Pointy eggs and whales (Evolution)

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Sunday, September 16, 2018, 16:22 (66 days ago) @ dhw

DHW: You say the choice is between materialisticality and spirituality. I find this misleading, as is the surprising claim that science is our evidence. Science is only equipped to deal with the material world, and it is therefore highly debatable whether it can explain some of the things which are most precious to us as human beings and which are in some way connected to the unexplained phenomenon of consciousness (I include emotions, aesthetics, imagination, reason).

TONY: The fact that it can not explain so much, and never will be able to, is precisely why it is (admittedly in an unintuitive fashion) the best evidence.

DHW: The best evidence for what? For the existence of an unknown, sourceless spirit that spawns other unknown spirits before spawning material cells?

It has been stated by all of us at some point or another, that the choice is between chance and design, not between chance and a particular designer.

DHW: Nor can science explain certain psychic phenomena, such as those in which the person concerned acquires information which he/she could not possibly have known at the time. I myself have no idea whether materials are able to CREATE these forms of spirituality, or they are part of a different reality which does not depend on materials, or materials themselves have some form of innate mental aspect (panpsychism) which has gradually evolved, or there is one superspirit that created the whole shebang out of its own energy. Only the last of these is “religious”. The only way I shall ever know is if these “spiritual” elements of myself survive the death of the body.

TONY: If you will note, the point I was referring to is the point of faith. Faith is "he assured expectation of things though not beheld". In short, it is believing without seeing. Choosing not to believe is choosing not to have faith, even if you follow it with the statement that you are not choosing to disbelieve. That is why I said it is a false third option.

DHW: I have challenged your statement that science is the best evidence, and your answer is that faith is believing without seeing – the exact opposite of science. So for you clearly science is not the best evidence. And I have no idea why neither believing nor disbelieving is a false option.

Faith is not the opposite of science. Science is what provides the "assured expectation of things though not beheld." The evidence of the world we CAN see assures us that there is something that we can not see both by its very limitations and the wondrous complexity which it can not explain.

What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum