Science vs. religion (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, March 19, 2009, 13:39 (5524 days ago) @ John Clinch

PART ONE - 
John Clinch has responded to my two posts of 26 February (one under 'The Paranormal'). - I'm delighted that you are undaunted and will "press on", and I too will press on in the hope that eventually we'll make contact! First, let me get my complaints out of the way. You wrote: "I know you haven't said that in terms: I extrapolated this meaning from your various postings." Most of my ad hominems were in response to your ad feminams, when you mocked BBella (25 February) for things she never wrote. Interpretation always contains a degree of subjectivity ... see the discussion on Gestalt theory ... but your extrapolations sometimes lead you to pounce on shadows of your own imagining, as you have done several times with my own posts. - This is due partly to your tendency to take comments out of their context. For instance, you're flogging Russell's orbiting teapot for all it's worth (discussed about a year ago under "teapot agnosticism", if you're interested) because you've focused on a single sentence out of two long posts on the subject of whether science and religion might be compatible. If you care to read George's posts and mine, you will see that I was explaining why I thought the two could co-exist. The quote you took out of context had nothing to do with arguments for or against God's existence. I was merely indicating the factors that favoured co-existence, just as I had also indicated those that might prevent it. Your request now for theories shows how far you've wandered off the subject. - I had indeed forgotten that you were an agnostic, and so perhaps there was a genuine misunderstanding here. I was under the impression you thought science would come up with all the answers. Since I have no such faith, and agnosticism (the original Huxley form) is based precisely on the impossibility of anything coming up with all the answers, your questioning my agnosticism could only have sprung from your not knowing the meaning of the term. However, it's now clear that you were referring just to one particular set of answers, and I too was guilty of extrapolating more than I should have done from your post. My apologies therefore for that 'ad hominem'. - This particular set of answers, however, is also a cause of misunderstandings. When I wrote: "I am not sceptical about the ability of science eventually to find the combinations that led to life", you thought I was being inconsistent. There is a colossal gap between finding the combinations and finding out how they happened. Even if/when scientists find out under what conditions and with what combinations inorganic matter can become organic, all they will have proved is that intelligent men and women can work out the conditions and combinations. They will not be able to say with even a modicum of authority: "This proves that life can (let alone has) come about by accident." The complexities are so unimaginably enormous that it will still require an act of faith to believe it. The misunderstanding may well have been caused by your slight confusion over the meaning of abiogenesis. - PART TWO FOLLOWS