[BenV]

"What is keeping the ballance these all are signs of a very well capable superior Being who is beoynd any given space and time."

That's the jump that Madidus and I are refusing to make.  Certainly there are things we don't know and don't fully understand, but that doesn't mean we should invent a god to fill the gaps.

[SFMA]

That's the jump that Madidus and I are refusing to make.  Certainly there are things we don't know and don't fully understand, but that doesn't mean we should invent a god to fill the gaps.

What we don't know it could be anything. It could be God as well.

[BenV]

And it could be a giant pink monkey with wings, or a kitten, jellyfish, piece of cheese, computer simulation, halibut, novelists imagination, garden hose...

There is as much justification for thinking that the gaps in our knowledge are explained by a massive wheel of brie as by a god.

Are you a Brie-liever?

[SFMA]

And it could be a giant pink monkey with wings, or a kitten, jellyfish, piece of cheese, computer simulation, halibut, novelists imagination, garden hose...

There is as much justification for thinking that the gaps in our knowledge are explained by a massive wheel of brie as by a god.

Are you a Brie-liever?

It could be more than the best possible existence that you could imagine.

[BenV]

I'm not sure I understand that comment.  What could be more than the best possible existance I can imagine?

I was trying to point out that to some people, such as myself, suggesting that all the gaps in our knowledge can be explained by a god seems ridiculous.  As ridiculous as suggesting they are explained by cheese must seem to you.

As it happens, I much prefer the Buddhist idea that there is no external god, but that you should meditate upon how you could be the best possible you, and then strive to be that person.  This seems more sensible to me than following a set of rules written in an old book.

[Madidus_Scientia]

It could be more than the best possible existence that you could imagine.

Wishful thinking, would be lovely if it were true, but i'd rather have the best possible existence in my current form instead of wasting time hoping to have a better existence in another

[BenV]

It could be more than the best possible existence that you could imagine.

Wishful thinking, would be lovely if it were true, but i'd rather have the best possible existence in my current form instead of wasting time hoping to have a better existence in another

Well said.

[Bored chemist]

BenV  re.
"And it could be a giant pink monkey with wings, or a kitten, jellyfish, piece of cheese, computer simulation, halibut, novelists imagination, garden hose..."
 you missed at least one important possibillity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghetti_Monster

[BenV]

Indeed, but I thought that too plausible, and I was trying to be ridiculous.

[johnbrandy]

The history of intellectual knowledge and discovery absolutely demonstrates that all knowledge is provisional, therefore we cannot be sure if our present knowledge is viable, let alone the so-called gaps in this knowledge. What is knowledge anyway? "Facts", opinions, evidence, consensus, truth. Some of our knowledge may be solid and reliable. Some of our knowledge may be provisional, and likely to change. We cannot be certain, in either case. God is not at issue here. Knowledge of God, if plausible, is a self-evident reality, and therefore subject to individual interpretation and understanding. I would expect that such genuinely enlightened individuals would have much to report about the exact nature of reality in its various forms. Science is a point of view, and does not pretend to absoluteness. The fact that science has inherent limits, and thusly results in logical gaps, does not indicate or imply these gap, and their cognizance, fall within the exclusive domain of a divinity. Further, why should we assume that it is even possible to know "everything", in scientific terms, or any other? What standard, system, doctrine, discipline, science, religion, philosophy, or point of view, can reasonably justify this claim? To assert that it is possible to eventually answer and comprehend every scientific question, is to argue a degree of insight into the validity and perfection of scientific methodology's, hitherto unknown.

[lyner]

Atheism and theism are both beliefs. Choosing one or the other need make no difference to how one approaches the models proposed in Science.
Religion has been spoiled by the way humans 'use it'  and so has atheism.

I was listening to 'The Moral Maze' BBC R4 the other night and I was saddened, but not to surprised to hear more than one 'eminent' Scientist / Atheist making incredibly arrogant statements implying that Science WILL REVEAL ALL, eventually. Such a subjective statement just has to be based on Faith just the same as the arguments put forward by the Christian speakers. The evidence has actually only been to the contrary, in the long run.

They're all as bad as each other. Richard D's faith is just as strong as (or even stronger than) St. F of Assisi.
People seem to find it impossible to do without it.
Give me a good old Agnostic any time. At least they are prepared to listen to both sides.

