Stanek Sunday funnies 7-10-11
Following are my top 5 political cartoon picks for the past two weeks (having skipped posting last Sunday for the Independence Day holiday). We begin with two by liberals, spinning on the topic of increasing restrictions on abortion….
by Tony Auth at GoComics.com…
by Clay Jones at GoComics.com…
… and one more zinger on our topic by lib Jeff Danziger of GoComics.com…
Closing with a couple conservative zingers right back at ’em, both by Glenn Foden at Townhall.com…
Jul.10, 2011 11:43 am |
Cartoons |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I don’t really understand the space shuttle one? It’s sad, but not a step backwards. It is emotionally hard to let go of things like the space shuttle, but my understanding is that they’re focusing on new frontiers. We have learned amazing things – we know more about the surface of the moon than we do about the surface of our own ocean floors! – there is so much to learn, so many frontiers to aim for. I don’t know the specifics of space exploration but if space shuttles are not the best use of money for the information we get back, then sad as it is, that money should go to other things.
It must have been incredible to be alive at a time when we first crossed such a seemingly insurmountable boundary. Space travel blows my mind and I have never lived in a world where it was anything but possible and accepted, almost routine. I can’t imagine how mind-blowing it must have been to have it go from a science-fiction dream to reality. I think that a lot of what is sad about the shuttle program shutting down is that we are letting go of the sense of wonder and incredulity at triumphing over a once-uncrossable boundary. But that’s the thing with boundaries – you cross one, and then it’s behind you, and you need to work even harder to cross the next.
I enjoy the second one the most – the Clay Jones one.
If ‘poor women’ are the ‘collateral damage’ from ’illegal and unsafe abortions’, then who are the trageted victims of ‘safe and legal’ abortions?
No pre-natal homicide, No re-definition of marriage, No illegal immigration: If candidates are elected who hold any two of those postions, then the White House will be de-odorized no later than January of 2012 and the liberal lie will have been repudiated once again and both houses of Congress will have be thoroughly de-loused.
Unfortunately there are a few enclaves in America where any one with a ‘d’ after their name is ensured of election. But even that will serve a useful purpose. Nancy Pelosi and Barny Frank will be enduring reminders of what liberal humanists look and sound like.
The ‘No muslims’ caricature is a fabrication, kind of like b o’s two attempts at producing an authentic birth certificate.
The only thing progressives fear more than a conservative is a conservative who is black and has the audacity to speak the truth about a liberal who is black.
duces tecum
The only thing progressives fear more than a conservative is a conservative who is black and has the audacity to speak the truth about a liberal who is black.
Haha! Good one!!!
Ken the Birther -
The “no muslims” is NOT a fabrication – Herman Cain said that the other day.
I am angry at what Obama has done to the space program, but I don’t think that this is the last time that mankind will go to space. It’s there and human beings are curious creatures. We’ll go back to the moon. We’ll go much further than that. I don’t think we have it in us to not.
NASA has done a lot for private industry. KEVLAR, LEXAN, HEPA filtering, memory foam, mechanical smoke detector, cordless power tools, orthodontist’s nickel-titanium wire for braces, temporal thermometers…yeah. It totally makes sense to eliminate an entity that has provided countless jobs, raised standards of living for millions of people, and generated revenue during a budget crisis-if your goal is to bring about the economic collapse of the country deliberately.
xalisae – it is crazy – I see that a house panel wants to cut NASA $1.6 billion – which I then read was the equivalent of just five days of funding in the Iraq/Afganistan wars
I see that a house panel wants to cut NASA $1.6 billion – which I then read was the equivalent of just five days of funding in the Iraq/Afganistan wars
You’re right, that’s crazy, too. But the DoD is disgustingly wasteful, inefficient, and impractical. I know this from experience. Everything they do could be done for untold millions or possibly billions cheaper and with no negative side-effects. Everyone in charge in systems like that need to be replaced.
Which is why I can’t understand someone thinking that institutionalizing our healthcare system in a similar manner would be a good idea. Seems to me that not only will that raise costs for everyone involved, but within all probability actually cost countless U.S. lives in the process. Can you help me out with that, Ex-RINO?
xalisae – it isn’t a one paragraph type of answer – but the couple of things I believe about health care:
– as a country, we’ve decided that if somebody has an emergency, we should treat them (rather than leave them to die outside) no matter the ability to pay
– therefore, it is better to treat them early (to avoid emergencies), or have them pay something into the system (so not to free load)
– furthermore, half of health care spending right now comes from the government – if independent experts can help drive best practices and spending decisions throughout the system, we have a chance to affect costs.
I see a flaw in your brilliant plan already.
independent experts
No such thing.
Also “therefore, it is better to treat them early (to avoid emergencies), or have them pay something into the system (so not to free load”
if that were true, costs would already be low due to things like medicare and medicaid, which are in fact the biggest part of the problem as it stands right now, and far from a solution. Medicare/medicaid raise costs for everyone (my mother used to work for a doctor’s office in billing. She said that every time those programs raised their allowables, the doctor raised their rates. Welcome to the poop-mess we’re in right now). Not to mention fraud within these programs (really? You think it won’t happen with Obamacare? Why is this holy cow exempt from corruption?) which costs millions, possibly billions? How many people taking advantage of your premise 1&2 are illegal aliens? Do you think we might want to start THERE instead of creating a new beast that we know nothing about?
I am a Houstonian. BRING!BACK!THE!SPACE!PROGRAM!oBUMMER!
xalisae -
– I think there are enough independent folks out there that can help drive best medical practices
– When talking Medicare and expanding health care, you are talking apples and oranges. Medicare deals with the elderly – preventative care is a whole lot different for a five year old than an 80 year old. Most of Medicare’s costs come into the last month or so of a person’s life – maybe we should just put in death panels – that would solve a lot of spending issues (said completely tongue in cheek!)
– Fraud exists in Medicare – exists in private health care plans as well – I’m not sure why you would think this would only exist on a government plan
– As a Christian and a tax payer, I would rather give ongoing health care to immigrants to keep costs down overall. Are you saying if an illegal immigrant family was in a massive car wreck, you would let them all die? I’m interested to see your thoughts on dealing with health care for illegal immigrants.
“I think there are enough independent folks out there that can help drive best medical practices”
And I’m sure the DoD’s been calling on only the most objective independent advisers on how to do all of their stuff, too. 9_9
“When talking Medicare and expanding health care, you are talking apples and oranges.”
