MAYBE THE DUMBEST THING I'VE EVER READ

Bloody Hotdogs!

I was just sent the article "Creation Declares the Glory of God!" (w04 6/1 pp.9-14). I think it might contain the stupidest paragraph I have ever read:

" Scientific research is limited—restricted to what humans can actually observe or study. Otherwise it is mere theory or guesswork. Since “God is a Spirit,” he simply cannot be subjected to direct scientific scrutiny. It is arrogant, therefore, to dismiss faith in God as unscientific. Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth of Cambridge University observed that the scientific method itself is “a religious approach.” How so? “It rests upon an unquestioning faith that natural phenomena conform to ‘laws of nature.’” So when someone rejects belief in God, is he not simply exchanging one type of faith for another? In some cases, disbelief appears to be a deliberate refusal to face the truth. The psalmist wrote: “The wicked one according to his superciliousness makes no search; all his ideas are: ‘There is no God.’”"

"Scientific research is limited—restricted to what humans can actually observe or study."

Agreed.

"Otherwise it is mere theory or guesswork."

Agreed.

" Since “God is a Spirit,” he simply cannot be subjected to direct scientific scrutiny."

Therefore God is "mere theory or guesswork." God by this definition is indistiguoshable from something that does not exist.

"It is arrogant, therefore, to dismiss faith in God as unscientific."

My brain has turned to liquid.

"Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth of Cambridge University observed that the scientific method itself is “a religious approach.” How so? “It rests upon an unquestioning faith that natural phenomena conform to ‘laws of nature.’”"

(Classic example of quote mining) "Look at those ridiculous scientists with their religious faith! Religious! Faith! See? They're just as bad as us!"

" So when someone rejects belief in God, is he not simply exchanging one type of faith for another?"

How long ago was this creationist junk debunked? Has no one told them?

"In some cases, disbelief appears to be a deliberate refusal to face the truth."

Does this make your blood boil?

Truth seeker 674

I agree not quite the stupidest thing I ever read but it should be in the running. Science has nothing to do with faith.

slimboyfat

He makes a good point. Materialism assumes materialism in order to prove itself. It is circular and requires faith every bit as much as any faith position. Don't fall into the typical JW and ex-JW trap of assuming there must be a right and a wrong answer to everything.

"Right and wrong, never helped us get along", a wise man once said.

cofty

Science may not prove there is no god but it does render her/him/it redundant.

It does prove conclusively there was no Adam and Eve, no fall from perfection and no flood. Humans descended from a common non-human ancestor over millions of years.

Religious beliefs must find a way to accommodate these facts or they deserve to be held in contempt by rational people.

There is absolutely no comfort for theism from science.

slimboyfat

God may not approve of science but he does render it redundant.

He does not prove conclusively that Adam and Eve walked the earth, but he leaves it as a matter of faith rather than provide a flood of evidence. Humans walked the earth millions of years ago in the minds of decent science fiction writers.

Scientific beliefs must find a way to accommodate themselves with the secret knowledge of the heart or else they deserve to be held in contempt by all right feeling people.

There is absolutely no comfort in science.

Captain Obvious

SBF.... Wow.... Materialism assumes materialism and therefore if circular and requires faith? Hmm. No.

Does assuming materialism mean assuming the non supernatural? Material can assume material, because material can be proven with evidence. No need for the assumption that god did it any more than we need to assume aliens did it. You, in that statement are the one inserting the supernatural. You wanna talk about circular?

If god leaves the story of Adam and Eve as a matter of faith rather than provide a flood of evidence... Why doesn't he at least provide a scrap of evidence that could at least try? Why make a person of faith ignore a mountain of evidence to the contrary in order to believe? How loving is that?

Cofty hit the nail on the head. Science makes god redundant. He was a fine explanation for the unexplainable for thousands of years, but we don't need sky daddy anymore. The bible is simply contradictory of fact. It is incompatible with what we can readily see and prove on earth. If god is so powerful, why not give us a better book? One that doesn't need to be excused away constantly.

I can rest easy knowing that no human sacrifice is required to redeem me.

When I die, I die. Death is not punishment.

I will probably die of old age, not tooth decay at 48 years old.

Religion offers demonstrably false comfort. False comfort is no comfort at all.

MAYBE THE DUMBEST THING I'VE EVER READ

Share this