4 ms·
Hmm, I’m not sure I understand your point. Scientists explicitly try to avoid positing magical things, and even when things get into the realm of untestability
by gbrown 6y ago
Hmm, I’m not sure I understand your point. Scientists explicitly try to avoid positing magical things, and even when things get into the realm of untestability at our scale, it’s hedged:
“Here’s a cosmological model that might be true given our current data”
Vs
“Here’s a magical anthropocentric religious explanation for anything I can’t immediately explain”
- jtbayly 6y ago"Here’s a cosmological model that..." requires a magical explanation for anything I can't immediately explain. Let's call it... say... dark matter?
- gbrown 6y agoYou’re revealing your ignorance of modern physics, as well as some pretty astonishing hubris. You’d compare dark mater, which has numerous possible explanations all of which are in search of empirical tests, to the panoply of human religions?
- jtbayly 6y agoNo. I'd compare faith to faith. One of which declares that there is something above this universe (God), while the other declares without proof that there isn't. (And then large numbers of proponents of the latter posit that we are living in a simulation, thus demonstrating that... they believe there is something above this universe. lol.) Either way it's faith.