Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
markdohle

Lennox and Dawkins debate (a review)

7 posts in this topic

[media=]

[/media]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what's expected here, but personally, every time I view these kinds of videos I side with whomever states the case for evidential rationality. Science has its limits, but to insert ones religious beliefs to fill these gaps in knowledge seems to me to be disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what's expected here, but personally, every time I view these kinds of videos I side with whomever states the case for evidential rationality. Science has its limits, but to insert ones religious beliefs to fill these gaps in knowledge seems to me to be disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.

Lennox is not being dishonest, you may not agree with him, but that charge is nonsense.

Peace

mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lennox is not being dishonest, you may not agree with him, but that charge is nonsense.

I see what you mean. I didn't mean to infer Lennox is dishonest. I was trying to say that I think that when we run out of empirical evidence we shouldn't just insert some opinion or belief to further the inquiry, and state that opinion or belief as fact.

I think that is intellectually...um...unacceptable. Maybe I'm digging my hole deeper with you, but what do you think of this further explanation, mark?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see what you mean. I didn't mean to infer Lennox is dishonest. I was trying to say that I think that when we run out of empirical evidence we shouldn't just insert some opinion or belief to further the inquiry, and state that opinion or belief as fact.

I think that is intellectually...um...unacceptable. Maybe I'm digging my hole deeper with you, but what do you think of this further explanation, mark?

I think he has faith and he did mention that faith is not blind and gave three examples to show that. Faith is the default position for mankind, well most of them. The desire for the transcendent is real, it is a call and we do not find true inner peace until a deep, loving, trusting relationship with the infinite is establish, well from my experience ;-). I understand your point, your are an atheist if my reading of some of your post is correct. I am not sure science has any way to make a statement about God, it is beyond fact finding I believe. Many great men of science today believe in God, I doubt they are merely forcing some kind of issue and not looking for evidence. Some are theist, others deist.

peace

mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply. I'm not exactly an atheist. My mind is open to some form of meta-intelligence that is not discoverable by the scientific method. I don't associate religion with this possibility, though. If there is some intelligence behind our existence, I don't think we have discovered its nature, and we may never do so.

I'm not sure faith is the default position for mankind. I think we learn some version of faith somewhere in our lives from others. We may gain some transcendent feelings by ourselves, and I think we should, but this may be a generic experience we gain from being aware of our small place in this vast, mysterious universe. I don't think this sensation can be expressed properly in the vocabulary of Religion or spirituality.

I think this sense of profound mystery is fundamentally personal, and incommunicable by language. Given the possibility that these feelings can exist within ourselves, they may be purely a psychological phenomenon, and may not have their origins in some super-natural existence or have any relationship to our cosmic environment.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply. I'm not exactly an atheist. My mind is open to some form of meta-intelligence that is not discoverable by the scientific method. I don't associate religion with this possibility, though. If there is some intelligence behind our existence, I don't think we have discovered its nature, and we may never do so.

I'm not sure faith is the default position for mankind. I think we learn some version of faith somewhere in our lives from others. We may gain some transcendent feelings by ourselves, and I think we should, but this may be a generic experience we gain from being aware of our small place in this vast, mysterious universe. I don't think this sensation can be expressed properly in the vocabulary of Religion or spirituality.

I think this sense of profound mystery is fundamentally personal, and incommunicable by language. Given the possibility that these feelings can exist within ourselves, they may be purely a psychological phenomenon, and may not have their origins in some super-natural existence or have any relationship to our cosmic environment.

Or, in fact, we are connected to the transcendent, or made in the image and likeness of God. Perhaps our feelings of homesickness that many have that can't be fulfilled in this world or in fact true pointers. I agree, God is beyond concepts, hence, I believe the need for revelation, for me that is Jesus Christ. If the creator is personal, and loving, then it makes sense that there would be a way for us to discover the truth. I also believe that all religions share in some way the revelation, and it continues, science is one avenue.

peace

mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.