[MD] new blog

[Steve Peterson]

MP:


> MP: Absolutely. I'm just saying that the (nb: scientific/intellectual) 
> inquiry,
> challenge and debate you propose can only go so far up the theistic 
> construct
> chain because it is a specific (nb: scientific/intellectual) language 
> that becomes
> more and more irrelevant the closer you get to the pure concept of 
> theism itself.
> At some point prior to theism itself, science becomes irrelevant 
> *unless* it can
> prove god(s) something about the existence of god(s).
>
> For instance; scientific inquiry is relevant where theistic 
> manifestation lay claim
> to a scientific field. Literal creationsim for instance. Or the 
> earth/sun orbit issue.
> Totally open to scientific inquiry and challenge because it is a 
> clearly
> scientifically relevant topic. When discussing why the big bang 
> occurred, the
> field is less slanted to science, and it becomes equally valid for 
> theistic fields to
> put science under similar scrutiny instead. When it comes to whether 
> or not a
> god or gods can exist, science is powerless. Its not a scientific 
> field.
>
Steve:
How is the existence of god irrelevant to science? If you just say God 
exists and refuse to define what you mean by God then the conversation 
is over, but as soon as you start saying what you mean by God, we enter 
the realm of scientific hypothesis.

If you claim that God is the creator of the universe, this is either 
true or false scientifically, since a universe designed by a creator 
would be different than one without a creator. If you deny that the 
universe would be any different, then God would be irrelevant.

Either prayer works or it doesn't. Either Jesus had a father or he did 
not. Either miracles happen or they do not. If Jesus returns some day 
and demonstrates his magic powers, then Christianity will be revealed 
as a scientific fact. It will be part of our scientific understanding 
of the universe.

To explore the question of whether there are two separate spheres of 
power as you suggest, Dawkins asked us to "imagine that forensic 
archeologists, by some unlikely set of circumstances, discovered DNA 
evidence demonstrating that Jesus was born of a virgin mother and had 
no father. If NOMA enthusiasts were sincere, they should dismiss the 
archeologists' DNA out of hand: "Irrelevant. Scientific evidence has no 
bearing on theological questions. Wrong magisterium." Does anyone 
seriously imagine that they would say anything remotely like that? You 
can bet your boots that not just the fundamentalists but every 
professor of theology and every bishop in the land would trumpet the 
archeological evidence to the skies."

In the broadest sense of the word, science is simply our attempt to be 
intellectually honest--to distinguish what we have good reason to 
believe from what we wish were true. If science represents our best 
attempts to understand human experience, then what is left for religion 
to be about?

Best,
Steve

atheistichope.com