That’s why I didn’t say “Medicare”, I said “Medicare and Medicaid”, which is not “apples and oranges”. Still hasn’t helped with costs, and you failed to address my other point about how when my mother worked for a doctor, she witnessed firsthand prices FOR EVERYONE being driven up by the Medicare/Medicaid system. You think that’s not going to continue happening? How expensive do you think that will make private insurance for those who have it?
Funny you should mention death panels, because they already exist in some states in Medicare. You think they won’t under Obamacare?
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492&page=1
(this article is HILARIOUS, because it’s from liberally-biased ABC, and they state, “Her last hope was a $4,000-a-month drug that her doctor prescribed for her, but the insurance company refused to pay.” OH MAN! WHAT A GREEDY, CARELESS, EVIL BIG INSURANCE COMPANY! WE NEED THE GOVERNMENT TO TAKE OVER AND MAKE THINGS FAIR! But wait-what “company” was this “insurance company”? Why, the State of Oregon, of course! lol! And this is not going to be the case or even worse on a NATIONAL LEVEL why, pray-tell?)
exists in private health care plans as well – I’m not sure why you would think this would only exist on a government plan
Companies’ revenues come from somewhere. They can’t just fabricate funds themselves, or else they’d be put in jail, unlike the government who’s been fabricating imaginary money for quite some time now. Businesses are highly incentivized to fight waste and corruption in their businesses in order to facilitate profits. Businesses with a lot of waste and corruption usually don’t stay in business very long. As opposed to the government, who seem to have made waste and corruption their second job.
“As a Christian and a tax payer, I would rather give ongoing health care to immigrants to keep costs down overall. Are you saying if an illegal immigrant family was in a massive car wreck, you would let them all die? I’m interested to see your thoughts on dealing with health care for illegal immigrants?”
I’d prefer they either be deported before they require health care or be prevented from entering the United States at all. That way they get their health care while not driving up our prices. Problem solved.
x-
I feel this conversation is going nowhere fast, so let’s end it fairly quickly. A few things though:
– Medicaid also is largely with the elderly – nursing home, home health care, stuff like that. I would hope, as a fringe right suporter, that you would like Medicaid a LOT better than Medicare because Medicaid is largely run at the state level, not the federal level. If your argument is that there is underfunding in those areas, so costs are higher (on everyone else) to cover the lower payment of Medicare/Medicaid – then you would almost have to be in favor of the individual mandate, because completely uninsured/free care (a huge part of the status quo, the system you support) would be even further driving up the costs.
– That article on the state of Oregon. I’m interested to know what your solution is? From my quick read, she has 6 months max to live. Studies show an average of two months longer lived – so let’s say 8 months. Should the government pay $32K out of the limited resources that exist in society for her to live the extra two months? If your argument is that she should automatically get funded, no questions asked – I’d like to hear that statement. Rationing exists big time now. Rationing will continue to exist. Unless we want taxes at 60% of our income, we have to figure out when to draw lines. I’m just not sure what your point is in posting this article?
– Take a look at the % of income that goes to care in Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance companies, and then get back to me in regards to “waste”. Are we better off if in a medicare plan, $1 is wasted, but in a private plan, $2 went to marketing campaigns? Percentage paid to care is a key number.
– Your immigration comment – nice dodge – you might as well have said “I’d like to have them treated by unicorns”. Yes, of course – if they weren’t here, that is one things. But I’ll ask again, if an illegal immigrant family is in a massive car wreck – dad, mom, and kids of 15, 10, and 2 (the last two of which were born in the US). What are you prescribing? What is your solution? Are you saying you’d let them all die?
My worst memory from the Space Program: watching the Challenger explode on national television. Best Memory? Getting to visit the Kennedy Space Center in Florida 15 years ago. Are they going to just ABANDON the space program? Or just not do as much? You cut spending elsewhere (pro lifers KNOW what I am referring to) and you have plenty!
This will increase unemployment since it means a lot of engineers and scientists will be out of jobs. Not to mention the smaller jobs.
BAD idea to cut the space program.
Liz – can you detail out the actual cuts? I’ve seen the moon landing program has been cut, but that a Mars program and other programs are still active.
I love these moments though where Democrats and Republicans tend to flip – Obama is talking about more private enterprise for space travel, and all my righty friends on the board are up in arms that the government isn’t spending enough money in this area! I love it!
Should we raise taxes on the rich to ensure proper funding?
Pfft! Why the need for a space program anyway?
http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/037de7c07848012ee3c400163e41dd5b
I saw mentioned on the news, EX-GOP, that when American astronauts want to go to the space station again, they’ll have to “hitch a ride with the Russians”….so more than the MOON LANDING program got cut. I don’t know all the details. Sounds like they definitely cut the space shuttle program.
Did the tragedy of the explosion of the command module and the deaths of Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee stop the program in 1967? Did the Challenger explosion stop the program? No…so, why should we cut a good program that CREATES JOBS? That’s MY QUESTION.
Liz – I would call the house republicans then:
http://www.geekosystem.com/nasa-huge-budget-cut/
“To determine the federal budget, the President comes up with a budget request that the House of Representatives and the Senate then consider and come up with their own independent counter offers. The House and Senate must agree on budget appropriations before the budget becomes final. In his request, President Obama was relatively kind to NASA but the House apparently doesn’t see the same value in the agency. The House’s budget includes a total cut of $1.64 billion from last year which is almost $2 billion short of the President’s request.”
When I read about the specifics a year ago or so I think that the specific moon-landing program was getting cut, but Obama had planned to actually increase NASA’s budget, with a planned focus on newer goals (ie faster travel to Mars, I think?). I don’t know if that changed but there are probably some political trails to track down if it did, and if anyone is so inclined.
Reality,
Evolution is a theory explains that life in its current state evolved from existing life. Providing theories for the next logical question of where that existing life came from is not foolish. What’s foolish is thinking the complexity of creation could happen by a series of random chance events. It’s awfully convenient that plants use carbon dioxide to live and emit oxygen and that animals use oxygen to and emit carbon dioxide. Theories that talk about how life evolves from existing life are insufficient in explaining the origin of life altogether. For that reason, those theories can’t and don’t disprove an intelligent creator. To think that intelligent life came from non-intelligence sources is to claim that a tornado could rip through a junkyard and assemble a fighter jet. You mock that it’s crazy to suggest that an intelligent diety created life. I think it’s crazy to suggest that it wasn’t created at all, but merely existing as if from no where. Natural selection and creationism aren’t at odds, but the life that was natually selected had to come from somewhere. Humans are the highest life form, the most intelligent, and yet no human can create life except from existing life- not even an insignificant microbe, let alone a flower, a cat or a human being. Yet, these people are the first to pompously scoff at non-humanist theories. The arrogance would be delicious if it weren’t so sour.
