John Polkinghorne, theoretical physicist, theologian, and Anglican priest (!), writes the following about science and religion / theology:
"One could summarize the difference between science and religion by saying that they are asking different questions about the nature of reality. Science is concerned with the question, How?—By what process do things happen? Theology is concerned with the question, Why?—Is there a meaning and purpose behind what is happening?"
I would say that I can agree with that.
But my next question would be: Is there any evidence that the Why? question is justified in the first place?
Nobody would ask "What is the purpose of this hill over there?" - so why should I ask "What is the purpose of this universe over there?"
Polkinghorne's answer is: Just look at the fine-tuning and the beauty of it all, the universe is full of pieces of evidence that indicate that it was created for humans to exist, --
and that is point where Polkinghorne and I part ways.
Because either you see this evidence, or you do not see it.
Nobody can oblige or force the other side to see or not to see the "evidence".
2
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
3 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.
The same evidence that any "Why?" question has an answer is the same evidence that it doesn't have an answer. At the end of the day, it's not about what you know it's about how you feel, or more accurately how you want to feel. People need to believe they have a place and a purpose. So when someone tells you that there is evidence that it is just the way it is for no reason in particular, that feels like a personal attack so any and all mental gymnastics to get to the answer you want is justified.
Happy_Killbot
Level 7
Oct 30, 2019
0
It seems legitimate to me to wonder why.
In a court trial it is usually very pertinent to question motives, to ask why, and to ask if the crime was intentional and willful. Those questions are part of the body of evidence.
Some of the jurors will not be persuaded, and will reject some of the evidence. The jurors get to vote and to possibly come to a decision. In our case we are still debating after thousands of years and no consensus is in sight.
It is a hung jury.
WilliamFleming
Level 8
Oct 30, 2019
0
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but in a typical court there is little or no interest in why a crime was commited, only if a crime was committed.
Criminal investigation doesn't consider it except as a way to find potential suspects. This is why whisle blowers will never get a fair trial and are barred from making the argument that they were acting in the public interest.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Related Groups More
Memes R Us
2991 members
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.