Utunumsint
Posts: 103 Joined: Jan. 2010
|
Quote (Joy @ Feb. 08 2010,17:15) | Wow, Ut. I've been following your sojourn, am not the least bit surprised by the results.
All anybody need accept is that the questions for which telic design is 'the' answer are mostly philosophical and/or metaphysical. They are not questions that science can ever answer definitively, nor can religion offer anything that could compete in the scientific arena with objective physical evidence.
A matter of belief. We are free to choose what we will believe, based on what evidence fits into our worldviews or helps to shape them. Science doesn't deal in metaphysical "proofs," religion doesn't deal in physical "proofs." Debates like these are usually sideshow attractions, mere distractions from real life. Dueling Metaphysics, I like to call them. It's a perennial human pastime.
Make up your own mind. Nobody will ever "prove" you wrong! |
Hi Joy,
Well, you are the first person on this forum who seems remotely sympathetic to a religion. Welcome. :)
I certainly believe that the scientific method is a powerful way to learn about the physical universe, but it is not the only way to reason, or arrive at truth.
My church provides firm guidelines on what is attainable based solely on reason alone, and what requires faith in a revelation that although is beyond reason, does not contradict reason.
A good example of the dividing line between reason and faith is the resurection accounts. From a purely historical point of view, one cannot make any claims about the resurection because 1-there were no witnesses, 2-it was a miraculous event, and clearly beyond the normal parameters of nature, 3-it happened a very long time ago.
Now if you approach these facts from a purely historical point of view alone, you arrive at no religious conclusions, but only the isolated facts that a man preached, was killed for his doctrines, and his disciples claimed he resusitated by some kind of mystical power. This is in fact a good summary of the account of Christianity provided by a non believer, Pliny, to the Roman Emperor around 90 AD.
To understand these events from a religious perspective, one has to take into account prophetic texts, the religious understanding of the Jews of those days, and the philosophic and religious milieux. You have to accept that God is working in history and has a personal relationship with his people.
All of these things are clearly beyond the sphere of science. Is it invalid because science cannot provide a material explanation for the resurection, or a live video feed? Some people would say yes. Good for them. I personally see this as unreasonable, but I also believe that it is a personal choice.
All that being said, I did not come here to proselatize my religious point of view, but only to verify if there is any scientific merit to the Behe's arguments in the edge of evolution.
By the way, are you Christian?
Cheers, Ut
|