I like the first one. Why? Because in one fell swoop it captures the lies and intellectual dishonesty as seen in mainstream abortion rights advocacy. This is a big part of the fight. Not only is abortion itself a truly horrible and brutal act, but those who support it are constantly having to reinvent the argument in support of it. Hence they have to stoop to new lows to support their position—what we see in the Tony Auth cartoon is just another pathetic example.
By the way, this idea that if taxpayers don’t pay for women’s abortions, that they will die from cheaper, self-inflicted abortions is total bunk. Pro-aborts don’t care about legal abortion clinics killing women and oppose any standards to regulate them. Veteranarians face more stringent regulations. So when clinics repeatedly kill and maim women- the Gosnell, Hodari, Pendergraft, Aliwahlia, and so on…This goes without any note for the pro-aborts. Except deaths they feel can milk their agenda, like Rosie Jimenez:
http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/weekly/aa040103a.htm
Truly, Rosie was collateral damage for the pro-aborts. While pro-lifers are willing to help any woman in an unplanned pregnancy (no one “needs” an abortion, and those tragic situations where it’s deemed medically necessary to remove a child who is not old enough to live outside the womb- those are still covered by government assistance, as they are actual medical care.
“I love these moments though where Democrats and Republicans tend to flip – Obama is talking about more private enterprise for space travel, and all my righty friends on the board are up in arms that the government isn’t spending enough money in this area! I love it!”
Isn’t it funny, Ex? I think that Obama could become completely pro-life and abolish all gun control laws and right wingers would still complain about it.
And by the way, here you go Ken!
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/06/08/240415/herman-cain-require-muslim-appointees-loyalty-oath/
The first comic illustrates the total disconnect that abortion advocates maintain. Abortion skyrocketed after legalization, and PP’s abortion rates rose right along with the government handouts they received. The more money you give them, the more babies they kill. Abortion advocates must maintain the lie that abortion saves lives because God forbid they embrace truth, science, and facts.
Jacqueline, if you look at the history of religious claims for aspects of ‘creation’ and science and the increasing body of scientific evidence and discovery it shows that the ‘god of the gaps’ theory is being extinguished into non-existence.
This is why we have gone from pure creationism to so-called intelligent design as evidenced by the variety of accommodationists such as BioLogos who find themselves constantly back-stepping as they attempt to cling to foundational religious beliefs in the face of undeniable science.
And then there are still the young earth creationists who just look sillier all the time.
Mother in Texas -
Not an insult – just a label – just like “9/11 Conspiracy Theorists”, “Birthers” are quite proud of their label. Ken is a Birther – and it is good he doesn’t duck from the view, however illogical it might be.
Reality,
I have never been a literal creationist, but even still, literal creationism makes more sense than evolution. “God spoke it into being” offers an actual explanation for life, a miracle that can’t be replicated in a lab. Natural selection doesn’t explain the life to begin with- so anyone who can think something comes from nothing is a greater fool than those who beleive what you mock- the idea of 7 day creation.
Someone who looks silly is the fool who can’t recreate any aspect of creation from scratch yet claims they “have it all figured out.” You do, do ya? Make me some dirt. Make me a flower. Without cheating off of God and using what He made, make me ANYTHING. The scientist that can create matter (or even destroy it- you can’t even do that!) is the one that I will listen to try to debunk the presence of a diety who can- and DID, create not just matter, but life. This is why humanists, arrogant about how supposedly smart they are- just look sillier all the time.
A Christian is going to have no issue with creationism and any outstanding questions that exist.
An Big Banger is going to have no issues with the theory of the big bang and any outstanding questions that exist.
I think it might be the stupidest debate out there – and the thought that any Christian or Big Banger is going to flip their viewpoint in the argument over this issue is laughable.
Of course, in my humble opinion… :-)
“God spoke it into being” is no explanation. It carries no more weight than ‘don’t sail too close to the edge of the world’.
“Natural selection doesn’t explain the life to begin with” – natural selection is one thing, the origins of life is another. Both have been explained for those who don’t think that one of the variety of deities is responsible for it all. Many gods, one science.
“Great flood” – show me the evidence.
The only problem is Ex-GOP, the sciences keep disproving creation theory. So to cling to creationism simply displays faith over reason.
Hmmmm, evolution says nothing about the beginning of life or the universe. Abiogenesis would be the antithesis of creation, not evolution. I lean more toward some type of creation, not sure what yet.
That being said, I agree with Ex-GOP that these debates go nowhere. And they get nasty quickly. Not too fun.
Reality -
Science is about what is being observed. Pull out a video of the big bang or God creating the world, and science can take a look at it and be done with it.
Until then, it is all a matter of faith for either side.
“Pull out a video of the big bang or God creating the world, and science can take a look at it and be done with it.” – I like that one Ex-GOP :-)
Which actually raises the point. Science in all it’s forms is, at an ever-increasing rate, displacing aspects of astronomy, biology etc. which historically relied on biblical text and is replacing it with proven and demonstrable knowledge. Sure, we don’t have video of the big bang but we don’t have one for god either. Science will ultimately take us to the point where there is no gap left for any god/s to fit into.
I believe that the available body of evidence already outweighs any possible creator.
yeah – that makes sense – just tell that to the 85+ year old Scientist who studied astronomy. He was a raging atheist – wedded to science and not faith for his entire career – until he understood that the universe was so wonderfully, scientifically, mathematically beautiful beyond measure. He, at the end of his life (I believe he is still alive), believed in God and that God created the universe.
Remember – he studied the Universe as a professional for his entire life. For his entire life, he debunked God – publicly. The evidence outweighed any possible answer except an intelligent, beautiful designer: God.
Reality, while you judge the scientific evidence as nothing, this professional, after a lifetime has realized the Beautiful.
Anthony Flew, who I think you are referring to, became a deist. He didn’t believe in the Christian God. But the point still stands. There are plenty of scientists who are spiritual or religious, and they don’t see a contradiction.
There are a number of real scientists (and some pseudo) who claim to believe in both biblical creation and the science of evolution post creation. (This doesn’t sit well with Y.E.C.’s of course.)
