The Nature of this Conflict (Humans)

by dhw, Tuesday, January 19, 2010, 15:33 (5424 days ago) @ George Jelliss

George and Matt have focused on two different points. -GEORGE: Of course if you are prepared to water down your concept of "God" until it is so vague or so ineffectual as to bear little resemblance to any "God" that has ever had any popular acclaim, you are on safe ground in being agnostic.-As I see it, the nature of the conflict between our current correspondents is whether there is or is not some kind of intelligence responsible for the creation of life, consciousness etc. But that is only part of it. If Mark or Frank were still with us, the other part would be the nature of that intelligence if there is one. I regard these as different subjects. However, with both arguments I would agree that the agnostic is on comparatively safe ground. It's those who have committed themselves to specific concepts that may find themselves in difficulty. A creationist may be shocked to learn that Professor Frank N. Stein has chucked a few twiddly bits higgledy-piggledy into a cauldron and watched them spring to life, reproduce, and spontaneously adapt to a changing environment, while their descendants spontaneously produce new organs. On the other hand, when George celebrates his hundredth birthday, he may be shocked to hear that Prof. Stein still hasn't cracked it, whereas he himself has just been resuscitated for the umpteenth time, and for the umpteenth time has had to return from an experience suspiciously like an afterlife.-However, I do think that a watered-down version of a God without attributes doesn't serve much of a purpose, and an uncaring, impersonal, deist God might just as well not be there. -Matt's post is very much in line with my own response concerning the subjectivity of criteria. (We do usually come to an agreement.) However, you've quoted examples of "evidence" such as the Turin Shroud, or an acquaintance's brush with death. "When you get down to this level, what exactly can you say or do?" Well, nothing. We all have to set our own criteria. But there is no need for us to discuss things at this level, or for you and your brother-in-law to do so. The fact is that science has been unable (so far) to solve the mysteries of the origin of life and of consciousness, and many scientists including David Turell adhere to the design theory for scientific and not spiritual reasons. One only has to ask a materialist for his theoretical solution to these mysteries, and then to ask what evidence he has, and suddenly the burden of proof shifts dramatically. The materialist claim that science and religion are incompatible (a claim which Darwin himself emphatically rejected) is therefore not only baseless, but is also indirectly a confession of faith no more scientific than theism. Perhaps that will change in the future, but 'perhaps' is the province of agnosticism.