keyser_soze

Awesome site! Thanks!:notworthy

xian

well, of course. but i think you know full well what I mean.

orac

Prove it.

All you can say for certain is that science hasn't yet answered all questions. This is not to say that questions such as "how did it all start?" won't ever be answered.

Besides, even if science doesn't have the answers, this doesn't mean comforting lies (such as "Allah will take you into heaven when you die" are true. Oh, wait, you don't believe that one either. Why not? Doesn't "comforting" mean "true"?)


Not entirely true.

If once I die I cease to exist, I will not suddenly develop a belief in God. As atheism is an absence of belief, and I have to exist before I can gain belief in anything, ceasing to exist won't give me any beliefs at all.

Are these word games helping? Please, tell me I'm paranoid when I think you're trying to sneak Pascal's wager in here.

philechat

When these questions came about, I was actually comforted with the vastness and the uncertainty about this world...liberating even if you must say. I would consider the theistic worldview nowhere as inclusive as a worldview that is willing to accept the incomprehensible--not to fit the universe into any tight little man-made systems. I incline myself toward perspectivism--that "the meaning of life" is a question that requires human participation, and only through our own experience colored by interpretation (where aesthetics came in) are we able to create meaning.

I had mystical experiences a few times before (often occurred when enjoying music, literature, or other art forms). Those experiences (which you would call divine) I attribute to superior humanity...in a sense men became gods through the act of artistic and intellectual creation, that there exists certain perspectives which elevate experience. I also see atheistic philosophy as inherently more "tragic" by nature--since there exists no afterlife to met out "justice" and no consistently reliable deities, the atheist sees reality as more complicated and less colored by moral certainty. The "hopelessness" of atheistic philosophy is in my opinion actually more aesthetically pleasing than the sugar-plum-fairy worldviews found in many factions of Christianity.

xian

science is not capable to answer those questions because they are outside the scope of science.

when you say "PROVE IT" i seriously do not think you understand what science is.

science can only prove that which is according to the scientific method. anything outside the scientific method is not provable by science...this would include the supernatural. science cannot give us any definitive answer about that...either way.

orac

There is no such thing as the supernatural - only natural things that aren't yet understood.

Even if God is "outside" what we currently understand to be the real universe, that doesn't mean he doesn't exist. (Note: if he doesn't exist, then talking about his location isn't meaningful - remember the word "if" in my statement is very important.)

Saying "no, you mustn't talk about this because I don't want it to be part of science" isn't meaningful. Science deals with real things - and this includes ever real things, not just the ones you personally don't find troubling. If you claim God is real, then you are claiming that science can discover who and what he is. (Which is not the same as saying that humans can become him, if you're worried about that idea.)

You haven't proven that science can't discover how the universe was created, what's going to happen to it, how life came to exist, or what actually happens when life ends. All you've done is claim that we can't ever know these things because we don't know them yet.

If God is real, he can't hide forever, although christians often claim he's the best hide-and-go-seek player ever. If he's there, scientists will find him, and dispell all doubt and disbelief.

It's odd that this idea seems to bother you

Are you afraid that scientists will find answers, and that these answers won't be "God is real" ?

Biff the unclean

science is not capable to answer those questions because they are outside the scope of science.

when you say "PROVE IT" i seriously do not think you understand what science is.

What absolute and unmitigated rubbish. I know that it is the policy here to be polite no matter what but this is too much.

The only reason that you can't prove the answers to supernatural questions by science is that there is no supernatural to prove. The reason that you cannot prove it with out science is that you aren't telling the truth. It is not beyond human comprehension, it is not beyond the scientific method. It is simply a lie that you are deluding yourself with, but not us. And the way that I can tell it is a lie is by your transparently self-negating answer. You claim the answer can't be known and you claim knowledge of it in the same breath.

You fool no one,... but yourself.
:banghead:

DoubleDutchy

'Religious experience' has a lot of awkward connotations to it but I think (hope) that this is what you meant:

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." (Einstein)

I did some close reading on your post: Whenever you let go theistic thoughts you feel confronted with a religious experience. I feel absolutely the same way and for me this works in the opposite direction as well: as soon as I get into theistic thought, the 'religious' experience quickly vanishes.
I see theism as a vile attempt to hijack the 'religious' experience for its own purposes thus spoiling it altogether. That's why I am an atheist.

Jamie_L

What if science can't answer the "Big Questions"?

So what?

Is that a knock against science? No.

Furthermore, how do we know the "Big Questions" have answers? Or that they are even meaningful questions?

Jamie

the_cave

That's a pretty good reading, and I think it's accurate. Though for me, it doesn't work the opposite way for me, theism--or, perhaps, religious practice--is a way for me to organize these experiences.

For myself, I don't think it's a knock against science, either. Nor am I arguing that the Big Questions have answers. But it's our nature to strive for answers--how else do you think we ever got science started? As for being meaningful, that depends on what you mean by "meaningful". These questions mean something to me--I detect meaning in them, I feel something when pondering them, and they reflect very real emotional experiences I have. Other people have spoken of them as well. Therefore, I assume they're real. It's expressing them that might be difficult. And maybe they're not expressible in scientific language--that doesn't mean they're inexpressible; it means they must be expressed in poetic language.