Just a small example of the sites which include people of this ilk include BioLogos (which focusses as much on the ‘game’ as it does the science), Darwin’s God (a solo effort by a man who earned his qualifications from Biola, where academics must commit to the bible being the ultimate ‘correct answer’ no matter what they may find) and Uncommon Descent (which does not allow disagreement). It’s interesting to observe how the number of areas available for them to argue over become less over the years.
These people can dabble in science to a degree, to an extent, for a while, until ultimately, when it comes down to the origins of life and the universe, they will not be able to reconcile their faith and their science. The contradiction will eventually come to them.
Anthony Flew fell into the ‘god of the gaps’ well. There is some speculation over the veracity of him being responsible for the book published under his name.
Reality, what is the point of arguing this? I mean, you aren’t going to shake the people of faith on here. And you can never prove that there isn’t a supernatural creator behind all the natural laws of the universe. It isn’t even testable, much less provable.
People “of this ilk?”
How about http://www.templetonprize.org/
What credentials do you possess to stack against the luminaries who’ve won the Templeton Prize, many of whom have no problem at all reconciling creation with evolution while retaining their scientific vigor and intellectual integrity?
“dabble in science to a degree, to an extent, for a while”
LMAO
You cite sites you consider low hanging fruit for mockery or critique. “they will not be able to reconcile their faith and their science. The contradiction will eventually come to them.”
Is gratuitous augury a scientific practice — or your leap of faith?
Which direction did Newton’s mind go? From naive faith to science, or from science to deeper faith? How about Kepler?
Good grief.
Are you in the least aware that had it not been for Christianity’s evisceration of Greek metaphysical dualism, science as we know it could not have arisen in the first place?
No, of course you didn’t.
“It isn’t even testable, much less provable” – unlike science, which is.
You are right though Jack. I probably can’t shake their faith. I guess I’ll just sit back and let time do that for me ;-)
The templeton prize!?! I wouldn’t want to possess the credentials required to qualify, be nominated for, let alone win the templeton prize. ROFLMBO!
Yeah, the current winner is such a fundamentalist moron, Reality:
http://www.templetonprize.org/currentwinner.html
Amazing how you go so quickly from posturing as defender of scientific high ground to making light of something way beyond your ken.
Which of the judges do you impugn as being hopelessly in thrall to naive spiritual delusions?
http://www.templetonprize.org/judges.html
Also, tell me whether any of this offends your progressive sensibilities:
http://www.templetonprize.org/purpose.html
Which of the past winners have proven you correct, that “they will not be able to reconcile their faith and their science. The contradiction will eventually come to them?” Which of the past judges?
Did Arthur Peacocke tuck his tail between his legs and validate your cocky prediction? Did John Polkinghorne?
“Laugh it up, fuzzball.” ;-)
The Templeton Foundation is a lushly endowed, private religious organization. It does not represent Science. Science did not have a voice in granting this award, only the trustees of the Templeton Foundation.
Have you looked at the backgrounds and the things that have been said by the various winners of the prize?
“The questions Rees raises have an impact far beyond the simple assertion of facts…”
Newton (who lived about 400 years ago when scientific knowledge was a fraction of what it is nowadays) didn’t travel in either direction. And his faith wasn’t exactly conventional christianity now was it.
And yes, I do defend scientific high ground, not some apologist mish-mash of science and mumbo jumbo.
Reality, are you secretly Richard Dawkins? ;)
So, Reality, which of the funding areas of this lush endowment do you find objectionable under a progressive rubric:
http://www.templeton.org/what-we-fund/core-funding-areas
LMAO: ”Newton (who lived about 400 years ago when scientific knowledge was a fraction of what it is nowadays) …” In 400 years, the same will be said of Einstein. It’s dramatically idiotic of you to slight Newton by dint of your own typing fingers originating some 300 years after his insights transformed the scientific world. What’s your contribution, other than to make yourself out as judge of his relative worth?
Dude. Dudette. Whatever. Please. I’m dying here.
And yes, I do defend scientific high ground, not some apologist mish-mash of science and mumbo jumbo.
This is coming from a denier of preborn humanity? Ok…
Reality considers Donald G. York, Horace B. Horton Professor in Astronomy & Astrophysics in the Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of Chicago to be a purveyor of “mumbo jumbo.”
Reality considers Max Tegmark of the Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research at MIT to be a source of “apologist mish-mash.”
Dittos for Howard Nusbaum, Department of Psychology chair at the University of Chicago. Same goes for Robert Putnam, Peter & Isabel Malkin Professor of Public Policy in the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.
And among Templeton’s many generous grants, over $10 million went to that Neanderthal Martin Nowak, Professor and Director of the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard University.
What a passel of troglodytes!
But that’s just the bread crumbs. Wait until I paste an exhaustive list of the morons Reality deems credulous saps who will one day come to their senses.
Pro-lifers here should feel incredibly privileged to have such an authority on hand to properly place these folk in the grand order of things.
No Jack, I’m not :-)
Your posts appear to double in length whilst I respond to them rasqual!
I assure you I have dug somewhat deeper than the shallow self-selling links that you have provided.
The winners have all been accommodationists or aplogists to a greater or lesser degree. Because the templeton prize is predicated on the infusion of spirituality into science.
The judges?
William D Phillips – “Belief in God is not a scientific matter, because religious statements are not falsifiable. “There is no requirement that every statement be a scientific statement.” “God loves us” is like “she sings beautifully” or “he is a good man” or “I love you.”
Miroslav Volf – is the Director of the Yale Center for Faith & Culture and Henry B. Wright Professor of Theology at Yale University Divinity School
Gayle Woloschak – is director of the Zygon Center for Religion and Science
need I go on?
I admire Newton on the basis that “his insights transformed the scientific world” as you say, but that does not change the fact that the summation of scientific knowledge in his time was a fraction of what it is today. It’s not a slight against Newton and I do not judge his relative worth – his was an amazing scientific mind in his time - it’s simply a fact. With a first aid book and a trip to the pharmacy any of us can effect much greater positive medical intervention than could any doctor in the time of Newton.
Yes, Reality, you need to go on. Inasmuch as your quotes are bafflingly context-free and meaningless, I indeed urge you to continue in that vein. The oracular quality of your gleanings will be evident to me in time, I’m sure.
“The winners have all been accommodationists or aplogists to a greater or lesser degree. ”
Wow. Though familar with several, there’s no way I could have formed that judgment of all, myself, without weeks of further reading. You’ve obviously been familiar with these people’s work for some time. I commend the breadth — and necessary depth — of your literacy!
