All of those that I've seen. From a scientific method standpoint they all commit the same errors of assumption and gap filling. Again, not saying that they are wrong (any/all of them), I have no idea, just saying that they aren't useful in that context.
I don't think the point is necessarily to provide scientific usefulness.
Again, it would help for the purposes of discussion if you pointed out which theistic stances you are talking about and what specifically about them you find problematic, so we're all on the same page. The OP's stance, for example, seems to be that God is ultimately responsible for what happens, but operates out of scientific means. This has subtle differences from a position like deism, and is profoundly different from creationism.
I was responding to the OP: " I personally believe that God created all life, but I also suspect that God usually works through scientific means. What are your thoughts and knowledge on this?"
Like I said, my personal thought is that bringing God into the discussion of how life started isn't very useful. Just look at the OP's belief, how would we ever distinguish what we see in his version from what we would see in one sans God?
The overarching theistic "stance" I find useless in this context is the one that assumes an ill-defined/unknowable/untestable answer to the question and then works from there. It might be the right answer, but we can't test it and can't use it to make accurate predictions, making it a useless one. Now I don't know, maybe not all religions do this. It just seems to be the case in those I've dealt with.
What I find useless is the notion that scientific method is the only way to determine origins. Who is to say that God created the universe (and the things in it) in a way that science cannot understand or fathom? It may very well be impossible to completely understand the grand underpinnings of our universe.
Maybe a deity has decided that human comprehension will never be able to truly understand how life on earth came to be and asks you to believe his account of creation as a matter of faith. It is hard for those who worship at science to accept the fact that there god is not all knowing? No scientific evidence does not automatically equate to no evidence.
Then again that may be easy for me to say seeing as I do hold the opinion of agnosticism in regards to origins of life.
What I find useless is the notion that scientific method is the only way to determine origins. Who is to say that God created the universe (and the things in it) in a way that science cannot understand or fathom? It may very well be impossible to completely understand the grand underpinnings of our universe.
Yes, but a position like that isn't exactly helpful from a position of debate or discourse, either. Either you believe it or you don't. I'm more likely to trust an empirical method than than a church who expects me to just trust them.
I mean, why do you believe in your creation story versus the creation myth of any other religion? Other religions ask you to take it on faith as well, and provide just as much in the way of evidence or reasoning.
It is hard for those who worship at science to accept the fact that there god is not all knowing? No scientific evidence does not automatically equate to no evidence.
You're very fond of calling science a religion. But you don't hold yourself to the same standard for critiquing this "religion" that you would hold others to for critiquing your religion. In brief, if a critic of Christianity made statements that betrayed a dearth of even the most basic knowledge about Christian tenets and practices, you would not take that person seriously. So when you say things like this about science, you should not expect others to take you seriously.
For in fact no scientific evidence does equate to no evidence. There is no property of evidence that makes it "scientific" or "non-scientific". Nothing could make a scientist say, "Yep, this is evidence, but it's not scientific, so we should ignore it." Science is about getting results. Any evidence that gets results is fair game for science. If reading tea leaves got results, scientists would read tea leaves. Why shouldn't they? It's not like they have dogmatic objections to particular practices. They're not a religion, after all. The fact that this new technique cannot be understood based on current scientific understanding would be exciting to a scientist - it would be a whole vast new area of research, meaning more puzzles, more funding, more papers, and more renown, like getting in on the ground floor of the quantum revolution in physics. Religious dogmatics loathe challenges to their worldview and the idea that there are things beyond their understanding, but scientists love that stuff. No, the only reason scientists don't read tea leaves is because it doesn't get results. If the tea leaves say you will die tomorrow, that does not increase your chances of dying tomorrow in the slightest. And since this is the case, you would hardly call the tea leaves "evidence" of your impending demise, would you? It's not that the evidence is "non-scientific"; it's that it's not evidence.
So if you want to prove that there is evidence for... whatever it is you're trying to say, then your task is simple: Show that the alleged evidence gets results. If it does, scientists will take it seriously. I promise.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
And just BTW I was responding directly to Golden who has the distinct air of a verificationist about him. Maybe I should have had some quotes in my post. Sorry if it was misleading.
And just BTW I was responding directly to Golden who has the distinct air of a verificationist about him. Maybe I should have had some quotes in my post. Sorry if it was misleading.
So explain how a religionist would "determine" origins, test/prove their theories, and then gain some kind of knowledge that could actually be useful in making future predictions.
