Re: thoughts on Jesus

alwaysaskingquestions <alwaysaskingquestions@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:miio24h9oq135ivnpdj77phrmv75dm810t@xxxxxxxxxx
Scríobh "alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquestions@xxxxxxxxx>:

That's what intelligent design does - it says that something looks
designed,
ergo there has to be a designer. I'm not doing that. I'm simply saying
that
I have religious beliefs which are neither supported by or contradicted by
science.*

Hiding in the gap then.

You reckon that the a belief is invalidated simply because it fits a
particular gap in science?

That's a good question. A belief that fits into a gap might be

1. In the gap because otherwise it would be shown to be false (if
empirical evidence showed it false),

2. In the gap because it deal with potentially *scientific* phenomena
that are, as yet, unaddressable with current theory or method, or

3. In the gap because that gap would *never* be addressable by science

Now if I were a holder of such a belief, I would ask why it fit into
that gap. If 1, then I would say that was special pleading on behalf of
my faith system. Putting things into gaps to avoid testing o fthe belief
system is bad faith,literally and metaphorically.

If 2, then it is a *good* belief to have, because it is exposed to
potential disproof and is therefore a risky bet. The riskier the bet,
the better the conceptual payoff if it survives challenges (just like a
scientific theory). Of course, the downside is that one day you may find
that genetics shows that Amerinds are *not* closely related to Ancient
Jews, or whatever special belief you have.

If 3, then one wonders at the necessity for the gap itself. Why, for
example, think there is a "soul" if "soul" is never investigable? There
is a historical story for why "soul" arose in the first place, tracing
it back to Plato and the use of his ideas by the Church Fathers, but
that doesn't tell us why we should *continue* in that belief.

Many of the problematic beliefs in religions are of kind 3. They are
held simply because the belief arose at some point, in good faith, when
science was less developed, or when philosophy was of such and so a
type, and while the science or philosophy has moved on, the beliefs
haven't.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What do you know that the rest of the world doesnt?
    ... an inference so strong as to be reasonably considered fact. ... There is no such similar independent body of evidence for common ... Puny protests over silly "real time" gap arguments do nothing to ... your attribution to common design would be worthless (where is your ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: What do you know that the rest of the world doesnt?
    ... particular mechanism - demonstrates that evolution by common descent is ... Puny protests over silly "real time" gap arguments do nothing to ... My reply to you dealt very specifically with whether "common design" ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: thoughts on Jesus
    ... That's what intelligent design does - it says that something looks ... Hiding in the gap then. ... particular gap in science? ... abandoned or modified to fit with the natural explanation. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: thoughts on Jesus
    ... That's what intelligent design does - it says that something looks ... I'm simply saying ... Hiding in the gap then. ... particular gap in science? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: thoughts on Jesus
    ... That's what intelligent design does - it says that something looks ... Hiding in the gap then. ... particular gap in science? ... People talk about the "soul" as an expression for things ...
    (talk.origins)