How about the foundation’s grant recipients? Can you generalize about them all as well? It would save me SO much trouble.
Thank you!
“the summation of scientific knowledge in [Newton’s] time was a fraction of what it is today. It’s not a slight against Newton and I do not judge his relative worth – his was an amazing scientific mind in his time – it’s simply a fact.”
Beetles are insects having hard forewings.These are not used for flight per se.
Isn’t it wonderful that we can be equally significant in our observations?
At any rate, kind of returning to the significance I attached to Newton when I summoned him from the irrelevant hinterlands of his historical niche, can you explain your predictive principle in terms that accommodate our puzzling awareness of the great number of religious scientists who, we have no reason to suspect, ever did quite repent of their silly notion that faith and science are not irreconcilable?
Last item tonight: “Science will ultimately take us to the point where there is no gap left for any god/s to fit into.”
You realize that this is itself a gap article of faith with the added bogus of being an unwarranted prediction?
That it’s also no better than agnostic on the principle of sufficient reason doesn’t, frankly, commend it as much more than superstitious epiphenomena parasitic on some latent memes in your mind.
But you “knew” that.
You appear to have confused your spaghettios with your fruit loops rasqual. Comes with shallow research I guess.
We were discussing the templeton prize, it’s winners and the judges. The ‘Templeton Prize’ was originally the “Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities”, and before that the “Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion”.
Did you know that eight of the last thirteen winners had previously been on the templeton board of advisers?
Did you know that Rees has the notion that science and religion are complementary because they “concern different domains”?
I’ve been aware of the prize, it’s winners and the underlying travesty of it all for some years. So my “weeks of further reading” have been done previously.
The foundation was established in 1987 “to explore spiritual and moral progress through the use of scientific methods”.
The other names you list have received grants for various purposes under the numerous categories of endeavour that the templeton foundation allocates funds to.
So no, I don’t question their committment to their work.
Reality, what is the point of arguing this? I mean, you aren’t going to shake the people of faith on here. And you can never prove that there isn’t a supernatural creator behind all the natural laws of the universe.
JackBorsch
July 11, 2011 at 11:35 pm
Also, I believe that you can’t (with scientific and physical evidence) prove that there is or isn’t a supernatural creator behind all the natural laws of the universe. I mean, you can look and say, “Here’s text written about a higher power” but how do you prove there’s a higher power, I mean everyone’s experience and connection with spirituality is so different.
Reality: So how many Templeton types have satisfied your prediction?
Is your prediction a shibboleth of intelligence?
Intelligent scientists will, eventually, not be able to reconcile their faith and their science.
This person remained able to reconcile their faith and their science.
Ergo, this person is not an intelligent scientist.
What warrant do you have for your prediction? Is this a personal experience issue?
Are you supposed to be quoting someone or are those your own words?
“Laugh it up, fuzzball.”
But you didn’t see as alone in the south passage. She expressed her true feelings for me.
“Reality, are you secretly Richard Dawkins?”
Actually, Reality is much more rational and pleasant than Richard Dawkins…
Reality: It’s a conditional argument whose consequent quotes you (italics). Modus Tollens. I’m wondering just what your prediction is supposed to be. I’m proposing a candidate: “Is this it?”
You elected initially to apply your prediction not to professional scientists of Templeton stature, but to unnamed folks at various sites who “dabble in science to a degree, to an extent, for a while.” This is interesting for a few reasons, but only one is germane: though you now claim to have been quite familiar with “all” the Templeton Prize winners for some time, you didn’t cite them. Why? “Dabblers” in science might well be forgiven for failing to see conflict between faith and science as proficiently as professionals would be expected to identify these conflicts. So I would think your prediction would be more likely true among the professional scientists.*
Why didn’t you cite Templeton scientists among your examples? But not to dwell on the past: Do you count them among examples of those who “will not be able to reconcile their faith and their science,” because “the contradiction will eventually come to them?”
Or is your prediction only good for amateurs?
Is your prediction itself scientific? What is it — some kind of linear regression? “As familiarity with science increases, doubt about prior faith will inevitably decrease?” Does the prediction derive from data? Is it just a careless remark? What?
* Or perhaps not. Perhaps you cited amateurs because their lack of training and experience renders them vulnerable to persuasion at a shallow level, whereas professionals who are more cognizant of putative conflicts are also better at resolving them, defeating your prediction. Thus, your prediction may rely on the credulousness of amateurs, and founder on the shoals of professional rigor.
“Laugh it up, fuzzball.”
July 12, 2011 at 9:03 am
LOL! Some Star Wars comedy relief. Thanks Bobby, I needed that :)
But you didn’t see as alone in the south passage. She expressed her true feelings for me.
Bobby Bambino
Your increasingly tangled verbosity smacks of desperation rasqual. It fails to mislead.
Your supposed ‘conditional argument consequent’ quoting of me fails as the central premise you ascribe is a dissemblance of what I said. Since my central tenet was “ultimately, when it comes down to the origins of life and the universe”, which we have not yet attained, can you tell me who is “This person remained able to reconcile their faith and their science.”?
“though you now claim to have been quite familiar with “all” the Templeton Prize winners for some time, you didn’t cite them” – do you need me to name them for you? Two minutes on google will let you know who they are. Suffice to say that I have been following the awarding of the ‘prize’ for a few years now and have been aware of the truth about the winners.
“As familiarity with science increases, doubt about prior faith will inevitably decrease?” – history speaks for itself.
Are you upset because your attempts to depict me as disparaging those who have received funding grants from the templeton foundation proved futile?
Reality, you’ve utterly lost your moorings. My inquiry has been nothing more than holding you accountable for making an utterly unscientific prediction while posing as a champion of science.
You’re coming back now entirely confused. For example, in speaking of how you ”didn’t cite them” I was criticizing you for posing your prediction of amateur creationist fan-boys instead of testing your prediction’s mettle against highly esteemed professional scientists. You didn’t cite the professionals in making your prediction. I wasn’t speaking of citing them as if I was wondering who they might be. I’m the one who mentioned them and linked to Templeton, remember?
For someone claiming to know about “all” Templeton prize winners, you can’t follow a two bit thread on an informal blog? Please.
“History speaks for itself,” in other words, all of history vindicates your claims.
Much hubris?
Then you go on to try to characterize my inquiry into your prediction as a concern for the dignity of Templeton grant recipients? LOL
Dude/Dudette/Whatever.
I think I have your number now.
Tinhorn.