OTOH if none of that is important to you, and you take comfort in blind faith (which many many do, I'm not knocking it), that's fine. I was simply explaining why I personally don't find religion to be very interesting or useful when it comes to a topic like this.
Sure. Could have been seeded by an asteroid carrying the early stages. Could have been intentionally seeded by aliens. Heck, we could be an alien's fishbowl, or an alien's computer simulation.
What I find useless is the notion that scientific method is the only way to determine origins. Who is to say that God created the universe (and the things in it) in a way that science cannot understand or fathom? It may very well be impossible to completely understand the grand underpinnings of our universe.
Maybe a deity has decided that human comprehension will never be able to truly understand how life on earth came to be and asks you to believe his account of creation as a matter of faith. It is hard for those who worship at science to accept the fact that there god is not all knowing? No scientific evidence does not automatically equate to no evidence.
Then again that may be easy for me to say seeing as I do hold the opinion of agnosticism in regards to origins of life.
The means we would use to reliably get to the conclusion that the truth value of assertion "G" is unknowable would be by using, at least in some part, the scientific method. What exactly do you think we would reference to justify such an assertion? Something other than our tests regarding this matter?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Again, it would help for the purposes of discussion if you pointed out which theistic stances you are talking about and what specifically about them you find problematic, so we're all on the same page. The OP's stance, for example, seems to be that God is ultimately responsible for what happens, but operates out of scientific means. This has subtle differences from a position like deism, and is profoundly different from creationism.
So it helps if you clarify.
Like I said, my personal thought is that bringing God into the discussion of how life started isn't very useful. Just look at the OP's belief, how would we ever distinguish what we see in his version from what we would see in one sans God?
The overarching theistic "stance" I find useless in this context is the one that assumes an ill-defined/unknowable/untestable answer to the question and then works from there. It might be the right answer, but we can't test it and can't use it to make accurate predictions, making it a useless one. Now I don't know, maybe not all religions do this. It just seems to be the case in those I've dealt with.
Maybe a deity has decided that human comprehension will never be able to truly understand how life on earth came to be and asks you to believe his account of creation as a matter of faith. It is hard for those who worship at science to accept the fact that there god is not all knowing? No scientific evidence does not automatically equate to no evidence.
Then again that may be easy for me to say seeing as I do hold the opinion of agnosticism in regards to origins of life.
I mean, why do you believe in your creation story versus the creation myth of any other religion? Other religions ask you to take it on faith as well, and provide just as much in the way of evidence or reasoning.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
For in fact no scientific evidence does equate to no evidence. There is no property of evidence that makes it "scientific" or "non-scientific". Nothing could make a scientist say, "Yep, this is evidence, but it's not scientific, so we should ignore it." Science is about getting results. Any evidence that gets results is fair game for science. If reading tea leaves got results, scientists would read tea leaves. Why shouldn't they? It's not like they have dogmatic objections to particular practices. They're not a religion, after all. The fact that this new technique cannot be understood based on current scientific understanding would be exciting to a scientist - it would be a whole vast new area of research, meaning more puzzles, more funding, more papers, and more renown, like getting in on the ground floor of the quantum revolution in physics. Religious dogmatics loathe challenges to their worldview and the idea that there are things beyond their understanding, but scientists love that stuff. No, the only reason scientists don't read tea leaves is because it doesn't get results. If the tea leaves say you will die tomorrow, that does not increase your chances of dying tomorrow in the slightest. And since this is the case, you would hardly call the tea leaves "evidence" of your impending demise, would you? It's not that the evidence is "non-scientific"; it's that it's not evidence.
So if you want to prove that there is evidence for... whatever it is you're trying to say, then your task is simple: Show that the alleged evidence gets results. If it does, scientists will take it seriously. I promise.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
So explain how a religionist would "determine" origins, test/prove their theories, and then gain some kind of knowledge that could actually be useful in making future predictions.
OTOH if none of that is important to you, and you take comfort in blind faith (which many many do, I'm not knocking it), that's fine. I was simply explaining why I personally don't find religion to be very interesting or useful when it comes to a topic like this.
Sure. Could have been seeded by an asteroid carrying the early stages. Could have been intentionally seeded by aliens. Heck, we could be an alien's fishbowl, or an alien's computer simulation.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It's aliens all the way down.
The means we would use to reliably get to the conclusion that the truth value of assertion "G" is unknowable would be by using, at least in some part, the scientific method. What exactly do you think we would reference to justify such an assertion? Something other than our tests regarding this matter?
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited