We also can't witness gravity, or electromagnitism, or any other force - only their effects. We can't witness subatomic particles. There's a lot of things which we cannot directly witness, but can only infer from what happens around them. That's the real difference though: those 'possible explanations' follow the scientific method. They can be subjected to experimentation to test those possibilities and disprove them. That's the big part where ID falls down, it's not a theory which can truly be tested. That's why it's not accepted as scientific: because it fails in the scientific method.
It's an interesting perspective that you have. However I think the focus of our two different minds are very different.
You recognize God as something supernatural and therefore it can be difficult to apply the scientific method towards his nature. I understand that.
To me this seems like a dead end you keep ramming into, and I understand why your truck stops here. "Can't test it, therefore not true." is the conclusion.
In contrast, my focus goes to the physical laws of the universe that you speak of, such as gravity. Gravity is quite testable indeed. Much of the physical nature of the universe is entirely testable by the scientific method.
I believe most Atheist science-based thinkers all believe that the universe had a starting point, which is why the big bang is so popular.
We know that everything that comes into existence has a cause behind it.
How is it not logical to believe that there is a cause behind the universe?
1) Everything that we know that has come into existence has had a cause behind it
2) The universe came into existence.
3) Therefore something caused the universe to come into existence.
If there is a failure in my logic, please point it out. I'm eager to see it.
Sorry, but that's simply not true. That is an absolutely fundamental part of science - that an experiment is repeatable. Questioning other people's research is exactly why scientific theories are published. "Educated guesses" are absolutely acceptable - but if and when those guesses are shown to be incorrect, then we must be willing to revise them to accommodate those new truths. "Educated guesses" which are unable to be tested are fine, but there needs to be some valid and reasonable logical path towards that guess: but it's still largely worthless as anything but a thought experiment unless and until there is some way to actually investigate it. Again, ID comes at it from the wrong direction, it starts with the answer it wants and then tries to work back towards it, cherry picking what is and is not convenient to that answer.
I completely agree with you. Many people on this board would disagree with both of us. I have pointed that out multiple times to many people and they just ignore it. I believe you are absolutely right. A scientific experiment must be repeatable. Educated guesses, are indeed, unacceptable.
So then here is my question: "Where is the measurable, observable, repeatable experiment that proves that one animal can become another one entirely?"
This is where I hit a wall. ^ I keep pointing this out and everyone says "look at the fossils". Can a leap of logic not be seen here? Darwinian theory takes place over millions of years, and therefore it is not repeatable, directly observable, or easily tested. And yet, all of that talk about repeatable experiments being required suddenly just do not matter anymore. You just gotta "believe" and not dare question it. This is because Darwinian Theory has moved into Dogma. Yes, there is very strong evidence to support that it may be true, but where is the repeatable experiment?
I'm very open to the possibility of it being true.
It's banned in the US because it was recognised as having been devised as a trojan horse to teach religion (and a specific religion) in schools, in violation of the US Constitution. We teach science as a system of knowledge and learning. Intelligent Design is not that. Intelligent Design is "Because God."
That is sad if that is the case. In my opinion, ID has nothing to do with religion. It is simply the teaching of an obvious truth that this universe was designed by something highly intelligent.
I completely disagree with you that ID is "because God". ID is simply observing the universe and drawing the most obvious and most likely truthful conclusion based on scientific evidence and applications of the scientific method that are used on the fine-tuning of the universe.
Everyone loves Occam's razor until it can be heavily applied against their own worldview.
The simplest and best explanation for our universe is a creative intelligent causal agent. As a note, I'm not saying that Occam's razor is always correct. I am saying that God's existence is the best explanation for our universe by far, and it's not even close. It's perfectly logical and reasonable to believe in ID.
When we look at the fine tuning of the universe, we see impossible complexity.
If you were walking on the road and there was a computer sitting on a sidewalk, and your friend said "Hey look a computer, I wonder who built it?" You would never ever reply with "that's preposterous, it likely has randomly spawned out of chaos!"