Lol, Bobby, yes Reality beats Dawkins on respect hands down. He really has an axe to grind against Christianity. Reality’s disdain for Templeton just reminds me of Dawkins.
Confusion really does reign supreme for you doesn’t it?
Lets do a little revision.
I stated that scientists who appear on some sites claim that they can reconcile science and faith.
I stated that once the origins of the universe and life are made apparent these people will no longer be able to reconcile science and faith because the scientific demonstration of origins will nullify the possibility of god/s. We obviously haven’t reached that point just yet.
In some sort of twisted quote play on my words you tried to allude that they could indeed still hold faith. But they’re yet to be tested.
You then tried to invoke the templeton prize as some sort of proof that these scientists were able to reconcile faith and science. Yet they haven’t faced the ultimate question either.
I showed that the templeton prize, it’s winners and the judges are all people who believe science and faith can be reconciled. Therefore, ultimately, they will be challenged to make a choice.
Your next step was to try to claim that I called the credentials of a ream of scientists into question because they have received funding grants from the templeton foundation. I did no such thing.
In summation, once the sciences clearly demonstrate the true origins of the universe and life, all those who claim to be able to reconcile science and faith will need to choose. This is obvious logic.
Jackleg.
My issue with the templeton prize JackBorsch, is that it is awarded to people of science who claim that science and faith can cohabit when it is patently obvious that this is ultimately impossible. Therefore their scientific endeavors are fundamentally compromised.
Wow, Reality. You’re really target rich. It’s hard to know where to begin.
“Let’s do a little revision.”
Freudian much?
You had said: “These people can dabble in science to a degree, to an extent, for a while, until ultimately, when it comes down to the origins of life and the universe, they will not be able to reconcile their faith and their science. The contradiction will eventually come to them.”
Now you’re claiming that your language just there betokens some kind of epistemic eschaton: someday Darwin will descend from the heavens and All Will Know The Truth. So because that hasn’t happened, your prediction is eschatological and not immanently falsifiable.
I guess I should just let that go, eh? But geez, it’s like fish in a barrel. ;-)
Still, let’s go with that, because all you’ve done is dig yourself a deeper hole.
If it’s true that such knowledge isn’t possessed yet, what the deuce are you doing acting as if you already possess it?
See here’s where your evasions really mess with ya, Reality. When you first posed your prediction — the one you’re revising now — you tacitly knew it was good because in your estimate you already possess knowledge you believe folks at them thar sites lack. They just need to larn what you done already knowed — then they’ll be smarts too.
But now that you’ve recast your prediction as a singularity or Omega Point of sorts, you’re no longer entitled to the knowledge you’ve taken for granted — you’re claiming it’s out there in the future somewhere. If it’s not available to others as you’re now spinning your remarks to mean, then it’s not available to you either. In which case, you’re making a LOT of leaps of faith in a LOT of your comments. In fact, your prediction that someday when knowledge you don’t possess is known to them, what you now have no warrant to believe will be proven correct — is just a flight of fancy.
Do you get this at all?
Your remarks cohere less and less when you don’t speak truthfully.
You’re bold and naive about it though. I hadn’t anticipated this from you.
“In summation, once the sciences clearly demonstrate the true origins of the universe and life, all those who claim to be able to reconcile science and faith will need to choose. This is obvious logic.”
Why? If the knowledge is out there in the future for all and something you’re not entitled to either right now, your claim is unwarranted. That’s irrational.
“I stated that once the origins of the universe and life are made apparent these people will no longer be able to reconcile science and faith because the scientific demonstration of origins will nullify the possibility of god/s. We obviously haven’t reached that point just yet.”
Well then HOW THE DEUCE CAN YOU MAKE THE CLAIM?
Geez, Reality.
“My issue with the templeton prize JackBorsch, is that it is awarded to people of science who claim that science and faith can cohabit when it is patently obvious that this is ultimately impossible. Therefore their scientific endeavors are fundamentally compromised.”
But you can’t know that till the future, Reality.
See? See what you bring on yourself when you backpedal on your lame prediction?
And here’s the sad part — all I did was take you honestly with your first explanation of that prediction. I held you to it. You decided you didn’t want to be accountable for it, so you “revised” it to mean something totally different. Now all I need to do is take you honestly on THAT — and it puts you in an even more untenable position.
How do you do this to yourself?
Reality, how can something be “patently obvious” now when it’s not going to be knowable until some point in the future?
Dude.
Maybe you should try responding to what I actually say rather than some twisted version of what I’ve said or the stuff you just make up.
By revision I mean to go through all the material which has been covered. Not change it in any way. Like when we revise for exams. Revisit. Or did you never….
“someday Darwin will descend from the heavens and All Will Know The Truth. So because that hasn’t happened, your prediction is eschatological and not immanently falsifiable” – no, Darwin is but a speck on the vast sandy beach which is science. I doubt we’ll find him at origins.
And my prediction is not eschatological, it is about the start not the end of the universe and life.
“If it’s true that such knowledge isn’t possessed yet, what the deuce are you doing acting as if you already possess it” – the point that I have been making is that ultimately it is either science or god which is responsible for the origins of the universe and life. Since science has been rapidly extinguishing every other claim for a god and what he has supposedly done then I don’t think we’ll arrive at a point where we find a wise, bearded man in a a large, ornate chair.
“you’re making a LOT of leaps of faith” – an infinitesimal amount compared to that required to believe in god.
“Why? If the knowledge is out there in the future for all and something you’re not entitled to either right now, your claim is unwarranted. That’s irrational.” – how? Either god is responsible for creation or he isn’t. Or is he just a lttle bit responsible, you know, like those who claim to be a little bit pregnant.
“Well then HOW THE DEUCE CAN YOU MAKE THE CLAIM?” – on the body of evidence. We’ve come a long way from geocentrism.
“…people of science who claim that science and faith can cohabit when it is patently obvious that this is ultimately impossible. Therefore their scientific endeavors are fundamentally compromised.” – if a scientist says they believe in god then they believe god created the universe and life. In the interim they can work in scientific fields which encapsulate elements of the overall body of scientific endeavor. But if they discover that god did not create the universe and life then their faith crumbles. They must then acknowledge that there is no god or creator and that their faith is false. Their faith and science can no longer be reconciled.
No backpedalling, no lame predictions. Your wanting it to be so doesn’t make it so.
You have revised my words far more than I have.
“how can something be “patently obvious” now when it’s not going to be knowable until some point in the future?” – origins are either god or not god. Yes? So when we reach that point, ergo.
