The neutrality of the sciences do not seem to indicate or provide a compass as to whether zero, one, or many gods should receive the credit for our origins. Yet in light of such mass variety and contradiction within the religions as a whole there may be good reason to consider that such supernatural explanations are not adequate to provide a satisfactory picture of the true source. This is precisely because they all equally do not provide a bridge from the supernatural (what is unknown) into the natural (everything that can be known thus far).

Then we also must consider the value of a supernatural understanding amidst the overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution not only explaining what happens within species but also within the cosmos! The powers of observation both in the present and leading into the past are creating a picture unlike anything that our human minds have ever fathomed before.

What religion often fails to take seriously is just how far the telescope has peered outward. How about what is equally understood on the molecular level? The science of how light works and functions is enough to bring us to strongly conclude that an expanding universe can be mapped and brought back into a singularity.

Since the speed of light itself takes billions of years and even light years to travel from one part of the universe just to be seen by our world, it really should be of no surprise that we live in a vastly old place. What is more likely? A young universe that contains billions of phantom ghost galaxies that were simply created to look old, or a supremely old universe that is simply unfolding its own story via the processes that have been in place all along? I’m both amazed and perplexed at the whole thing.

7 thoughts on “Science And The Plausibility Of Religion

    1. I think it is wise to leave such a question open ended. In other words, when we have reached the limits of knowledge we should simply reserve our judgements. Reserving judgement would include not committing to certain beliefs that attempt to bridge the gap without providing justification in the present.

      Like

  1. I am reserving my judgment in light of what I and many religious and nonreligious people lack in the present. We lack the ability to narrow in on the question of God and religion as a direct consequence of there being mass variation and contradictory definitions of one or many gods in the present. If we are blind personally and collectively to the actual source of our existence in the present then it is most wise to take a step back and reserve judgement.

    Like

    1. I am certain it was unintentional, but your response, while I appreciate it, simply restated the assumption of the response previous, that we have reached the limits of knowledge (so you are, therefore, reserving judgment), and did not answer my question concerning the basis for this assumption. Rather than making this assumption and then stating you are reserving judgment because of it, if you could step back in front of the assumption and kindly provide the foundation for it, I would appreciate it.

      Addressing your additional remarks, which I sincerely appreciate, with all due respect, you are making more rather large assumptions so if I could address them as well and ask you to address them, too, please. “we lack the ability to narrow in on the question of God and religion as a direct consequence of there being mass variation…” May I ask what is the basis for your assumption that mass variation renders mankind unable to determine if the Christian God (or any other god) is the creator of the universe? I do not see how the latter logically or reasonably follows or flows from the former so if you could please let me know your basis for such an assumption.

      And “…we lack the ability to narrow in on the question of God and religion as a direct consequence of there being…contradictory definitions of one or many gods in the present.” Again, may I ask what is the basis for your assumption that the existence of multiple theistic worldviews today (i.e., pantheism, panentheism, polytheism, deism, monotheism) whose “definitions” conflict with one another renders mankind unable to determine if the Christian God (or any other god) is the creator of the universe? Again, I do not see how the latter logically or reasonably follows or flows from the former so if you could please let me know your basis for such an assumption.

      And lastly, “,,,we are blind personally and collectively to the actual source of our existence in the present…” Again, may I ask what is the basis for this assumption?

      All of the aforementioned assumptions, while being assumptions you have made based on underlying beliefs you personally possess, are obviously not assumptions or beliefs many others hold, myself included, and they cannot be correct simply because you hold them else the assumptions and beliefs every person holds would necessarily also be correct, which is an impossibility as it violates the law of noncontradiction – something cannot be true and not true at the same time in the same context so two contradictory beliefs cannot both be correct – or unless you were God Himself, which would mean you apparently don’t believe in your own existence. So in order to discuss things further, it is necessary to do away with all assumptions and get to the underlying beliefs and the basis for them in order to discern the truth or falsity of their foundation. That is the impetus for my questions.

      Like

  2. Alright, so there is the question of what we are assuming and how we are assuming? The way I seek to use my assumptions is to remain consistent with what I know personally in the present as well as with what is known factually within the world. So I am assuming that the highest forms of evidence and knowledge are acquired largely by what is known both scientifically and logically.

    Now, my argument is that it is all about how we assume. The question of God is problematic because by definition this being is considered both invisible and immaterial. The immateriality of this being is where there seems to be a big problem. This ends up being a claim that is not based from any other forms of knowledge in the present. It is simply an abstraction of the mind at best!

    This is an idea that is simply floating in our heads and it is not claimed exclusively by Christianity. It is claimed by many other forms of Theism and Polytheism. Well, this means we need to back the truck up and assess what can really be known in this regard? If more than one religion is fighting for my exclusive attention and each of these religions depends on a God or set of gods that are immaterial by definition, then there exists no present method to verify the truthfulness of any of these claims. There is no reason to employ bias in this regard!

    So yes, I am making assumptions, everybody does, but how we assume should be of interest to all of us. Should we seek to complicate our assumptions with ideas that are twice removed from what is known in the world, or should we simplify our approach and reserve judgement until further knowledge can be acquired?

    It’s a heated debate, and let me qualify everything I’ve said to you today with a kind greeting! It’s a pleasure to meet you and I’m wishing you all the best in your search for what is true and noble within this life. 🙂

    Like

    1. Thank you so much again for the response!! Just a couple things. You used the qualifier “largely” concerning how evidence and knowledge can be attained, which would indicate you believe they can be attained via means other than strictly scientific and logic, which I would agree with. But… your comments and posts actually seem to indicate that you believe knowledge can only come through science and scientific means and can be gained in no other way – all else is abstraction and ideas that are simply floating around in our heads and so should be dismissed (which is ironically the category logic would fall into). Please let me know if I am incorrect and if you do believe evidence and knowledge can come in forms other than scientific and what those forms are.

      I am not sure what you mean by “highest forms of evidence” because it is neither logical nor scientific to dismiss any form of evidence, be it scientific, logical or otherwise. To dismiss evidence simply because you consider it to be at a level other than the “highest” form would mean that any beliefs you hold that stand in opposition to the evidence you are dismissing, you are holding them in spite of the evidence, against the evidence, contrary to the evidence, not because of it, which is what is termed blind faith.

      And lastly, going to the inability to prove the truth of a religious worldview which professes belief in an immaterial god or gods and going along with your assumption, though scientifically inaccurate, for discussion’s sake that science is the only means by which evidence and knowledge can be gained and truth known, do you actually believe science is incapable of proving or providing evidence of the immaterial?

      And I am also thoroughly pleased to have met you and sincerely appreciate the cordial exchange in the search for truth!!

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s