From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 9/01/2026 7:14 pm, Martin Harran wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >   
      
   Much to agree with in that quote. Will look out for the book.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)