Are you genuinely dense? I’m obviously using Darwin as a metaphor. I contrast “immanent” and ”eschatological” to signify the distinction between your original and revised meanings for your prediction. Your original prediction claimed that at some point in their lives, religious folk who claimed to respect science would see their mutual irreconcilability and have to choose one or the other. When I dogged you to show whether this prediction had panned out in the case of serious scientists who are also religious (I considered Templeton folks to be perfect examples), you wisely thought your original formulation problematic (because your prediction would be shown useless), then foolishly recast it thus: At some point in history, “we” all will face incontrovertible truths about origins that will force everyone to choose between faith our science.
I realize you’ll want to assert that the second version, there, was what you meant in the first place — which is why I was pleased to show how several of your remarks which would have been fine and dandy on the first reading are ridiculously inconsistent with your revisionist reading.
“the point that I have been making is that ultimately it is either science or god which is responsible for the origins of the universe and life.”
Dude. You’re insane. How the DEUCE can empirical methods of inquiry developed by human minds be responsible for the origins of the universe and life? LOOK AT YOUR SYNTAX AND GRAMMAR. If you wish to be taken seriously, do not speak so carelessly.
Unless you’re really a Teilhard disciple. But if you were, you’d not have missed my obvious metaphors. So you’re simply confused.
Science doesn’t create. It is a particular way of probing, testing, and knowing. In fact, to the Christian, science is in perfect symmetry with God, just as humankind is in symmetry with his being. When God knows a thing, it comes to be. Things that come to be, we come to know by science. The latter is certainly true whether you consent to the former or not. We come to know what is, and that is science. Science does not cause a thing to be. Even if you don’t credit God with creation, it’s risible to pose that science brought things to be.
“Since science has been rapidly extinguishing every other claim for a god and what he has supposedly done then I don’t think we’ll arrive at a point where we find a wise, bearded man in a a large, ornate chair.”
Child, how young are you? It dishonors straw men to claim your image of God is one.
” ‘If the knowledge is out there in the future for all and something you’re not entitled to either right now, your claim is unwarranted. That’s irrational.’ – how? ”
You’re actually not following this conversation, are you?
You are (recently) claiming that we (all) await future knowledge that will demonstrate the irreconcilability of faith and science. Yet you make this claim confident that you already possess this knowledge — which you claim we (all) don’t possess yet. ”my central tenet was ‘ultimately, when it comes down to the origins of life and the universe’, which we have not yet attained.” So if “we” haven’t attained it, what entitles you (which, since you’re using the first person plural “we,” would include you) to speak as if you already possess this future knowledge?
Tell ya what — clear up what you mean if it’s not God who created things. Science — being an epistemic product of the human mind — could not have done so (unless you’re into Pierre Teilhard de Chardin or subsequent variations on the theme).
” ‘Well then HOW THE DEUCE CAN YOU MAKE THE CLAIM?’ – on the body of evidence. We’ve come a long way from geocentrism.” You’re not even thinking as you read here, are you? Do you simply think theists are so stupid that you can surf confidently across conversations here without even engaging your brain? “On the body of evidence.” DUDE. I’m talking about your revisionism on your own prediction, wherein now you’re saying that some FUTURE knowledge about origins will compel a choice between religious faith and science. Now if you’re right about that, then we’re not entitled to speak as if we possess that knowledge now, right? Because on your account, we don’t yet. Right? You said “We obviously haven’t reached that point just yet.”
Your belief that we will reach that point shows you acting as if an event you’re predicting without warrant provides the warrant for the prediction. It’s INSANE. “once the origins of the universe and life are made apparent these people will no longer be able to reconcile science and faith because the scientific demonstration of origins will nullify the possibility of god/s.”
You can’t know that until it happens — by your own account that the knowledge isn’t here yet! That’s why I’m asking “HOW THE DEUCE CAN YOU MAKE THE CLAIM?” And you’re obtuse enough to say “on the evidence” like you’re reading some stupid script, uncomprehending of the actual conversation.
You’re claiming knowledge you also claim we don’t possess yet.
You are insane.
Meanwhile, your original meaning for your lame prediction had it that individuals come by this knowledge in their own time — not all of us at some future date when the corpus of knowledge will compel the tough decision you claim is coming one way or another. Your remarks betray that this is what you really do mean (each of us in our own time), since they show you believe you have warrant for this knowledge NOW, and that you expect others to understand even now that this is so.
You see, if you revise your prediction, you have to revise the way you think to match your revision. But who you actually are and what you really think betrays what you really mean against your interest in covering for a lame prediction.
A simple “mea culpa” would’ve gone a long way to prevent you looking like a complete ass, rationally speaking.
I did my best to wring it from you, but alas you had other ideas. ;-)
Your responses are more and more like a crossword which has been torn up and scattered to the winds only to land and fall in various places where you try to construct something of it with no clues, no meanings and no understanding.
If you really cannot comprehend that by ‘its god or science’ I mean that it is either god or something such as the big bang which science will find and show to us then you are fishing from a very shallow pond. Do you require that I be so mind-numbingly simplistic for you?
The fact that creationist theories have been so comprehensively debunked by the sciences only leaves a few odd things which accommodationists can cling to along with the ultimate question.
100, 99, 98, 97, 96,…………………………………………………….7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, ?
You are bereft of ideas. Golem.
You’re not doing the hard work of reconciling the contradictions your back-pedaling introduced into your narrative, Reality.
Y’know, you could have spared yourself all this. You could have just said, the first time I raised this issue, “well, OK, so my prediction isn’t strictly warranted — but based on what I believe about all this that’s what I anticipate will happen.”
That would have been respectable. Instead, you’ve landed yourself in a situation where your remarks presuppose knowledge you claim none of us have yet. It’s laughable.
And you’ve rescinded none, nor offered explanation for the flat contradictions issuing from your keyboard.
It’s no surprise that you resort to the hope that a good offense might suffice as a sufficient defense. But that presupposes at least a good offense. ;-)
Whatever your love of empirical inquiry, your rational integrity needs some serious bodywork.
You get the last word. G’night.
“You’re not doing the hard work of reconciling the contradictions your back-pedaling introduced into your narrative” – the contradictions are yours and I am not backpedalling.
“Y’know, you could have spared yourself all this” – I think it is actually you who wishes you could have been spared from failing to negate my proposition. Not to mention your attempts at divergence into points I didn’t even raise.
“your remarks presuppose knowledge you claim none of us have yet” – and what exactly is it about ‘it’s either god or it’s science based’ that you can’t understand?
