Blasphemous?
Out of context: Reply #251
- Started
- Last post
- 282 Responses
- flagellum0
detritus: Your position has the veneer of intellectual honesty, but upon closer investigation, is hollow and smacks of the very accusation you make against "religionists". Namely, a "God-of-the-Gaps" argument. In this case, it's the "Naturalism-of-the-Gaps" error. It's more lazy than honest. Science teaches us to make positive inferences based on the data we CURRENTLY have. So, when I consider what science DOES know:
- all matter and energy had a beginning
- information was present at the beginning
- all of life is run off of an algorithmic code (DNA)
- etc.. .etc......and then following that evidence and concluding a design inference, then I am in no way throwing up my hands and settling. I'm being logical. I'm being rational. And at the same time, I can acknowledge that there is plenty that pea-brained humans do not know and will never know. And I can acknowledge that there is breathtaking wonder and mystery in the universe, at the same time.
If you endeavor to "make sense of life", then what is wrong with acknowledging the validity of those who claim they have found purpose? Those who have made sense of it? If it is worth pursuing...
As for irreducible complexity and the like, the issue is not about what we DO NOT know, but what we DO know. We know that engineers design machinery. We know, from emprical data, that blind unintelligent forces, do not. So again, a logical inference is made, based on current data. On what paradigm do we say that "we will find some naturalistic mechanism?" You are limiting science. I'm not interested in doing that. Additionally, if irreducible complexity is asinine to you, you don't understand what it is. When you remove any part from a multi-component machine and it breaks as the result, then it is irreducible. Nothing vexing there.
Again, I do not require absolute understanding now. I simply believe in following the evidence where it currently leads. Neither do I demand compliance from those who oppose me; I just enjoy spirited debate about such topics. So it seems that "my beliefs" are not understood very well by you at all. And you have, in part at least, attacked a strawman.
You can claim that my reasoning is circular and self-completing, but you and the others here have utterly failed at providing specific examples of HOW this is true.
My interest is not so much in getting others to respect and respond positively to my worldview as it is to challenge the faulty logic and misnomers so flippantly tossed about by you and others here. That is my interest.
Science and reason (not synonemous) are the product of people who held to a strong theistic worldview. Keep that in mind.
Finally, a religionist I am not. I have no time for codes of conduct which sinful humans can't keep. I'm in need of the grace and mercy that comes from a person, not an institution or organization.