by cantleave 25 Replies latest jw friends
When does a Scientific perspective become as tenuous as a religious one?
Light the Blue Touch Paper and Stand Well back..............
I know there are some historic threads but It would be interesting see the views of the current (overlapping) generation of JWNers.
BTW just leaving the office be back in about an hour
When does a Scientific perspective become as tenuous as a religious one?
That's an odd question.
What do you mean in this question by 'Scientific perspective'? And how is that different from a scientific theory or a scientific hypothesis?
There's the 'theory of gravity'.
There's the 'agrin hypothesis'.
But there's no scientific 'abiogenesis perspective'.
You'll need to be a bit more specific.
I can't see what the theory of gravity has to do with Abiogenesis! ?
I understand that after the Big bang t he universe would have continued to expand, and cool and some regions would have had slightly higher densities than others. The result of the gravitational attraction of the extra matter in those regions, would slow down their expansion, and eventually stop it. Instead, they would collapse to form galaxies and stars. But that has nothing to with my question.
Nor do I understand what it has to d o with understanding how the postsynaptic apparatus forms in the embryo, how it is regulated in the adult, and how it reforms during regeneration! ?
Nor did I call it an "Abiogenesis perspective", I asked the question of whether a scientific model (a scientific perspective) can be classed as faith when it can not be tested. Since nucleaic acids have never been synthesised in a lab from non living materials, does the idea of abiogenesis require faith?
I hope that clarifies the question for you Lore!
I see it like this: we only know that we evolved and we are here, the how's of the starting process we do not yet know. We also know there is a universe, the how's and why's we do not yet know. Faith has nothing to do with saying you do not yet know.
There have been some scenarios presented for abiogenesis, but so far they are only hypotheses. But with discoveries like the following it doesn't require a leap of faith to consider it plausible.
- the amino acid glycine, a fundamental building block of proteins, has been found in a comets
- Biologists create self-replicating RNA molecule
Faith has nothing to do with saying you do not yet know.
That is fundamental to the answer. A theorectical model doesn't claim to be the definitive answer, it is there to be challenged and interrogated.
Faith on the other hand can not be challenged even when it becomes obvious that it is fantasitical.
When does a Scientific perspective become as tenuous as a religious one?
It never does. Science is a method for investigating how the world works. The religious perspective is a conversation stopper; it thrives on mystery because that's where its god can find a place. Science thrives on what is still unknown because its raison d'etre is to discover new things.
One day we will discover a difinitive answer to the abiogenesis question and religion will retreat into its final refuge, the cosmological question.
Absolutely cofty!
The reason I started this thread was because of a conversation I overheard at work. It was stated by someone, who I found out today is a Christian, that Science requires faith. I didn't comment (still too new in the job to argue with theists besides he wasn't talking to me), but I could see the flaws in his argument and wondered if the theists here would come up with the same nonsense.
I'm sure one of the usual suspects will be along in a minute :)
Those who must believe in a God of Mankind's creation will try to put Science into "faith" terms.
As far as Abiogenesis goes, there is life on earth, maybe other places, but definitely on earth.
Life either always existed and evolved or it had a start.
(Evolution is proven despite it being called a theory. Electricity and Gravity are theories also. The specific ways which life evolved are the only real debate on that.)
If we choose to say that some intelligence created it, then Flying Spaghetti Monster is just as valid as Allah or Yahweh or the father of Jesus. That part takes faith. To say that evidence is not 100% conclusive, but life started from non-life somehow, that's just using logic. Logic dictates that life came from nonlife sometime after the universe started. I think it takes faith to believe anything but that (not the Spaghetti monster part, the "life came from nonlife" part).
If you want to talk nonsense faith, then I can have faith that the universe never started, it was always here. It is not subject to universal laws about time and conservation of energy/mass because it wasn't always the universe we know it as today. The universe loves us and wants what is best for us. That all cannot be disproven (unlike the Bible). But c'mon! Use your head.
The universe loves us and wants what is best for us.
And it does it in the same way as the God myth - by eventually destroying everything!
