First off: Warning for some of the creationists here present (those who only read the first 10%). Long post, so you might just want to skip this one.
Drotar, I hope you understand my position better after this post, feel free to reply to the post or PM me if you have any questions afterwards. I want to make this post long because I want everyone to be clear about my position and want to avoid any possible misinterpretations.
I will respond to this post, since Forty-two's post is a respond to mine. I do not know the exact meaning of the post of Forty-two, but my post was not ment too seriously, so let me explain. I was reponding to Billwald's post in my own silly attempt at humor.
Billwald seemed, IMO, in the wrong understanding of the opening post. In the opening post the observation was made that creationism seemed to go in the opposite direction of evolutionism. In other words, people who converted from creationism to evolutionism seem to do so because the physical/ scientific data is just to much in contradiction with a literal Genesis. On the other hand, evolutionists who convert to creationism seem to do so because they first think that Genesis must be right, hence their previous interpretation of nature must be wrong. Billwald responded with this post:
I do not think metaphysics is something for the uneducated. I do not think religion is stupid (else I'd be an atheist). I think Billwald's respons was correct, science does not discover metaphysics. However, I do also think the opening post is on the mark. Creationism seems to me not to be derived from an accurate observation of nature, but to be the result of unhealthy biblical literalism, which forces people to ignore important observations or deliberately turn them around in a way which is complete bogus. I hope my postition is clear now.
For the rest of your post:
.
Also, scientists do not have to know everything. Far from it, science is highly specialized. It is impossible to know everything, and most scientists will happily say they do not. The reason they use naturalistic explanations is because those are the only workable explanations. You cannot do much with "God did it". This hampers science because you stop asking questions, and this is what science is all about. Also, the "God did it"-explanation has been shown false to many times and is bad theology.
Many scientists are theistic. The fact that they do not boast about that, is because this has nothing to do with what they are doing. Imagine my Jewish supervisor writing an article about the health effects of air pollution. Where does his theism come into it? Why would he mention it? It is totally irrelevant for the topic, and that is why it is not mentioned.
Last but not least, if scientists do not have an explanation for something, they will say so in their article. Something in the trend of "why this is has yet to be explained" or "further research is necessary". Look up some random articles in scientific magazines. Chances are high that you'll encounter these sentences.
Drotar, I hope you understand my position better after this post, feel free to reply to the post or PM me if you have any questions afterwards. I want to make this post long because I want everyone to be clear about my position and want to avoid any possible misinterpretations.
I will respond to this post, since Forty-two's post is a respond to mine. I do not know the exact meaning of the post of Forty-two, but my post was not ment too seriously, so let me explain. I was reponding to Billwald's post in my own silly attempt at humor.
Billwald seemed, IMO, in the wrong understanding of the opening post. In the opening post the observation was made that creationism seemed to go in the opposite direction of evolutionism. In other words, people who converted from creationism to evolutionism seem to do so because the physical/ scientific data is just to much in contradiction with a literal Genesis. On the other hand, evolutionists who convert to creationism seem to do so because they first think that Genesis must be right, hence their previous interpretation of nature must be wrong. Billwald responded with this post:
This, to me, seemed completely silly, since there is a difference between metaphysics and 'contradicting physics'. Hence my own personal attempt at humor:Billwald said:
This seemed a good extrapolation of Billwald's post, and I hoped to get a respons from Billwald, further elaborating on his position.silly me said:
I do not think metaphysics is something for the uneducated. I do not think religion is stupid (else I'd be an atheist). I think Billwald's respons was correct, science does not discover metaphysics. However, I do also think the opening post is on the mark. Creationism seems to me not to be derived from an accurate observation of nature, but to be the result of unhealthy biblical literalism, which forces people to ignore important observations or deliberately turn them around in a way which is complete bogus. I hope my postition is clear now.
For the rest of your post:
And I agreeDrotar said:
. I disagree with you. Of course, honour is part of the reason to publicize. However, most scientists I've met untill now (me included) are mainly scientists because of curiousity. They like to find out things. Being regarded brilliant by peers is just a nice extra if they happen to stumble upon something extraordinary.
Also, scientists do not have to know everything. Far from it, science is highly specialized. It is impossible to know everything, and most scientists will happily say they do not. The reason they use naturalistic explanations is because those are the only workable explanations. You cannot do much with "God did it". This hampers science because you stop asking questions, and this is what science is all about. Also, the "God did it"-explanation has been shown false to many times and is bad theology.
Many scientists are theistic. The fact that they do not boast about that, is because this has nothing to do with what they are doing. Imagine my Jewish supervisor writing an article about the health effects of air pollution. Where does his theism come into it? Why would he mention it? It is totally irrelevant for the topic, and that is why it is not mentioned.
Last but not least, if scientists do not have an explanation for something, they will say so in their article. Something in the trend of "why this is has yet to be explained" or "further research is necessary". Look up some random articles in scientific magazines. Chances are high that you'll encounter these sentences.
I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here. However, some of these we may never fully understand, for example consciousness. However, it seems to me like you are searching for some kind of purpose. This is not the realm of science.
Being an agnostic, but thinking I can also answer for some of the atheists. Maybe our live is utterly meaningless. I happen to disagree, but think meaning is created by the people around me and myself. I recognize the limits of my understanding. For example, I know how a baby through my courses in embryology. However, I will always be mystified by this process. We are not non-religious because we do not accept our own limitations. We are non-religious because we accept that our limitations do not mean that "God did it". No pride, but acceptance.
I hope this post has given you some more insight in my reasoning and why I think some of your arguments are invalid. If not, do not hesitate to ask for clarification.
Upvote
0
