3 ms·

>To give a really simple example: believing in an intelligent creator based on design in nature. That's not "no evidence". Holding to a naturalistic theory of o

>To give a really simple example: believing in an intelligent creator based on design in nature. That's not "no evidence". Holding to a naturalistic theory of origins that explains apparent design by a long sequence of chance occurrences is equally a faith commitment. I agree that modern science still requires faith as much of what we believe is inherently difficult to definitively prove. What I'm struggling to understand is how you can say that these competing theories require an equal faith commitment. By what measurement? How are the competing theories equally plausible? I actually agree when you say that the complexity of nature is "not 'no evidence'" and would add that the notion of an intelligent creator was probably the most plausible explanation available when the notion was conceived. However, plausibility has to be reevaluated and compared in the face of contrary evidence supporting other plausible theories, and I simply can't see how the competing evidence can be judged as supporting equally plausible theories.

tareqak 9y ago
I can give you an example/analogy that I personally believe in: I think that science and religion (the part that comes directly from scripture without intermediaries) are two ends of a really tangled morass long rope/thread. They might be different colours, thicknesses, and different textures, but they ultimately converge to being the one same thing. I think of religion as being a sort of mission statement (the why) with a some general guidelines of how to behave and what to expect (e.g. a interface in object-oriented programming), and science being a sort of detailed, meticulous set of steps (the how) to extract information from the environment and observable objects (e.g a concrete class that is supposed implementing the interface). Unfortunately/fortunately, the compiler doesn’t yell at you if you aren’t implementing the interface correctly, so you have to figure it out for yourself.
- lomnakkus 9y ago
  > directly from scripture without intermediaries Either scripture itself was written down by intermediaries or you're already presupposing the existence of deities. (Those deities also require an explanation or you really are just talking about faith without evidence.)

tareqak 9y ago

I can give you an example/analogy that I personally believe in: I think that science and religion (the part that comes directly from scripture without intermediaries) are two ends of a really tangled morass long rope/thread. They might be different colours, thicknesses, and different textures, but they ultimately converge to being the one same thing. I think of religion as being a sort of mission statement (the why) with a some general guidelines of how to behave and what to expect (e.g. a interface in object-oriented programming), and science being a sort of detailed, meticulous set of steps (the how) to extract information from the environment and observable objects (e.g a concrete class that is supposed implementing the interface). Unfortunately/fortunately, the compiler doesn’t yell at you if you aren’t implementing the interface correctly, so you have to figure it out for yourself.

lomnakkus 9y ago
> directly from scripture without intermediaries Either scripture itself was written down by intermediaries or you're already presupposing the existence of deities. (Those deities also require an explanation or you really are just talking about faith without evidence.)