13 Jul 05
(That's 'queer' as in 'strange'...)
According to Prof. Richard Dawkins humanity may never fully understand or even comprehend the universe (presentation given at the TED Global event yesterday).
Do dyed-in-the-wool atheists find this an admission of failure? Or an injection of reality into the religious debate?
Do the strongly religious believe this is impossible, as God created the universe *for* mankind? Or inevitable, given the unknowable nature of God?
Just curious...
13 Jul 05
Originally posted by ivangriceAccording to Prof. Richard Dawkins humanity may never fully understand or even comprehend the universe (presentation given at the TED Global event yesterday).
(That's 'queer' as in 'strange'...)
According to Prof. Richard Dawkins humanity may never fully understand or even comprehend the universe (presentation given at the TED Global event yesterday).
Do dyed-in-the-wool atheists find this an admission of failure? Or an injection of reality into the religious debate?
Do the strongly religious beli ...[text shortened]... e universe *for* mankind? Or inevitable, given the unknowable nature of God?
Just curious...
i strongly agree with his assessment.
Do dyed-in-the-wool atheists find this an admission of failure?
in no way does this outlook weaken the atheist position. in particular, it simply does not change the fact that the theist cannot support his positive assertions concerning the existence of god.
Do the strongly religious believe this is impossible, as God created the universe *for* mankind? Or inevitable, given the unknowable nature of God?
i am also interested to see the bright and colorful worms that may crawl out of this can.
13 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ivangriceDo dyed-in-the-wool atheists find this an admission of failure?
(That's 'queer' as in 'strange'...)
According to Prof. Richard Dawkins humanity may never fully understand or even comprehend the universe (presentation given at the TED Global event yesterday).
Do dyed-in-the-wool atheists fin ...[text shortened]... inevitable, given the unknowable nature of God?
Just curious...
Am not a dyed-in-the-wool atheist, and don’t know how Dawkins intended this statement, but—
I don’t consider it a failure to acknowledge the limits and boundaries of the human condition, intellectually or otherwise. Perhaps I should say potential limits and boundaries, since you don’t always know the limit until you bounce up against it; and even then, that particular limit may be temporary. Adhering to pre-set limits can, well, limit you artificially.
The conditions of human existence are not a failure, just a fact. If we are never able to “fully understand or even comprehend the universe,” that will not be a failure, just a fact—unless we fail because we don’t try. To the extent that religions engage in supernatural speculation to either 1) deny that fact, or 2) to assert that it is somehow “failure”—I tend to think that is escapist. To the extent that such speculation is an attempt to reach outside the natural realm for explanations of the limits and boundaries of the human condition (intellectual or otherwise)—I just don’t find that particularly helpful.
Now most religious people are unlikely to acknowledge that they are engaging in such speculation—and some are not.
As regards your second question, for me to offer an answer would be to indulge in the kind of speculation I mentioned above. 🙂
