www.ditl.org

I'm calling it this, for lack of a better phrase. It has come up a lot lately, particularly in the increasingly Evangelical United States of God America. That is, that science isn't enough to explain how it all works without an actively involved God. This appears in creationism -- excuse me, "intelligent design" -- most commonly but the more general principle is more broadly felt.

This isn't about the question of "is there a God" per se; faith aside, one can objectively only say, I don't know. I myself consider myself an atheist, for the sake of disclosure. It also isn't meant to refute or deny that there may have been a creator, but rather the notion that science isn't "enough" in it's own realm. That is to say: natural processes couldn't have created and evolved life without active help, or created planets and stars without such help, and so on. The problem isn't the acceptance of (the possibility of) the Supernatural so much as the rejection of the Natural explanation. I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to deny the role of faith in the lives of so many, but to me it seems lacking in another sort of faith, and an act of small-mindedness, for one to reject the mere possibility of a non-Divine explanation for any process. I'm disappointed that so many can't appreciate the true wonders that the natural world can achieve; this cop-out in deferring everything to a supernatural power I frankly find cowardly. Further, I find that this attitude diminishes the true wonders of nature to an irrelevancy, and in so doing does nature a grave injustice.

I hope I explained this well, given that it is a delicate topic. Thoughts?

I think it is just more the fact that faith is easier, or at least, its what people know.

I think there are a few main reaons for true faith and each is very hard to over come. A think for almost everyone they are brought up with a certain set of beliefs and to overcome what you have been told from day one is very hard. Its going against your culture and your parents.

The other is its just easier to point at something an say 'God did it' than look at the deeper meaning of it,even if we dont even know the full answer yet.

And it might just bemy perseption but at the moment it almost seems in America that it is 'cool' to believe. EVERYONE is talking about god and religion, politician and celebrities.

I have said many times, and will say many times again, that I earnestly believe that science and religion are not at odds. Science aims to explain how[/i[ things work, while religion seeks to show why things are. I don't find any contradiction in saying that G-d created life on Earth (to use on example of G-d's accomplishments) while saying that evolution and natural selection are the mechanisms with which He did so. Similarly, the old Big Bang theory, and the many variants that have been hypothesized since, do not in any way deny the existence of a Prime Mover just be the fact of explaining the mechanism.

This philosophy, BTW, was passed in part to me by my childhood rabbi, who was himself a student of the famed Lubavitch Rebbe, Menachim Schneerson, the spiritual leader of one of the most orthodox, fundamental, and dogmatic sects of any religion in the world.

Teaos is partly right; science and naturalism have long ago come to be associated with secularism, humanism, and progressive liberalism. As such, science (as if it were opposed to faith) has come under fire by the right through its association with humanism and social liberalism.

Good point: many feel (incorrectly) that science and religion must be at odds. Thus, when it comes down to a favored explanation for the universe, such a person would be compelled to feel that the natural (scientific) explanation violates their faith -- which as Mikey demonstrates, simply isn't necessary.

Well, the confusion stems when one adopts fundamentalism. If we believe that G-d created the universe in 144 hours, then obviously there's a contradiction. If we don't accept fundamentalism - which Scripture itself doesn't lend itself to - then there's no dichotomy. Yes, I believe that G-d created (to use my prior example) all the life on Earth - but I don't see any reason NOT to interpret that as setting the process in motion, rather than literally forming everything from some mythical clay and dropping it pre-formed on a ready-made Earth.

The one event I feel that science can't (yet) explain is how life came from no life.

There's been many theories over the course of time, but none of them held up very well that I'm aware of.


And fundamentalism has always been at odds with science and logic (and usually scripture ), while religion in general can work with both (and often does, when rational individuals are involved).

stitch626 wrote:The one event I feel that science can't (yet) explain is how life came from no life.

*Cough*

Don't ask me to explain how it works - I'm a military historian, not a biologist.

Thats exactly what I was referring to. There are six dozen and a half theories, and every one of them ends in "but we can't be sure".

As one of my Biology professors put it "Until we create life from nothing in a lab, we cannot for sure know how it happened, or even if it is possible within the natural order of the universe."

Life appearing from nonliving matter has never quite bothered me. Matter and energy and time appearing from absolutely nothing on the other hand, that's a real brain wringer.

Lighthawk wrote:Life appearing from nonliving matter has never quite bothered me. Matter and energy and time appearing from absolutely nothing on the other hand, that's a real brain wringer.

Oh yeah... forgot about that one.

stitch626 wrote:Thats exactly what I was referring to. There are six dozen and a half theories, and every one of them ends in "but we can't be sure".

As one of my Biology professors put it "Until we create life from nothing in a lab, we cannot for sure know how it happened, or even if it is possible within the natural order of the universe."

Your professor is either an idiot or a person who speaks before taking the time to choose his words carefully. We are here, as evidenced by his presence to speak those words and the presence of a class to hear them. Ergo, the creation of life is not possible, it's a fait accompli. Add to that the fact that there was, at one point, no life... Voila! the very situation whose possibility he claims is dubious is in fact 100% possible.

Lighthawk wrote:Life appearing from nonliving matter has never quite bothered me. Matter and energy and time appearing from absolutely nothing on the other hand, that's a real brain wringer.

Not from nothing... from so little that we don't really have the capacity to conceptualize it either qualitatively or quantitatively.

Your professor is either an idiot or a person who speaks before taking the time to choose his words carefully. We are here, as evidenced by his presence to speak those words and the presence of a class to hear them. Ergo, the creation of life is not possible, it's a fait accompli. Add to that the fact that there was, at one point, no life... Voila! the very situation whose possibility he claims is dubious is in fact 100% possible.

He never said the creation of life is not possible. He said its possibility within the natural world is questionable. He chose his words quite carefully.

That's what I mean. How is the possibility of life's creation questionable when it has definitely already happened? That's as close to definite and as far from questionable as one can get.

Mikey wrote:That's what I mean. How is the possibility of life's creation questionable when it has definitely already happened? That's as close to definite and as far from questionable as one can get.

Its not the possibility of life that is questionable, it is the possibility of it by natural means.

Life is clearly possible by the very existence of such, but its coming about through the currently known natural processes is a questionable possibility.