God of the gaps? Science and belief. (96)

My comment about militant was rushed and i did not mean to make it sound aggressive (see what i did there?

My lad this year has to make his choices about which subjects to drop or keep. The mandatory subjects include Maths, English , Science and .... Religious Education!

The fact it is even called that is leading the witness, critical thinking , philosophy or Ontology, yes fair enough with a curriculum to match. but R.E! Let alone creationism even getting mentioned in science, and even at their school, it gets discussed.

So no sadly it isn't an abstract subject, shame to loose you @clare, good points of view are hard to come by.

- Wulfy

My, what sharp teeth I have.

Edited 24 Feb 11, 10:48 PM by BadWulf

I think you've misunderstood me to some extent. I'm absolutely not a creationist (in any literalistic sense) and I see all true science (and all true knowledge from other sources too) as discovery of the divine. I regard the hegemony of the scientific method as a stupid and fanciful and unsupportable notion as any other form of religious fundamentalism. But even creationists aren't necessarily wrong about everything. The question about conformity or diversity in educational provision is much more subtle. Ultimately I don't think we should be teaching children a single viewpoint (such as a single religious discourse, or a notion that the scientific method reveals all truth, or to steep them so deeply in culture to the exclusion of - say - science, or to teach them that capitalism or communism deliver some kind of nirvana). The best education helps people to understand different ways of understanding, exploring and grasping different type of reality, and give them the tools to think critically about them. In that way, they will probably learn to respect the scientific method as a way of discovering certain sorts of reality, but not as the only method. And they'll also appreciate the value of literature, and imagination, and culture, and religious discourses, and many other political, philosophical, ethical discourses and many others.

I just don't get this science versus religion thing; nor do I get the notion that science leads to all truth. There are many important types of discourse which help us comprehend reality of which science is one. And for me, all discovered truth through whatever sort of exploration is a revelation of the divine.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge" (Albert Einstein)
Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est. http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/posts/226772/

You are wrong about the OP. The question is about theology and basically how big your God, if you believe is.

Is your God big enough to encompass science and all the observed phenomenon therein, or is your God squeezed into the perceived gap in science, Or then again do you squeeze science to fit your God?

I am of course referring to the so called "Creation Science".

Zen S&M: The sound of one hand slapping.
'()_/)
(>'.'<)
(")_(") < MINE!

Lovely post. Our truths. I've been reading about "imagination" in 18th c physiology, when briefly imagination had a physiological materialist explanation which attempted to oust the idea that imagination was driven by soul or by divine inspiration. Although now scientific, cultural, literary views on the nature of imagination probably well divided. I seem to remember that Bohnanza, for instance, sees love as neuro-chemical. That view probably remains counter-intuitive to most rationalists and most atheists who still believe in some undefined metaphysical explanation for the emotions. In all these beliefs we are unable to unwilling to fully embrace materialism and cast off our divine heritage.

Edited 25 Feb 11, 9:12 AM by clare

Humans resembling you, me, Adam & Eve, @HeartofDaftness, @Massivelysubmissivegirl etc originated in a place now called Africa about 200,000 years ago, and started to think and behave a bit like us around 50,000 years ago.

If I believed in a god of some sort, I would want my god to be the one who lit the fuse to start the big bang extravaganza and therefore there would be no gaps.

The creation of boy and girl shapes was, at best, a distinctly regional affair, no doubt undertaken by some lower level subordinate god, who had to take a weeks leave, as he was not allowed to carry it over to next year. He was so pissed off by this that he decided to fuck around with everyones heads and plant dinosaur fossils and leave different versions of animals just to get everyone arguing later on. A few thousand or so years ago, he then decided to release a series of autobiographies (in the main ghost written), which really let the sabre tooth among the Pterosaurs.

"You might well think that; I couldn't possibly comment"

Edited 25 Feb 11, 1:32 PM by Lush_Life

Though more seriously just having a god light the blue touch paper, doesn't hide the gaps, just shifts them all back to before the beginning, where did it come from, who created it, where does it get an entire universe's energy to play with from.

The whole point of a god is an afterlife or it just becomes a question to argue about on sex websites. so it still has to be present and interfering/monitoring in some way.

How does it create an afterlife for every sentient being in the universe, what is the point when he could have made us all immortal in the first place,

Where would it exist.

How does it telepathically communicate with everyone everywhere across all galaxies, knowing their thoughts and guiding them.

How does it judge evil across all those sentient beings in all those galaxies even if light speed was not an issue here.

The sheer amount of energy required to run an omnipotent "god" and the heat produced as a consequence of his ineffable activities would again have to exceed the amount of energy in the universe itself, where does it all go, more to the point, where does it come from.

All nonsensical questions of course, as the gaps are already to small for them to fit into.

- Wulfy

My, what sharp teeth I have.

Edited 25 Feb 11, 7:19 PM by BadWulf

I also find some extereme materialists i#'ve met rather dull, and I can't imagine anyone falling in love with them or vice versa. But that may be just my limited experience.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge" (Albert Einstein)
Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est. http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/posts/226772/

And surely better Dull than burning with the fire of belief and certainty.

John

My, what sharp teeth I have.

Edited 25 Feb 11, 7:20 PM by BadWulf

maybe that's why they collect shiny things?

And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!

Well yes.. if you want to get back to reducing everything to only two ways to understand the world. But the point was that there are a lot of ways to understand the world in addition to creationist faith or the extreme materialism of neuro-science. Even neuro-scientists' understanding of what they are looking for and how to represent their what they think they have discovered is conditioned by their prior understanding of how things might work, derived for instance from speculative phenomenology.

So I agree with wonderer. Materialists are dull even when shiny.

Edited 25 Feb 11, 7:44 PM by clare