Science vs. religion (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, March 19, 2009, 13:40 (5524 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO - I remain mystified by your earlier assertion (off the subject of compatibility) that "it is very much the place of scientists to say that, on the basis of the evidence presented thus far by our world, life on Earth is likely to have arisen accidentally". My point, which you couldn't quite follow, is that this is purely a matter of opinion and has no scientific basis (which of course is why it's not a barrier to compatibility between science and religion). Furthermore, since you believe there are matters beyond the scope of science, I'm equally mystified by your scathing attitude towards human experiences that may possibly be linked to such matters. I'm not suggesting you accept anything. I'm asking how an agnostic can be so sure that he knows all the answers about these particular fields. If you acknowledge the possibility of some kind of super-intelligence in the universe, how do you separate it from all the unanswered questions about life? As for strutting religionists, I find them no more and no less objectionable than strutting atheists and strutting agnostics. Nobody has "ready-made answers", so nobody should strut. - "Agnosticism-of-the-gaps" ... yes of course that's what it is, and it's a pity that "gaps" are now referred to in such a derogatory way. All beliefs (and many disbeliefs) entail filling in the gaps (back to Gestalten), and it's only non-beliefs that leave the gaps open. So if future science fills some in, beliefs/disbeliefs/non-beliefs may have to change. Nothing wrong with that. Agnosticism (modern I-don't-know, as opposed to classic I-can't-know) isn't something you fight to defend. Its whole essence is that it's open. The gaps for me are the origin and complexities of life and the universe, and the (apparent) inexplicableness of certain human experiences and faculties. Perhaps you will tell us what gaps have led to your own agnosticism or, to put it in your terms, what matters you regard as being "forever outside the magisterium of science", thereby preventing your commitment to theism or atheism. - P.S. In your response to David Turell, I see you describe yourself as a materialist and a monist. This suggests an unusual form of agnosticism. Please tell us more.