I agree that the existence of a deity is not a scientific proposition. But if science fails to provide an answer, then why continue to use scientific propositions?
Post #2272
30 comments
Actually, I'm not terribly fond of this "the existence of God is a question outside the realm of science" claim that seems to be so popular among so many people, religious or non-religious.
If a religion makes concrete claims about what a deity does, those are presumably testable, as least in theory, if not always in practical terms. Like the Genesis flood story, to pick a popular example of a thoroughly debunked claim about a deity's behavior.
If the religion doesn't make such claims, it's essentially content-free and can be ignored; same goes if it says, "Well, our god does thus-and-so, but then covers his tracks so carefully you'll never be able to tell, so you just have to take it on faith [i.e., the say-so of adherents or priests or scriptures]." What's the practical difference between that and a god who simply doesn't exist?
Any way you spin it, theistic claims are generally amenable to evidence and/or logic. And never seem to come out looking terribly likely either way.
OK, science can't disprove or prove God. So what? If you believe in God, fine. Just don't try to push for school prayer or Biblical alternatives to science, post the Ten Commandments in courthouses, outlaw stem cell research, discriminate against homosexuals and all the other religious crap you try to force onto the rest of us.
because science is useful in verifying objective facts and truth. You're entitled to your beliefs, but I'll take an MD over a faith healer any day... I'd take a boy scout over a faith healer for that matter.
wait that comes off totally creepy and weird. I mean in their capacity with first aid training...
When science fails, it tries again.
When dogma fails, it fails forever.
Would you want all questions to boil down to the answer that you personally would prefer to hear at that particular time?
If not, then you must appreciate that you have to apply thoughtful analysis and a degree of logic and reason to all problems (as I'm sure you'd agree, if you're ever faced with purely mundane challenges such as getting from one side of town to the other as quickly as possible or figuring out how to program your new video recorder).
Please let me know why you'd wish to abandon reason when faced with any particular question.
So the first failed attempt at manned flight should of been the last? Edisons first failed lightbulb should of been his last?
Science keeps chipping away. How many failed attempts at the wheel do you think there were? How many failed attempts at fire? If we went by your theory, we'd still be newts.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
