Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Question_Assumptions

First thing, let me say thanks for your posts. They're a breath of fresh air. Philosophically, I would disagree that the Lord wants to remain ambiguous. It is just that science isn't going to reveal the Creator's purpose. To be clear, the fool's errand is to try to use science when the search for the Creator's purpose involves intangibles such as faith. I'm not saying looking for meaning is a fool's errand, and I'm not saying that proving to one's self that the Creator exists is a fool's errand. It is just that science is the *wrong tool* for the job.


170 posted on 12/03/2005 1:39:13 PM PST by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies ]


To: Liberal Classic
First thing, let me say thanks for your posts. They're a breath of fresh air.

Thanks. I find myself in the unusual position of being a science fiction fan who has concluded that FTL travel is unlikely, ET intelligence is very improbable (even if ET life is possible), and thinks we'll be lucky to get off the planet in large numbers, never mind out of the solar system. Even when I accept the possibility that intelligent life evolved naturally on Earth, my own version of the Drake Equation suggests that we shouldn't hold our breath finding intelligent life anywhere else, at least not intelligent in a way we'd recognize. In fact, I'm tempted to believe that if we do have a Creator, He doesn't want us to get off the planet. And given how our intelligence seems to work counter to the survival of our species (we actively work to thwart reproduction and many have come to the intellectual opinion that reproduction is unnecessary), I wonder that if we have evolved naturally, if intelligence isn't an evolutionary dead end.

Philosophically, I would disagree that the Lord wants to remain ambiguous. It is just that science isn't going to reveal the Creator's purpose. To be clear, the fool's errand is to try to use science when the search for the Creator's purpose involves intangibles such as faith.

I think it's possible to argue that faith exists in the realm of uncertainty. A God who presented us with a universe that is clearly natural is inviting us to believe that the universe is entirely natural and thus Godless. By creating uncertain evidence, God would ensure that certainty is always a matter of faith rather than science.

I'm not saying looking for meaning is a fool's errand, and I'm not saying that proving to one's self that the Creator exists is a fool's errand. It is just that science is the *wrong tool* for the job.

Well, if one is using "prove" in the scientific sense, then science is the tool to be used. And so long as science doesn't have all the answers, one is invited to look elsewhere for at least some of them.

I'm not saying you are wrong. I think you are making an interesting point that I essentially agree with. My point is simply that I think it could be possible that the purpose of uncertainty is to make faith important.

185 posted on 12/03/2005 10:16:40 PM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson