Posted on 04/04/2007 4:57:43 PM PDT by roostercogburn
I disagree, roostercogburn, that Collins believes neither in science or God, that he is "just scared to burn in hell just in case he is wrong." I believe he is what he says he is: a scientist who is a Christian.
One respondent to Collins' article (James Lampert of Fountain Valley, California) observed that "The best case of all for the existence of a supreme being is in the very laws of physics: the fact that physics HAS laws, and that those laws are knowable, internally consistent, and elegant." I suspect this is right along the lines of Collins' own reconciliation of faith and science.
Plus Collins' observation that faith is reason plus revelation strikes me as right on the money from a Christian perspective. It appears neither Collins nor Einstein (nor me for that matter) thinks that faith and reason are in any way mutually exclusive; rather they are essential complementaries.
As Einstein famously put it, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
FWIW, I think the best course is to take Dr. Collins at his word.
Thanks for this great post!
Thanks.
Very good. But in the process of using our own minds, we implicitly trust the integrity of our own ability to “Reason”. The point made here is that , by a primary law of logic, a thing can not be used to prove itself (Circular Logic). Reason cannot explain Reason any more than an eye can see itself, except from a mirror, in which case what is being seen is not the eye, but the representation in the mirror, a perception. This is the great problem. The lens by which we understand the Universe, Reason, itself cannot be explained by using the same lens. The presence of Reason within mind must be accepted A Priori before anything else can be explained at all. The enormously powerful construct of Science is, by it's nature, an act of Reason, and the integrity of the construct is entirely dependent on the validity of Reason. Belief in Reason is in a sense therefore an act of Faith, I am powerfully dependent on Reason, I accept its usefulness, but I accept the I cannot explain it, in principal, by "studying" natural processes. That understanding intrinsically must come from an external reference. Something that sees Better, Differently, or more Completely than Reason.
My own speculation has been tending in this direction lately, JCEccles. I definitely agree with you here: "ID theory does not deny evolution. It completes it and makes it intelligible."
Thanks so much for your thought-provoking post!
But as we have together understood this, we must operate within the framework of our condition. And...
our condition is not “reasonable” ( what the heck does that mean?) but congruent. In effect we are but an aspect of whatever you decree to be reality.
But, in actuality, we ain’t.
s, ping.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.