This seems to be a handy backstop for a lot of people nowadays.

But what are the odds? I don't think the word 'astronomical' contains enough orders of magnitude to describe them.

Right. But this conversation is not about purpose. It's about how the universe came into being. It's about epistemology. A separate debate is about where ideas of purpose come from.

But for the umpteenth time, prothero, this thread is not about that. It's about the existence of god. If this is compatible with science, then it will be a big day in science when someone publishes that study..

Frankly, I do not understand all the heat in the responses.

There is no scientific demonstration of the existence of god.

That does not mean faith is illogical or irrational only that it is not scientific.

There are many scientists who still maintain their belief in a conception of god.

Scientists are not priests of science -- they are scientists. There's nothing particularly notable about the fact that someone who studies chloroplasts or muons may believe in God, which is a belief that in most cases long antedates their education in science and is part of their self-identity. I've got my own superficially irreconcilable beliefs. At an individual level we rationalize to make incompatible things fit together.

Speaking without irony and quite respectfully, I would enjoy hearing about your superficially irreconcilable beliefs. I myself feel a seemingly paradoxical regard for what some would describe as opposites.

I'm a practicing Jew who doesn't believe in God. My understanding of the physical universe, including life on earth, is entirely informed by science; yet I'm really into spirituality. I highly value religious and cultural traditions, not because their stories give truth about the universe, but because their stories and practices give truth about humanity. How's that?

It's a hot topic, because it involves your identity, on a lot of levels. I would sure rather see myself as part of a plan than as an accident.

As for scientists not being 'priests of science' there are some very high profile scientists who see themselves very much in that role.

It's a hot topic, because it involves your identity, on a lot of levels. I would sure rather see myself as part of a plan than as an accident.

Anway I am not arguing for the existence of Deity. I myself am not a conventional believer. I am only arguing for the possibility of it. I think the idea of cosmic intelligence is a perfectly reasonable outlook, all things considered. It is possible to be very well informed and well versed in science and still see a great intelligence behind everything. I also think that fundamentalist creationism has created a very distorted portrayal of how the nature of this intelligence might be considered. (As for scientists not being 'priests of science' there are some very high profile scientists who see themselves very much in that role, and actively promote evolution as religion. And I think it is incorrect on their behalf to depict the religious view of the matter as 'subscribing to propositions for which there are no evidence'. Nobody present here is doing that but I have to have a dig:bigsmile:)

It's a big world and there are many things that our science and philosophy have never dreamed of.

I think philosophy, religion, and mysticism accomplish a very important thing for us that science cannot: they help us reconcile the fact that we are conscious beings with the fact that we are plain old things.

Science is about the "thing" in us. Turns out that the "thing" in us is all we can know in scientific terms. The "non-thing" in us is how we feel about ourselves, how we feel about others, what we project.

I guess I think some religious notions are helpful and other religious notions are harmful. So I tend to judge them along those lines. I just object to the wholesale dismissal of religion as an irrational, illogical or anti scientific undertaking. Religions which promote love, compassion, tolerance and empathy as a fundamental behavior I think are pragmatically valuable.

I am just wondering though, is it your assumption that science will fill in all or even most of the blanks?

I never deny the findings of science on the basis of religious notions. For me it is quite the other way around. What does cosmic evolution, biological evolution; pain and suffering in the world, mass extinctions, and the probable eventual end of life on earth tell us about any rational or possible conceptions of the divine. I try not to hold any conceptions of divine nature or divine action which would deny the objective findings of science.

It is just there is a huge gap between scientific objective knowledge and human experience. One fills that gap with a worldview.

The religious notion that god creates does not mean one accepts genesis as a literal historical factual account of how god creates.

Even though those notions of purpose and creation are not part of the scientific theory they are not excluded either. They are just not science. They are religion. In that sense certain religions views and the scientific theory are not cognitively incompatible.

I still see a certain suggestion that all religious belief and science are inherently and always in conflict, am I reading in or is that suggestion still there?:whistling:

You think the Adam and Eve question is an empirical inquiry, from a scientific perspective?

Perhaps I need to understand just what you mean by "empirical inquiry" - Any inquiry which as to do with observation or experience? Or rather, potential or possible (thought up, make-believe) observation or experience?

Do you consider:

"Does Santa slide down my chimney every Christmas?"

a scientific inquiry?

Sorry, the written word does not convey tone well.

I am just wondering though, is it your assumption that science will fill in all or even most of the blanks?

I guess I think some religious notions are helpful and other religious notions are harmful. So I tend to judge them along those lines. I just object to the wholesale dismissal of religion as an irrational, illogical or anti scientific undertaking. Religions which promote love, compassion, tolerance and empathy as a fundamental behavior I think are pragmatically valuable.

I never deny the findings of science on the basis of religious notions. For me it is quite the other way around. What does cosmic evolution, biological evolution; pain and suffering in the world, mass extinctions, and the probable eventual end of life on earth tell us about any rational or possible conceptions of the divine. I try not to hold any conceptions of divine nature or divine action which would deny the objective findings of science. It is just there is a huge gap between scientific objective knowledge and human experience. One fills that gap with a worldview. Everyone engages in metaphysical assumption in creating that worldview. Philosophers are supposed to engage in rational speculation in constructing their worldview and maximize coherence, correspondence and consistency. Some of those rational speculative worldviews are theistic.

The religious notion that god creates does not mean one accepts genesis as a literal historical factual account of how god creates. Actually there are two stories in genesis and they differ in their details.
The notion that the scientific theory of evolution is fundamentally correct does not exclude seeing the process of evolution as having purpose and being a method of creativity and novelty.
Even though those notions of purpose and creation are not part of the scientific theory they are not excluded either. They are just not science. They are religion. In that sense certain religions views and the scientific theory are not cognitively incompatible.


I still see a certain suggestion that all religious belief and science are inherently and always in conflict, am I reading in or is that suggestion still there?:whistling:

It is an empirical question. We would not investigate it because it would be a waste of time, and silly. We already know the answer. We already have a much better explanation for why I get sugar plums in my stockings than that Santa puts them there. (Actually I get lumps of coal).

Hermenuetics: Hermeneutics is the study of interpretation theory, and can be either the art of interpretation, or the theory and practice of interpretation. Traditional hermeneutics - which includes Biblical hermeneutics - refers to the study of the interpretation of written texts, especially texts in the areas of literature, religion and law.

Just as long as you stick to, "pragmatically valuable" and not, "true" there is no longer the controversy you started with. The issue has been switched. Of course, whether it is true that they are pragmatically valuable, as you assert, is a different question. (That word, "true" keeps popping up, no matter how much anyone tries to avoid it).