "god" into things.' Not everyone who 'believes' in 'god' is shoehorning him into the equation. They may be tempted to put god there like Einstein who said: 'My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. ' The 'slight details' for me are the subject of another topic no doubt as is irreducible complexity.
I am trying to draw a comparison to those scientists who propose the 'string theory' for example, even though they can't prove it at this time. I am asking if they are in some way exercising 'faith' that what they suspect, will turn out to be the case or not. The outcome doesn't really matter as far as this discussion is concerned. It's their uncertainty, or lack of proof, which to me seems to be akin to 'faith'. Maybe I have got the wrong end of the stick. I just think 'faith' isn't always a bad thing and maybe is an essential ingredient for achieving knowledge or understanding.
Allan 175, you said: ' ''Belief" in Intelligent Design cannot be explained by anyone, it is purely a way to shoehorn a "god" into things.' Not everyone who 'believes' in 'god' is shoehorning him into the equation. They may be tempted to put god there like Einstein who said: 'My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. ' The 'slight details' for me are the subject of another topic no doubt as is irreducible complexity.
I am trying to draw a comparison to those scientists who propose the 'string theory' for example, even though they can't prove it at this time. I am asking if they are in some way exercising 'faith' that what they suspect, will turn out to be the case or not. The outcome doesn't really matter as far as this discussion is concerned. It's their uncertainty, or lack of proof, which to me seems to be akin to 'faith'. Maybe I have got the wrong end of the stick. I just think 'faith' isn't always a bad thing and maybe is an essential ingredient for achieving knowledge or understanding.
"The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility"
Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein
