A Free-for-All on Science and Religion

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">The chasm is at least as wide as the gap between the religious person and the mildly retarded. </font>

You've impressed upon me the importance of intelligence when it comes to almost any endeavor (between humans), during my very first threads on this forum. However, I still question one thing...

You're fond of making reference to the intellectual gap between the average scientist Vs. the average religious person, and now... The average religious person Vs. the average retarded person, and yet...

When dealing with the concept of gods and other deeper philosophical questions, is this really important? I ask because the difference between the average low IQ humans and the next smartest creature in the known universe is significantly greater than the disparities between any of the groups you mentioned.

In other words, the intellect required when it comes to solving the questions of the universe, might be so much greater than man is capable of, that these disparities you point to might be insignifiacnt in the grand scheme of things. If the required intellect is a 90 and the smartest human is at .1, does it really matter that the average scientist are is much smarter than the average religious person? Before you say it...

I understand an edge is an edge, but it might not be as important as you make it out to be. Please clarify for me.

[Skidoo]

"You're either with us or you're with the retards."

[Phil153]

Skidoo,

Your hypothetical answers are flawed. Can you tell me why?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Skidoo,

Your hypothetical answers are flawed. Can you tell me why?

[/ QUOTE ]
Dont you think the first answer is reasonable?

[ QUOTE ]
Q: Where is there any observation made by science refuting the existence of God?

A: There is no such observation, but my belief in God would require more than the absence of proof of nonexistence. I require affirmative evidence.


[/ QUOTE ]

[Phil153]

The first part of the first answer is reasonable. i.e.

Q: Where is there any observation made by science refuting the existence of God?

A: There is no such observation.

[bunny]

I agree - but dont you think the second is reasonable also?

[Phil153]

I'd also add that scientific observations conclusively refute various statements of fact made in a number of holy books, both about the nature God and his contact with the human race.

So in the answer above, "God" has to be undertood in that context. If you replace "God" with "Christian God" then the answer is different.

[thylacine]

Phil153 said:[ QUOTE ]
“The core of science is not a mathematical model; it is intellectual honesty”

This just became my favorite quote.

I agree that science and scientists need to be more active in spreading scientific knowledge, but I oppose the aggressive stance that people like Dawkins take. I think books like "The God Delusion" do more harm than good. The facts should be stated, questions answered, and their interpretation left to the individual. Science is just another tool with which to know the world, it doesn't give the scientist a monopoly on knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is important to realize that in many cases when a person is offended by what someone says, it is entirely the fault of the person being offended. Staged and/or conditioned displays of outrage and indignation at what a person says, are in fact mechanisms for stifling or silencing that person's message.

Richard Dawkins clearly articulates many important messages, and I am glad that he does not succumb to pressure from those who would say `Oh dear, you're not supposed to say that!'

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Human intelligence is all we have to work with.


[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know that?

[ QUOTE ]

You're not asking anyone to listen to God; you're asking us to listen to the theists who, being less intelligent than the atheists, are less credible


[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think intelligence equates to credibility? You might also consider the fact that most definitions of science exclude the supernatural so any statement made by a scientist purporting to deny God is by definition unscientific.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

This is circular logic.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see the circularity in the statement but I'm willing to acknowledge that all human predication concerning ultimate issues involves circular logic - there's no alternative.