By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Yes. Early in life Darwin had intended to become a clergyman, but he lost his faith over the years, stopped going to church and ended up an agnostic. The story that he had a death-bed conversion is generally considered to be false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin
However, some of our greatest scientists, such as Michael Faraday, have been very religious (Faraday would not accept a knighthood because of his religious views).
That's my point its just a theory,and a relatively new one. With all the scientific breakthrough's we're none the wiser to how we got here. I'm not trying to bash science or scientists,far from it, I was reacting more to Cliffs tongue in cheek post about gullible people believing in things that science cant explain . I think science and a belief in god are compatible. Even Darwin believed there's a god.
"With all the scientific breakthroughs we're none the wiser to how we got here."
We really, really are.
And a little wiser each time a new fossil is found, a new piece of DNA sequenced etc, etc.
yes your right. I meant we still cant prove evolution. In fact the more we know about DNA the more it points to a complex organism that could no way come about by some chance big bang.
yes your right. I meant we still cant prove evolution. In fact the more we know about DNA the more it points to a complex organism that could no way come about by some chance big bang.
Sorry PunteR, but again you're just saying what you think to be 'in fact'.
Look up 'Abiogenesis' on Wiki. There have been plenty of documented studies regarding how molecules of life may have first been generated. And such molecules have been generated experimentally.
Dawkins, early in 'The Selfish Gene' says that that it's not known how this all got started. Which is not to say we need a magician to get it all started.
Logically, if we 'Can't have all this without an intelligence getting it going.' Then we can't have that intelligence without an intelligence getting that intelligence going. Although this thought came to me one night, Dawkins also expresses it in The God Delusion as 'the ultimate 747'. How did he know what I was thinking!?
Sometimes, when I'm observing nature I think 'how the heck did all of this get to work so well?' And when I consider the two options natural selection seems so very exciting and satisfying, compared to the hand-waving notion of a celestial clay modeller.
Sorry PunteR, but again you're just saying what you think to be 'in fact'.
Look up 'Abiogenesis' on Wiki. There have been plenty of documented studies regarding how molecules of life may have first been generated. And such molecules have been generated experimentally.
Dawkins, early in 'The Selfish Gene' says that that it's not known how this all got started. Which is not to say we need a magician to get it all started.
Logically, if we 'Can't have all this without an intelligence getting it going.' Then we can't have that intelligence without an intelligence getting that intelligence going. Although this thought came to me one night, Dawkins also expresses it in The God Delusion as 'the ultimate 747'. How did he know what I was thinking!?
Sometimes, when I'm observing nature I think 'how the heck did all of this get to work so well?' And when I consider the two options natural selection seems so very exciting and satisfying, compared to the hand-waving notion of a celestial clay modeller.
Is it the God Delusion that has this quote? It's a great quote either way, and one i often cite
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? Douglas Adams
Sorry to question the New Athiest orthodoxy, but religion has been central in shaping European culture and dare I say it, Western values for over two thousand years. The foundation of our culture has been a successful fusion of three things - Greek Philosophy, the Hebrew/Christian Bible and Roman Law. Yes, human beings have done terrible things in the name of God - so have Totalitarian regimes in the enlightened 20th century.
The one-dimensional arguments on this thread perfectly illustrate the phrase, "A little bit if knowledge is a dangerous thing".
Sorry to question the New Athiest orthodoxy, but religion has been central in shaping European culture and dare I say it, Western values for over two thousand years. The foundation of our culture has been a successful fusion of three things - Greek Philosophy, the Hebrew/Christian Bible and Roman Law. Yes, human beings have done terrible things in the name of God - so have Totalitarian regimes in the enlightened 20th century.
The one-dimensional arguments on this thread perfectly illustrate the phrase, "A little bit if knowledge is a dangerous thing".
It's all assimilated experience,Christianity was great at borrowing.It's one of those deals that you can't really examine - what would life in the western world (or anywhere else for that matter)have been like without the guilt and fear of religion? And that "little knowledge" retort is one of the most patronising examples in the last two thousand years.
It's all assimilated experience,Christianity was great at borrowing.It's one of those deals that you can't really examine - what would life in the western world (or anywhere else for that matter)have been like without the guilt and fear of religion? And that "little knowledge" retort is one of the most patronising examples in the last two thousand years.
[Post edited 27 May 2016 9:22]
And that "little knowledge" retort is one of the most patronising examples in the last two thousand years". In the last two thousand years, really? Your older than I thought.
You dismiss so much - the cathedrals of middle ages remain among the most iconic feats of architecture produced by Western civilization. Europe's first universities were founded by the church as were the first hospitals. The Renaissance masterpieces produced by artists like Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and Raphael remain among the most celebrated works of art ever produced. Similarly, Christian sacred music by composers like Monteverdi, Vivaldi, Bach, Handel, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert and Verdi is among the most admired classical music in the Western canon.
The Bible and Christian theology have also strongly influenced Western philosophers and political activists - Martin Luther King's faith was central to his life and work.
And that "little knowledge" retort is one of the most patronising examples in the last two thousand years". In the last two thousand years, really? Your older than I thought.