[Bored chemist]

"They're all as bad as each other."
People killed in the name of religion; lots
People killed in the name of science; not nearly so many (and most of those were by people who's grasp of science wasn't up to much.
Somehow, I don't have any difficulty telling the two groups apart.

[_Stefan_]

How is it faith to not accept the claim that something exists, if there is no logical or rational reason for it to exist, and for which there is not a shred of evidence? I think you need to return to the basics of the scientific method(s). The default position of science towards all propositions, prior to the acquisition of supporting evidence, is non-belief. There is an infinite amount of things we could believe. What standards would we have for which things to accept and which to reject if not evidence and rational thought? Science >is< atheistic.

Sophie, the evidence is to the contrary of what? Are you saying that the amount that a phenomenon is examined scientifically does not affect the probability of it being understood or explained? Surely, given enough time and effort, the answer to any question can be found.

[Bored chemist]

Science may or may not, in time, explain everythig and give us all the answers we need or want. Religion never will and never can- all it will say is some variation on a theme of "It's God's will". In particular it will never explain where "God" came from. OTOH science might just answer that question.

[lyner]

Science may or may not, in time, explain everythig and give us all the answers we need or want.

I'm sure it has, at least, already explained why we make use of a God. Humans and all other animals have needed optimal rules to work by in order to survive best and propagate the various species.
A highly intelligent species like H. Sapiens needs a built-in strict controlling influence to make it 'behave right' and it is not surprising that genes have evolved to give us a need for a higher authority. We behave badly enough as it is and, without a God figure, we'd have hacked each other to pieces long ago.
But the sad thing is that so many Scientists seem to think that there is no limit to what they could explain. That is so arrogant.

[Bored chemist]

I think it's optimistic rather than arrogant.

[lyner]

No - there's too much unreasoning 'faith' behind such  a statement and it's a really crap way to counter a religionist argument. I don't think you can forgive a 'great man' for letting his testosterone get in the way of his reason. It's arrogant. And it is all the more arrogant than the equivalent statement from a religionist because it assumes the person making the statement is using himself as the authority. At least when God is included in an argument they offload the ultimate authority onto someone else.
If your 'great man' is so great (and he will be very bright) then he must have thought it out and come to that conclusion. I have a feeling that such statements are merely an ill-judged show of over confidence in order to show the religionist is wrong.

If Science is a map of things the way they are then, to be complete, it would have to include itself on the map and the map of itself should also contain a map of those maps etc. etc. So it can never know it all.

In any case, why should we desire to know everything? It's as scary an idea as living for ever. Acceptance of our limitations is probably the ultimate way to find peace of mind.  Let's hope there's a gene for that buried somewhere inside us all (or at least a gene for the propensity for it). It's our only hope.
But, if we get too laid back about things, everything will grind to a halt.

[lyner]

I didn't mean YOUR statement, BC, I meant the statement I was discussing. I thought I may haver offended you and we can't have that can we?

[Bored chemist]

"If Science is a map of things the way they are then, to be complete, it would have to include itself on the map and the map of itself should also contain a map of those maps etc. etc. So it can never know it all."
Actually, I have a map like that, it's not very practical but it does include everything, It's called a universe. It is a 1:1 scale map, but it really does exist.


Anyway, I think the "scientist's" idea is simply that, for just about everything that we have sought an explanation, we have found one. Given time, perhaps we will find an explanation of everything.
Optimistic, but not particularly arrogant. Extrapolation is potentially very misleading, but it's very common practice in science.
For the alternative to be proved true you would need to show the scientist a problem that cannot, even in principle, be explained. I don't know of any.

[lyner]

Actually, I have a map like that, it's not very practical but it does include everything, It's called a universe. It is a 1:1 scale map, but it really does exist.

No, that's not a map and it isn't the answer to any question. (A bit glib there, I'm afraid BC)

And there is loads and loads for which we haven't found explanations.
As for getting to sort everything out - just look at medicine. We have now more or less run out of antibiotics and, with so much neo-natal care, we are in danger of the tail wagging the dog. Individuals are surviving who never would have, earlier in history, and magnifying the effect of loads of less viable genes in the general pool, as a consequence.
There's a nice moral dilemma there but it demonstrates that Science is far from potentially getting us to any nirvana.
I think there is a hint of an entropy argument here. You may be able to solve most (not 'any') problem but at the expense of generating even more.
Why not just accept this and deal with it rather than deny it's true and guarantee disappointment? I, personally, don't have a problem with the idea of limits.