Partly cloudy, 11C (7C)

A Reasonable Argument for God’s Existence?

I'm reading this article, now, and thought I'd share it (esp with [ profile] treacerbullet  and [ profile] earthbound01 , who participated so whole-heartedly in that recent discussion about god, here).


Also, from the Washington post on Southern sucession...

Side note : I updated the sticky post on my journal bringing ppl up-to-date, if you care.

From: [identity profile]

Thanks for both links.

The first one articulates a lot of things that I never realized bothered me.

The second doesn't tell me very much that I didn't already know — any adult-oriented book that covers the subject will say much the same things — but it was an interesting read nonetheless.

From: [identity profile]

The first covers all the things I've covered but lays it out with a clarity I am not so good at matching in discussing, it seems.

The second was also obvious -- the debate it would have been useful in was pretty basic...

You're welcome! I'm so happy I could provide interesting links! :-D

From: [identity profile]

It's polite and reasonable

He's making a case that there's enough that's not known about the process of creation(and that things are just too complex to have occurred to be understood as the result of naturalistic processes) for their to be a doubt about relying on science on its own. Other people have quibbled about the complexity argument before, but I don't really have the background to evaluate that discussion independently.
However, pointing out that science hasn't got the answers yet doesn't make his position seem that much more reasonable to me. It strikes me as kind of a leap to say "nobody knows the natural explanation yet" and then jump to "my particular narrative is correct" when there are many deeply and sincerely held beliefs by other groups that are just as important. The deficit of the scientific perspective then, does it add to the perspective of the Fundamentalist Hindu (whose earth is at least hundreds of billions of years old) or the Fundamentalist Christian (whose earth has less than ten thousand years to it?)
(Also, even having decided that it is the God of the Abrahamic tradition that has created life, does that mean we should abandon attempts to understand the origin of life? And where is the cutoff point- should we stop looking at the fossils of the human ancestry, or simply stop the research into abiogenesis?
And the broader question- since the scientific narrative of having a natural explanation for phenomena is violated by virtue of biological complexity- where else should we stop applying a search for natural explanations? I mean, quantum physics makes our understanding of the universe complicated too- is that further area where we need to stop applying naturalistic empiricism? At what point must we abandon the perspective that nature is knowable through examination?
Or is he arguing that we should instead start applying creation science? I think it's a rather poorly laid out epistemology (science and objective evidence looking for natural causes except where there aren't natural causes? How do we know where there aren't natural causes if investigation into them is not a viable means of understanding?)
I respect the Rabbi, and his desire to make his understanding of the world seem the most logical hasn't really moved me away from my own. I mean that as no disparagement- disagreeing with someone about an operating heuristic isn't that big a deal to me, at the end of the day.

From: [identity profile]

Re: It's polite and reasonable

Most of your questions seem to be really one : just because there's a god does that mean we should stop learning about and trying to understand the world?

I'm not sure of the official position of the Church on that one--dogmatically, I think they would answer Yes.

Judaism answers resoundingly No. Within the Judaic system the fact that there's a god is just a background point--that god has created and sustains the world, indeed the universe, for each individual : it is a responsibility incumbent on existing to constantly seek and expand knowledge and understanding of all parts of existence. But not only that, you also have to apply what you come to know. Ignorance is not an option. Under any circumstance. If it is possible for you to understand, you ought to ; and even if you think it isn't, you ought to try.

The rabbi is by no means whatsoever so much as suggesting that any of these questions ought to be dismissed. Life is no less a miracle for being investigated. In fact, searching and searching, applying some of the most refined intellects to have walked the surface of the Earth and still not knowing can only serve to underscore how amazing it really is. I think your other points in this vein (including your qualm about the burden of proof for a non-god source of life) are answered in the course of his responsa, so I won't repeat his words, here.

As for other religions.... it's good to have an open mind (at the very least for understanding others and their situations), if you have the intellect for it you should use it (in fact, you are supposed to, to the utmost of your greatest potential capacity), it's also imperative, however, to be honest and clear. I think this is where most ppl misstep.

From: [identity profile]

I did really like the article about the Civil War. I hadn't really read an analysis of the causes of the war since my last US History Class in HS.

From: [identity profile]

Yeah... a lot of ppl seem to think it was over slavery or taxes and it just wasn't.

From: [identity profile]

The article seems to say it was about slavery in a socio-economic sense. Or do you mean in the sense that it's sometimes portrayed as if the North was on a noble crusade to free the slaves?

The writer spoke at my undergrad school, coincidentally. His books make for interesting reading.

From: [identity profile]

Ah, by "over slavery" I meant the noble march of a morally advanced North....



sjcarpediem: (Default)

Most Popular Tags

Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags