What do we need a deity for? (Introduction)

by broken_cynic , Thursday, August 11, 2011, 21:34 (4853 days ago) @ dhw

I'm afraid I'm going to fragment this conversation a bit more, as I'm going to post this separately before I get to the individual points later in the message.->> KENT (b_c): My frustration comes in when it seems that you want to ask of science/rationalism a complete and airtight description of the entire universe from start to finish before you will accept that its account carries more weight than that of unsubstantiated stories which just happen to parallel in nearly all respects, stories we know for certain were made up.-> dhw: This whole post is depressing. Only a madman would expect a complete and airtight description (I plead sanity), and I have not at any time offered any defence of or given any weight to "unsubstantiated stories" of creation. The choice for me, as I have emphasized repeatedly, lies between chance and design, and what we do know of the birth of the universe and the origin of life can be made to fit in with either theory.You are firing arrows at a target of your own making.-I re-read both your words and mine several times, wavering back and forth on whether or not I owed you an apology for creating another straw man. I came to the conclusion that I stand by what I intended to communicate, but that I exaggerated/generalized for effect and that probably wasn't appropriate in a discussion where we are trying to be more precise with our words and definitions. So, here is my attempt at a less overblown and provocative re-phrase:-You seem to accept that science has been successful at developing and continuing to refine a working model of the universe in many areas, including a number that until relatively recently were widely expected to long (if not forever) remain outside the scope of human knowledge. Your acceptance of this is so basic that much of your overall take on the world is apparently built upon it. You also seem to agree with me that no support has been offered for the specific/concrete claims in any religion we are aware of. My frustration comes in when you approach an area where our knowledge is currently much more limited and you are willing to dismiss all that you will otherwise acknowledge about whether it is science or 'random stabs in the dark as to what might be' (cranes or skyhooks) which have successfully provided us with working knowledge of the universe to date and to treat the two approaches as equally valid. It is for this reason I asked why you give religious claims (perhaps I should just say unevidenced claims) a 'free pass,' as it seems that whenever you compare two positions or potential hypotheses you automatically snap to a 'middle' position that may not always be justified.