And yet, when we shift the scene to the universe which is infinitely more complex and finely tuned than a computer, you are very willing to say the above.
Why is it foolish to question the creative agent behind a computer, but intelligent to question the creative agent behind the universe?
This logic is akin to:
1) This monster is level 20, surely it should be very challenging.
2) This monster is level 500, surely it should be very easy to defeat.
This is one reason why I do not find Atheism very logical.
If you are certain that someone has created a computer, then you should be even more certain that someone created the universe.
If you are not certain that someone created the universe, I fully accept that, but then you must please question any computer you see with due diligence.
The next time you open this website to make a post on the form, please take at least 5 minutes before posting to meditate on the notion that this forum likely has spawned from random chaos.
1: "We are all made of star stuff," as Carl Sagan stated. We are an inherent part of the universe, running back to the beginning of time and forward until its end. Saying science teaches people have no value and life has no meaning is utterly absurd. You're talking about spirituality in there, and science has absolutely no place in that discussion one way or the other. It doesn't tell you that you have some mystic 'value' to your life, but at the same time it certainly doesn't try to say you don't. That's not science's job.
That is a very interesting point. I am curious to know more.
I wasn't saying that science teaches that life has no purpose. I completely agree that that is not science's job and would never refute that. I was rather saying that the worldview known as secular humanism teaches that life has no meaning or purpose, and that humans don't have any meaningful intrinsic value.
However, I'm glad to learn more about why I am wrong.
In the above quote I read that humans are "part of something" and are "star stuff" but I do not see how being "stuff" or "part" of a thing automatically renders meaningful intrinsic value.
Can you teach me the meaningful purpose and intrinsic value that secular humanism proposes that humans have?
This is not any sort of challenge. I'm simply curious where I am in error and interested in learning more.
2: Again, no. Science has no dog in that fight. Ethics and morality are not something which science can or should be engaged to deal with, these are philosophical constructs. Science does not teach these things, one way or the other.
3: Third 'no'. You are again trying to suggest moral judgements where none are made. Science teaches simply what is and what is not, it does not try to make justifications and judgments on what is and is not "ok". I'd actually suggest that religion has been a far greater perpetrator of evils in this matter than science ever has.
I completely agree that science has no dog in that fight. I'm worried we have a misunderstanding of the basic premise of this point of discussion.
Science is simply the search of truth through testable means. Of course it would have no say in morals.
Yet, the worldview that most Atheists prescribe to, states that there is no objective moral truth.
Since things do not exist if they cannot be proven scientifically, and one cannot prove that objective morals exist by using the scientific method, they therefore do not exist.
When science is your only applied method of ascertaining of truth, so many other useful and viable tools are discarded. What you are left with is the positive affirmation that objective moral truths do not exist until prove otherwise.
So yes, secular humanism very much so asserts the view that there are no objective moral truths.
As for the last point on atrocities on the past, I recognize that there are horrible atrocities on both sides. That discussion is a black hold in my opinion. This discussion is already large so I'll get to the rest of your content unless you want me to touch on that more. My basic opinion is "I don't know which worldview did better/worse things throughout history."
4: Not sure what to say about this one. I'd suggest that that view (which is an individual, personal one) is more down to the understanding and expectations of the individual. "I don't know" is not inherently depressing. While you may see that as a gloomy proposition and crave that certainty of purpose, others may (and do) find absolute joy in the prospect that there is a world of the undiscovered out there in which to adventure. In either case though, it is not the role of science to provide meaning to your life. If you are looking to science to give you that certainty in your life, you are fundamentally misunderstanding what it is about and looking in the wrong place, that's a question of philosophy. Again, this is why I say I'm fine with people finding that comfort in religion: that's largely what it's about, seeking shelter from the abyss of the unknown. Others may seek that comfort in secular philosophies, but religion does it for plenty, too.
