One question to atheists II (does that mean it's two questions now??)

[homer]

Originally posted by Yorick: Secondly evolution theory is not a grand unified theory. It has no answers to the meaning of life, the existence of the soul, morality, no solutions to internal phychological issues, no self betterment principles. A CHristian CAN be an evoltuionist. The answers of evolution are the HOW, not the WHO or WHY. It in NO WAY conflicts with religious thought. If eventually proven true beyond doubt, it would merely provoke a readjustment to certain theological thinking, not the dismantling of it. Can you not see this?[/QB]

Are you indicating that if evolution were proved, that would still not disprove the existence of a god?

If this is what you are saying, then what part in human creation did god have a hand in? If it is proven that we developed through a natural evolutionary process, then there was no greater power involved. Right?

I guess I am confused by what you are saying here. [img]graemlins/confused2.gif[/img]

[LordKathen]

This debate has been going on for centuries, Yorick. I have not told you how to do things, or believe. All I am saying is that the farther you get away from Imperical scientific method the closer you are to phylosophy. You dont need to get frustrated with me Yorick. I have kept my cool here, and still have respect for your veiws, I just dont agree. We are once again at a standoff, and I need to go to bed, so I can work tonight. I will be back on either this afternoon or tomarrow morning. Goodnight, and lets cool off for now.

[esquire]

OK , lets agree to disagree, just to keep it civil [img]smile.gif[/img]

This is just my opinion, but I think that science and faith can cooexist, however by their very definition must they remain separate in practice. I guess there is an assumption---a leap of faith as it were that it is possible to understand our reality, environment, universe, ect without using theological explanations.

[ 01-28-2003, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: esquire ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by homer: Are you indicating that if evolution were proved, that would still not disprove the existence of a god? If this is what you are saying, then what part in human creation did god have a hand in? If it is proven that we developed through a natural evolutionary process, then there was no greater power involved. Right?

OF COURSE NOT!!!!

I have only said this three billion times or so.

Evolution is concerned with the HOW, not the WHO or WHY.

Under evolution theory a creator is still necessary to
a) Initiate life. Animation. To suggest that a single speck of dust suddenly became alive by chance without a Creator directing it is to believe in theoreticaly extreme odds.
Akin to someone winning the lottery 20 times in a row. THeoretically possible, but which if it occured would be presumed to have someone behind it

Darwin himself surmised that God breathed life into that first single celled being. An athesitic evolutionist is following the theory without the theorists cause for existence.

b) Perpetuate existence. Maintaining the energy that holds atoms together and stopping the universe from flying apart.

c) Guiding evolution. Design is evident in the human hand. In the human voice. Evolution may provide a "history" of such development. Like seeing a songwriters scetchbook, a painters trial and error, a mathemeticians working out. Evolution, if true, shows the process.

As I stated Evolution is not a "Grand Unified Theory." It holds no answers to the meanings of life. One needs to look elsewhere for that.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by esquire: quote: Exactly!!! I live by hard science, literal testable IMPERICAL science. Not "soft" science, witch relies on phylosophy, faith, whatever. Can you not see this Yorick? This is what I have been saying all along. IMPERICAL science has no room for faith or phylosophy. Wait a second! [img]smile.gif[/img] It would be a mistake to classify Social sciences such as sociology and anthropology as 'soft'. The reason why they differ from say chemistry or biology is because they are concerned with the study of groups of people, society, and development of culture --- but this is done using the scientific method.

Note on the soft sciences. They do not use much of the scientific method. Supply/Demand for instance has never been empiracally proven, and when it seems there are holes in the model we hypothesize to fill in the gaps: e.g. a "Dutch Tulip Bubble" or a "Housing Market Bubble." Both of these are reasonable means of explaining deviation from the expected model, of course, but they are not empiracally testable.

Note: a chemical reaction will run the same way each time. Now, if your science background is weak, you may remember lab experiments where different results were reached and think this statement untrue, but I assure you all of those different results were the product of external influence, such as human error. A sociology focus group study, on the other hand, will NOT necessarily come out the same way each time. It's not empiracally proveable.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by LordKathen: This debate has been going on for centuries, Yorick. I have not told you how to do things, or believe. All I am saying is that the farther you get away from Imperical scientific method the closer you are to phylosophy. You dont need to get frustrated with me Yorick. I have kept my cool here, and still have respect for your veiws, I just dont agree. We are once again at a standoff, and I need to go to bed, so I can work tonight. I will be back on either this afternoon or tomarrow morning. Goodnight, and lets cool off for now.

Darwin was born in 1809 Kathen. That's less than 200 years. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

My frustration with you is that I'll state something with an argument behind it, and you'll state the same sentance as before my argument, with no argument other than a "this is how it is, period". Well, at least you did with that last post.

Whatever... Have a good afternoon. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: A sociology focus group study, on the other hand, will NOT necessarily come out the same way each time. It's not empiracally proveable.

Unless it does come out the same way each time.

[esquire]

Ah! But you have answered your own question. Religion is based on the assumption that there is a point to existence, a ‘meaning of life’ – theology also makes this assumption.

Science (with all it’s subcategories) DOES NOT make this assumption.
This is the difference.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: A sociology focus group study, on the other hand, will NOT necessarily come out the same way each time. It's not empiracally proveable.

Unless it does come out the same way each time.[/QUOTE]AAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH - UUUUUUUUNNNNNNN........ *pop* [img]graemlins/microwave.gif[/img]

Sorry my head exploded. I'll come back later when I've picked my brains off the floor.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by esquire: Ah! But you have answered your own question. Religion is based on the assumption that there is a point to existence, a ‘meaning of life’ – theology also makes this assumption. Science (with all it’s subcategories) DOES NOT make this assumption. This is the difference.

Not all religions provide a meaning for life Esquire. Not all religions have the assumption there is a meaning. In any case, there is a difference between "Religion" and "Faith". I was talking about "Faith". Most specifically MY faith.

Faith can lead to the discovery of a meaning for ones own life, and the meaning for life in general, but one does not have to possess a desire to know the meaning of life to have faith, nor have faith to desire an answer to the meaning of life.