You dismiss so much - the cathedrals of middle ages remain among the most iconic feats of architecture produced by Western civilization. Europe's first universities were founded by the church as were the first hospitals. The Renaissance masterpieces produced by artists like Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and Raphael remain among the most celebrated works of art ever produced. Similarly, Christian sacred music by composers like Monteverdi, Vivaldi, Bach, Handel, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert and Verdi is among the most admired classical music in the Western canon.
The Bible and Christian theology have also strongly influenced Western philosophers and political activists - Martin Luther King's faith was central to his life and work.
Inconvenient to your straw man but relevant.
Ah,the old Straw Man/Aunt Sally jibe. Well allI can say in reply to mediaeval deity influenced monolithic architecture is what a monumental waste of effort. I'll grant you some of the composers in their non religious ouput. Martin Luther King - do me a favour.
It's all assimilated experience,Christianity was great at borrowing.It's one of those deals that you can't really examine - what would life in the western world (or anywhere else for that matter)have been like without the guilt and fear of religion? And that "little knowledge" retort is one of the most patronising examples in the last two thousand years.
[Post edited 27 May 2016 9:22]
Excellently posted Blob.
I hope the poster is not referring to me in particular as 'one dimensional' or having 'a little knowledge'. Whilst I don't claim theological expertise, anybody would struggle to find someone more interested in religion than I (obviously a committed atheist - if one can be committed to nothing) am, and I have read widely.
I have read a fair few books which speak for the existence of a god. They all seem to come to the same conclusion - it's fine to believe in a god whether there is one or not, and that there's no evidence for one doesn't really matter.
I hope the poster is not referring to me in particular as 'one dimensional' or having 'a little knowledge'. Whilst I don't claim theological expertise, anybody would struggle to find someone more interested in religion than I (obviously a committed atheist - if one can be committed to nothing) am, and I have read widely.
I have read a fair few books which speak for the existence of a god. They all seem to come to the same conclusion - it's fine to believe in a god whether there is one or not, and that there's no evidence for one doesn't really matter.
[Post edited 27 May 2016 11:06]
And the retorts oftern include "absence of proof is not proof of absence". "Little knowledge" impliess access to a font of knowledge to which you and I are not privy. I wish I was as intelligent and wise as some on here.
Ah,the old Straw Man/Aunt Sally jibe. Well allI can say in reply to mediaeval deity influenced monolithic architecture is what a monumental waste of effort. I'll grant you some of the composers in their non religious ouput. Martin Luther King - do me a favour.
"Martin Luther King - do me a favour". Do you a favour? You need to explain..
Sorry to question the New Athiest orthodoxy, but religion has been central in shaping European culture and dare I say it, Western values for over two thousand years. The foundation of our culture has been a successful fusion of three things - Greek Philosophy, the Hebrew/Christian Bible and Roman Law. Yes, human beings have done terrible things in the name of God - so have Totalitarian regimes in the enlightened 20th century.
The one-dimensional arguments on this thread perfectly illustrate the phrase, "A little bit if knowledge is a dangerous thing".
Which atheists deny the importance of religion historically?
Obviously religion has had a part to play, and is still of great importance.
Sorry PunteR, but again you're just saying what you think to be 'in fact'.
Look up 'Abiogenesis' on Wiki. There have been plenty of documented studies regarding how molecules of life may have first been generated. And such molecules have been generated experimentally.
Dawkins, early in 'The Selfish Gene' says that that it's not known how this all got started. Which is not to say we need a magician to get it all started.
Logically, if we 'Can't have all this without an intelligence getting it going.' Then we can't have that intelligence without an intelligence getting that intelligence going. Although this thought came to me one night, Dawkins also expresses it in The God Delusion as 'the ultimate 747'. How did he know what I was thinking!?
Sometimes, when I'm observing nature I think 'how the heck did all of this get to work so well?' And when I consider the two options natural selection seems so very exciting and satisfying, compared to the hand-waving notion of a celestial clay modeller.
Thats the difference between me and you Izlington. When i'm sitting in my garden observing nature and i think "how the heck did all of this get to work so well" the natural selection option doesn't seem exciting and satisfying.
For a cell to survive at least 3 different types of complex molecules must work together - DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) RNA(ribonucleic acid) and proteins. They cant work without the other. And If we break down anyone of those three they are each made of complex molecules that work in tandem in a very specific way. If we go back to day dot where the very first molecule somehow formed, how did it meet the next molecule? and if say for arguments sake you had all these random chemicals somehow meeting,forming ,developing, reproducing ,evolving, why is it doing that? The natural selection theory is based on random chance events . Lets go forward a billion trillion years to me in my back garden. I'm sitting there with a nice cold beer in my hand , the warmth of the sun on my face, looking at my beautiful Rhododendron blooming into flower. Am i here by chance? That doesn't seem a satisfying answer to me. Nature all works perfectly ,everything has very specific roles. Its like the cell. You cant have one part of nature without the other. To me it looks designed that way, by a celestial clay modeler if you like.
Its an interesting subject . I guess the next question would be if there was/is a god and nature works perfectly ,why do humans keep messing it up? I do think religion hasn't helped in making sure everyone gets along with each other. The opposite in fact, It has been divisive.
One thing i definitely dont believe and thats the "hand of god" helping Diego Maradona score against England. I think we can all agree on that one. ;)
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