I agree with you that there are some Atheists who would be thrilled and super happy in their worldview. However, in statistics, it is very clear that Atheism loses in the battle against depression.
Atheism and suicide - Conservapedia
"Concerning suicide rates, this is the one indicator of societal health in which religious nations fare much better than secular nations. According to the 2003 World Health Organization's report on international male suicides rates (which compared 100 countries), of the top ten nations with the highest male suicide rates, all but one (Sri Lanka) are strongly irreligious nations with high levels of atheism. It is interesting to note, however, that of the top remaining nine nations leading the world in male suicide rates, all are former Soviet/Communist nations, such as Belarus, Ukraine, and Latvia. Of the bottom ten nations with the lowest male suicide rates, all are highly religious nations with statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism.
Through my own personal experience, I have seen this work in action and I was very shocked to learn that my ex-manager that I used to work with who was perhaps the strongest Atheist I have ever met, took his own life. I went back to visit him and say hello after graduating college, and when I asked about him, all my ex-co-workers became so dismal and gloomy and quiet. It was a dark moment.
And then there is life in Japan, where the last time I visited I almost missed my flight due to a "human accident" on the train tracks on the way back. That is a super regular thing in Japan. Of course arguments from experience are usually worthless. But for me, it is obvious that the statistics hold up.
5: How? Again, that's not its role. It can explain reproduction and genetics, it can investigate how we learn, how we grow, and all sorts of things about sociological, biological and cognitive functions, but it cannot and does not make a call on "family values" or whatever it is you mean by that term. It seems like you're looking to science to provide answers to every facet of life, and that's simply its place.
I think that they point to how religion often very strongly emphasizes sexual reproduction within the bonds of marriage.
In contrast, a non-religious individual might say "Hey, go out and have sex with as many people as you can. You only have this life after all. May as well enjoy it!"
That's the best brief take I can do on it. If you want we can go further into this... I actually hadn't researched this argument very much.
Yes, there are questions which religion answers which science does not, and cannot. Science is limited by its definition. It deals with what is and what is not. It does not attempt to judge, it does not look to give meaning or value, simply inform in what is fundamentally true and what is not.
fully agree.
Religion takes the unexplained and works to explain it in a way we can comfortably understand and be at peace with. Science works to find what is correct, whether we like it or not. In that respect, science does not oppose religion - 'good' and 'evil' are constructs which are inherently subjective. That's where philosophy and religion comes into play. However, when religion suggests something about the physical world which can be scientifically shown to be objectively false, we must acknowledge that.
I'm realizing that religion is a very broad word. I don't agree that religion is always just "making up stories to make people feel comfortable." I think we just have a direct disagreement on this, which is fine.
As for adjustments needing to be made upon hard scientific conclusions being made, we absolutely agree.
The difficulty lies when people say "it is a scientific fact that I am a three-tailed magic hippo" and then suggest that you must believe in that because it's a "scientific truth."
There seems to be wide sweeps of "all these idiots just don't believe in science," and wide dismissals of intelligence towards theists.
There are many, many, many brilliant scientists that moved humanity massively forward that were of a Theistic worldview. They aren't all dumb. It's just simply a falsity.
I'm very curious to know what the IQ or intelligence test results of Atheists vs Theists would be. On average I would guess that the Atheists would win. Are there graphs on this?
It kinda sounds like you're looking for answers in the wrong place. Science can't tell you how you should live your life. It can't tell you that the wicked will fall, why you should respect your grandparents, or even why you should get out of bed in the morning. That's not what it's there for. If you want to know how the world was formed though, how things came to be the way they are or where they might be headed, though... Yes, absolutely. Science can help you out with that. It might not have all the answers just yet, but it has the pieces in place to get to the next step in understanding that.
Secular Humanism does indeed tell people how to live their lives.
It is no different than religion in that regard.
I'm happy to do more on this point if you want. Just prompt me.