From: martinharran@gmail.com
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 21:55:51 +1100, MarkE wrote:
>On 7/01/2026 6:08 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 11:28:23 +1100, MarkE wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/01/2026 3:28 am, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 23:06:02 +1100, MarkE wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> If, say, 1000 years from now, after consistent and concerted scientific
>>>>> research over that time, there is a large majority scientific consensus
>>>>> that all postulated naturalistic explanations for each of the following
>>>>> had been excluded or shown be excessively improbable:
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. origin of the universe
>>>>> 3. fine tuning
>>>>> 4. origin of life
>>>>> 5. macroevolution
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems to me the options are:
>>>>>
>>>>> a. Keep looking for naturalistic explanations
>>>>> b. Give up looking for naturalistic explanations
>>>>
>>>> Borrowing from an old thread, back in the fifth century BCE,
>>>> Democritus proposed that matter consists of indestructible,
>>>> indivisible units called atoms. It took nearly two and a half
>>>> millennia before Dalton showed that it was a valid proposition. Why do
>>>> you think that 1000 years of what you see as failure is enough to
>>>> abandon the search?
>>>
>>> My thought experiment is intended to demonstrate your point:
>>>
>>> "There are issues on both sides of the fence there. Just as there are
>>> Creationists and ID'ers who reject science where it seems to conflict
>>> with their religious beliefs, there are scientists who dismiss ideas
>>> just because they think those ideas might let religion in the door;
>>> the authors of this book make a very strong case that the virulent
>>> opposition to the Big Bang was largely driven by ideological
>>> opposition to religious belief which is not a good way to do science."
>>
>> How does suggesting we give up looking for naturalistic explanations
>> address that problem?
>
>Not sure if you overlooked response options c and d below?
>
>In listing options a-d I'm not endorsing any in particular, just laying
>out the range of response possible.
>
>Is that clear?
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> c. Consider supernatural explanations
>>>>> d. Some combination of the above
>>>>
>>>> There are plenty of people doing that. Only a few of them are
>>>> scientists because science is not a particularly useful way of trying
>>>> to figure God out.
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>
Having finished "God, the Science, the Evidence", I've gone back to
re-reading "Theology and Sanity" by Frank Sheed [1]. I've always liked
what he had to say about Mystery:
"Thus a Mystery is not to be thought of as simply darkness: it is a
tiny circle of light surrounded by darkness. It is for us so to use
our own powers and God's grace that the light will grow. It means
using the mind upon what reality may be made to tell us about God, and
upon what God, through His Church, has told us about Himself; it means
praying for more knowledge, and using the knowledge one gains to
enrich one's prayer. Thus the circle of light grows; but it is always
ringed round with darkness: for however our capacity may increase, it
remains finite, and God remains Infinite. Indeed the more the light
grows, the more we see what His Infinity means, what His Immensity
is."
I think that whilst the surrounding darkness will always remain due to
the constraints we have as humans, science and philosophy and theology
all have a role to play in growing that circle of light. Discarding
any of them sells us short.
==============
[1] Sheed, F. J. Theology and Sanity. London: Sheed & Ward, 1947.
Possibly not to your taste as Sheed was raised as a Protestant but
became an unashamed Catholic apologist though most of what he covers
in this book applies to all mainstream Christian denominations.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
