MP:
MP: Absolutely. I'm just saying that the (nb: scientific/intellectual)
inquiry,
challenge and debate you propose can only go so far up the theistic
construct
chain because it is a specific (nb: scientific/intellectual) language
that becomes
more and more irrelevant the closer you get to the pure concept of
theism itself.
At some point prior to theism itself, science becomes irrelevant
*unless* it can
prove god(s) something about the existence of god(s).
For instance; scientific inquiry is relevant where theistic
manifestation lay claim
to a scientific field. Literal creationsim for instance. Or the
earth/sun orbit issue.
Totally open to scientific inquiry and challenge because it is a
clearly
scientifically relevant topic. When discussing why the big bang
occurred, the
field is less slanted to science, and it becomes equally valid for
theistic fields to
put science under similar scrutiny instead. When it comes to whether
or not a
god or gods can exist, science is powerless. Its not a scientific
field.
Steve:
How is the existence of god irrelevant to science? If you just say God
exists and refuse to define what you mean by God then the conversation
is over, but as soon as you start saying what you mean by God, we enter
the realm of scientific hypothesis.
If you claim that God is the creator of the universe, this is either
true or false scientifically, since a universe designed by a creator
would be different than one without a creator. If you deny that the
universe would be any different, then God would be irrelevant.
Either prayer works or it doesn't. Either Jesus had a father or he did
not. Either miracles happen or they do not. If Jesus returns some day
and demonstrates his magic powers, then Christianity will be revealed
as a scientific fact. It will be part of our scientific understanding
of the universe.
To explore the question of whether there are two separate spheres of
power as you suggest, Dawkins asked us to "imagine that forensic
archeologists, by some unlikely set of circumstances, discovered DNA
evidence demonstrating that Jesus was born of a virgin mother and had
no father. If NOMA enthusiasts were sincere, they should dismiss the
archeologists' DNA out of hand: "Irrelevant. Scientific evidence has no
bearing on theological questions. Wrong magisterium." Does anyone
seriously imagine that they would say anything remotely like that? You
can bet your boots that not just the fundamentalists but every
professor of theology and every bishop in the land would trumpet the
archeological evidence to the skies."
In the broadest sense of the word, science is simply our attempt to be
intellectually honest--to distinguish what we have good reason to
believe from what we wish were true. If science represents our best
attempts to understand human experience, then what is left for religion
to be about?
Best,
Steve
atheistichope.com
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
