Doctrine is a codification of beliefs or a body of teachings or instructions, taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine Science is as much bound by it's own discourse, language, subjectivities, prejudices and parameters of acceptance of 'truth' as any other belief system is. Whilst it attempts to be objective, it cannot ever fully be, as it is as much a construct of our own minds as any religion is. I happen to choose to accept most scientific explanations rather than religious ones, but it is ultimately another belief system. The fact that it is constantly redefining it's own parameters should be enough to tell you that as a tool for explaining the cosmos - it is a work in progress.
Not at all. I'm not advocating filling in the blanks with 'wild guesses'. I'm saying that Science currently is limited in it's ability to satisfactorily explain the cosmos and that by it's very own doctrine, it must therefore accept that are gaps in it's knowledge. It's too simplistic to argue that where science cannot explain, people clumsily fill in the blanks with religious explanations, that is not the case. The saying, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence is apt.
Sorry PNE, but you are displaying the exact blinkered thinking that you are accusing others of. Where did I 'accuse science of being wrong' ??? if you had resisted the temptation to 'fill in the blanks' with your own prejudice, you would have understood that I said that science doesn't yet have the ability to satisfactorily explain the cosmos or it's existence. Science does redefine it's own parameters as it comes to understand more and more, that is a good thing, it shows that it is not rigid in it's beliefs. It is a work in progress, not a neat and complete tool for total understanding.
This clearly isn't true and the comparison is a very poor one. Science is based upon the most objective evidence that we have available. Religion isn't. You're using the god of the gaps argument, Piskie. Haven't explained absolutely everything? Well god does the stuff that you can't explain yet, then.
*Sigh* No, go back and read my comments. You'll find that I'm saying that far from filling in the blanks with 'God must have done it'. I'm saying that science, whilst a great tool for understanding and explaining, is currently limited in it's ability to satisfactorily explain everything, that by expanding it's parameters to offer explanations it is a constantly evolving belief system. It wasn't so long ago that science said that in order for life to prevail, you must have water, oxygen and light - then we found life in highly acidic thermal vents deep in the ocean, where there was no light and creatures are 'breathing' carbon dioxide. There are plenty more examples. It is not inconceivable that science will also go on to explain things that are currently offered explanations by theistic means, I hope it does. I think that science is currently the most plausible system for explaining our cosmos, but it is not complete. It's also important to recognise that this argument is not about Science v Religion, that is just semantics and limits the thinking, boxing it into unnecessary and unhelpful corners. What we are talking about is having robust systems of understanding that are open to explaining our ever expanding consciousness, which finds itself embedded in this thing we call our universe. I choose to accept scientific explanations generally, but I also recognise that science cannot disprove the existence of a 'God'
Of course science can't disprove the existence of god, as there's no strict definition of what god is. You can't disprove dragons or Bertrand Russell's Celestial Teapot either, but that's not a good reason to believe that they exist. Might a god exist? Yes. Does a god exist? Not as far as we can tell.
For the blind, people like you, no evidence is good enough for the existence of a God, evidence has been given, yet you choose to close you're eyes to it and bring you're 'science' which you have turned into you're own religion and God, as if it refutes or addresses anything when in fact it's just one giant combined straw man-redherring. Just so you understand, I believe in God, yet I don't reject science, so I don't see why atheists as yourself love bringing science up like it's somehow religion vs science? This actually shows how dishonest you guys are that you are purposely creating this fake dichotomy, as a theist, we look at Science as the process that God has put in place for things to work, so when you explain why the tide comes in and goes out, why the earth rotates, why we are protected from sun rays and meteors due to the protective layer in the atmosphere, we don't deny this, we look at this and marvel and see this as evidence for a creator who put this in place. Now you can remain blind, and look at everything around you, and just say oh well it just happened by chance, all on it's own, and for no apparent reason, and I'm just lucky. but for theists, we decide to use our brains instead. .
And lest you atheists forget, Isaac Newton, one of the greatest scientists of history, who made ground breaking scientific findings, was a THEIST, and also wrote about his beliefs too. So I really don't understand who you're trying to fool by bringing up science? It's a fake pseudo-intellectual attempt by you atheists to try and make yourselves feel/seem so smart, oh yes look at us, we are atheists, we use science and reason! As they call it, new age atheism, the biggest scam going around. I could go on and list many more great scientists who made great strides in the field of science, scientists who were THEISTS.
Evidence? Easy, all the science you constantly refer to, that is all the evidence you need, the process of how things work and function.
That's like saying the mechanical process of car is called engineering, but not evidence of an intelligent person who put that process in place. When we look at the mechanical process of a car, we know someone put that process in place that makes it work that way, the same with science, we know someone put these processes in place to work.
PNE that is not evidence of science - science is the study of that which already exists in our physical world in order to gain knowledge and understanding of why things are the way they are. Of course science has developed into applied science to use this knowledge to 'create' benefits for human needs, but that is a different subject altogether. The point 87 is making - one which is a very old and unanswered point - is how and why did all that exists come about? Science has failed totally to provide answers. The argument likening God to Gandalf is not relevant - God is just one explanation and answer (it just happens to be the most popular explanation) to the very question that science cannot answer. To this end I see clearly why some scientists can and very much do hold a strong belief in God. If one chooses not to believe in God then presumably they have some other belief as to the answer humanity has sought for all time.
So here you have your belief - not founded on any proof. To believe it was all just an accident is a gigantic leap of faith, no smaller than believing in God. Because science cannot prove or even explain something it does not mean that there can be no reason to it. Its plain and simple really - we just don't know. Some choose God as their faith, others choose your approach. Neither can be proven (at least not yet) to be right or wrong and both are purely down to faith. This is precisely the reason why this debate has gone round in circles for generations.
Who says that it's an accident? Saying that we don't know is a far better answer than just inserting one with absolutely nothing to back it up. Intelligent design is a laughable concept. Humans clearly haven't been created with a plan in mind and if the universe was created for us, then it's exceptionally hostile, isn't it? We can't survive in virtually any of it.
