Originally posted by UnknownPhilosopher
It takes faith in order to believe that the current state of science has evolved to the point that it has cornered the truth on the worlds greatest
questions as to the purpose of life and whether we were just a mistake or design.
No one who actually understands science - a category that doesn't seem to include yourself - actually thinks Science has all the answers. Just that it
has the potential to find lots, and lots, and lots, and lots of answers to a dizzying array of questions, many of which we don't even know we want to
By the way, the purpose of life is to procreate and perpetuate as much of your genetic material into the future as possible. I suppose that's not as
highfalutin and glamorous as you want it to be, but reality doesn't center around human egocentrism.
Mistake or design? Neither; both imply intent (a mistake is something other than what you intended, a design is what you intended.) if there is no
intent, there can be neither mistake nor design. Something just is what it is.
As well, you are putting faith in the current establishment to relay correct information to the masses, which in my opinion is like trusting
the priesthood in the past (blind submission). Every one has an agenda and a vested interest in certain outcomes.
The thing with science is that it can be tested, and re-tested. Here's hte difference.
Priest 1: "My god said that this land belongs to people of MY faith!"
Priest 2: "You lie! OUR
god granted us this land! "
Priest 1: "Your god is but a demon sent to lead you astray from the glory of the one true god; ours!"
Priest 2: "Our holy book warned us you would say that! YOU are hte demon!"
Priest 1: "According to the holy scriptures of our temple, if you will not submit, you must be destroyed!"
Scientist 1: "My studies have shown that one can generate vast amounts of antimatter by attaching a jar of Jif peanut butter to the electrical sensors
on a platypus' snout!"
Scientist 2: "Yeah, about that. I read your work and decided to try it out myself. All I got was a monotreme covered in peanut butter."
Scientist 1: "Oh, I hate when that happens. Did you remember to use the size two alligator clip?"
Scientist 2: "I did, yes."
Scientist 3: "Hey guys. I just tried Scientist 1's experiment, and all I got was a monotreme covered in-"
Scientist 1: "*Sigh* Okay, I'm going to go re-test and evaluate my results. Thanks for your input guys."
Simply put, the only thing we all know is that we truly know nothing. The one constant is that as time progress', so does our science and the
minds behind the science.
Speak for yourself; I know plenty. For instance, i know that if I pick up one stick, and then another, I now have two sticks, because 1+1=2. Stunning,
huh? I also know that if I break these two sticks, I now have four, because 2x2=4. Surely, I must be a wizard.
Meanwhile you're sitting there and trying to figure out how to move your hand because, of course, you know nothing, right?
You can (badly) quote Socrates all you want, but that doesn't actually make your arguments correct.
So to completely write off "god" (Not a fan of the term) when we truly dont understand "god" nor the universe, appears to be utterly ignorant
and rigid just as religion often is.
Well, no, actually, it makes perfect sense.
This is your argument; "I demand you accept the existence of Derpweengoglamoosh. What is Derpweengoglamoosh? Something you can't understand, therefore
you MUST accept that it exists. Anyone who denies the existence of Derpweengoglamoosh is CLOSE-MINDED and FANATIC!"
Yeah, doesn't make sense, does it? Look, if you don't have any concept of what something is, then it might as well not exist until you find some way
to gather such a concept. And since, according to the "experts," god is unknowable, well then, who cares? it's a non-entity not worth wasting time
thinking about, any more than it's worth your time to ponder Derpweengoglamoosh.
To accept something just because someone else mentions it to you, with a total absence of understanding, much less evidence, that's
Being presented with something - say, god - and coming to a conclusion that such a thing has no evidence for itself and even those who accept it claim
it cannot be understood, so it is therefor not worth bothering about, is the opposite of ignorance.
Science brings us many answers but in no way the full picture. Just as religion often does in a metaphorically speaking way. Even Einstein
spoke of religion, art, and science being just branches of the same tree.
Actually, science has the best potential to answer everything. The problem is that one answer leads to more questions based on that answer, thus
"everything" becomes infinite.. Let me put it this way. If religion and science were given graphical representations,
would be religion, while
would be science.
Science shows us that no matter how big and awesome we think the picture is, it's actually way bigger and complex than that... and then it's way
bigger and more complex than that
, and so on. Like hte pictures show, science is fractal. Religion however, tells us that the universe is only
so big, and only this portion counts at all, and only these few pixels of the image are truly
worth consideration, in particular that one over
there in that corner; small and decreasingly simplistic.
edit on 7/6/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)
7/6/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)