“your back-pedaling introduced into your narrative” … “And you’ve rescinded none” – reconcile this.
I haven’t seen anything requiring any defense on my part. :-)
Why do you always add more after posting and while I’m composing my response?
Good morning, Black Knight!
1. You backpedaled by revising your prediction to refer to a future state of knowledge for all of us versus your original realization at some point in their lives. You did this after I challenged the merits of your original prediction.
2. In doing so — dishonestly — you introduced the simplest of contradictions which you now either fail to see or, ridiculously, refuse to acknowledge. Since you now pose that knowledge about origins sufficient to force a choice between faith and science is a future eventuality for all of us, you’re not entitled to remarks that assume that knowledge now. Your original prediction would have left you free to assume that knowledge now, because you originally did not doubt that the knowledge is currently available and that once religionists stop denying it, at that point in their own epistemic journey they’ll face the crisis of decision.
Don’t you see? You thought you could do (1) in some kind of quarantine, some kind of sandbox — in isoation. But you can’t. You merrily go on still talking as if you, yourself, possess knowledge your re-defined prediction denies all of humanity until some future date:
“I stated that once the origins of the universe and life are made apparent these people will no longer be able to reconcile science and faith because the scientific demonstration of origins will nullify the possibility of god/s. We obviously haven’t reached that point just yet.”
How do you know that’s going to happen? You don’t. It’s an article of faith. Someone could assert any of at least two contraries — that such a date will never come, or that the day will come when it will be obvious that science doesn’t disprove God — with no less warrant. That’s because you can’t get less than zero warrant.
What you’re doing is assuming the knowledge you claim is out there in the future. You don’t possess it yet, according to your revised prediction, and yet so many of your remarks assume it. Indeed, in this conversation this is precisely what you haven’t wavered on — yet you’ve ruled it out as available knowledge now.
Had you remained with your original — and still ridiculous — prediction, you’d not have fallen into this gaffe.
And now you’re back to “it’s either God or it’s science-based,” which is a false dichotomy and shows ludicrous confusion about a method we use to know on the one hand, and whether God created the cosmos on the other. How we come to know things has no material implication for the content of our future knowledge.
Science exists in our time instead of having come into existence in the Greeks’ day, because the metaphysical dualism that saturated human consciousness at the time did not motivate interest in the world for its own sake. Once Christianity’s widespread adoption slew this dualism and the world was interesting for it’s own sake because it was understood to have been created by a reasonable God to be understood by reasonable persons created in his image, science wasn’t merely probable — it was inevitable.
But nothing in the rapid adoption of the scientific method in what became the modern world could anticipate the CONTENT of scientific discovery. And that still holds true. Yet that’s exactly what you’re doing — pretending that the scientific method itself implies some particular knowledge (in this case, the irrelevance of deity). And you fideistically imply it of the future. And you do so while laying claim to this future knowledge in your present remarks.
In making science possible in Western civilization — Christianity’s legacy includes, alas, a crop of idolaters who’ve come to see science as an oracle dispensing content in competition with the God who is there, rather than the mere wonderful way of knowing that it is — a way of knowing a world that’s no less his doing with each discovery the idolaters mysteriously think demonstrates his absence.
Ha ha, you’re funny :-)
You attempt to disparage me for talking of the sciences’ rapid extinction of bible-based claims for life and the universe and then you blather on about christianity and it’s role in science.
1. and 2. – your desire to paint the picture you wish is not supported by the facts and is merely an extreme maligning of the points I made. You have been busily constructing this false edifice since you wrote screeds claiming that I questioned those who had received funding grants from templeton when I had only been discussing the prize and it’s recipients and the judges.
“Science exists in our time instead of having come into existence in the Greeks’ day” – there have been a number of civilizations which undertook intensive scientific inquiry due to their interest in the world. Before christianity.
“In making science possible in Western civilization — Christianity’s legacy” – you what! That’s funny.
“science as an oracle dispensing content in competition with the God who is there” – oh stop it, you’re making my sides ache :-)
“a way of knowing a world that’s no less his doing with each discovery the idolaters mysteriously think demonstrates his absence” – and thus you exclude yourself from reason.
Surprise, surprise – a “science vs religion” debate that is going absolutely nowhere.
Yeah, what’s the unsubscribe link…
Have fun!
Yeah, you’re probably right Ex-GOP. I’m not aware of too many astronomers who would bother debating astrologers. But sometimes it’s hard to resist debating people who prefer fantasy to fact. ;-)
and I think we’ve both had some fun
I’d say it is more like two blind guys speculating on what a mountain looks like!
Glad you had fun – and while politically, I agree with you quite a bit on this board – spiritually, I hope one day the Lord touches your heart and opens your soul. :-)
Ex-GOP: ???
I for one am not debating science versus religion.
Reality asserted that science and religion are incompatible — or, at least, that with regard to the origins of the cosmos and life, science will force people of faith to reject the God hypothesis.
I take the contrary view — that science in no way threatens belief in God, nor the belief that the cosmos owes its genesis to God.
So my view is not taking a side — it’s claiming that there needn’t be “sides” at all. Reality assumes a grave conflict between science and religion. I don’t.
Which view do you take, Ex-GOP? That science and faith are not inherently incompatible? Or that when all knowledge is accounted for by science, God must leave the stage and yield the podium to science?
Reality, I’ve quite fairly represented both versions of your prediction. Your first version asserted that the currently evident irreconcilability of science and faith will become evident to persons each in their own time and force religious people to choose betweeen irrational belief in a creator God, or rational belief in whatever science has already shown us about origins. This is your actual view of things.
Your second version asserted that future knowledge for humanity in general would force the same choice for people of faith.
For neither of these beliefs about others’ epistemic crises have you offered even the slightest warrant. Not a speck. Either of these views remain your merest unscientific assumptions, and the latter — being an ad hoc revision on your part — you’ve laughably contradicted in the very act of claiming it. You’re assuming that the knowledge will come — the second coming of science.
Actually, you’re welcome to hold BOTH views — but you haven’t demonstrated any evidence for either.
How scientific is it for you to parade merest assumptions in such triumphalist fashion, as if God — or those who in their experience find faith and science compatible — must do obeisance to science on the merits of your warrantless claims?
Putting God and empirical knowing in an either/or relationship is irrational.
The rest of us are content to esteem science for what it is, and worship God for who he is.
There are those who claim that the world and everything in it was created about 6,000 years ago with everything pretty much as it is now (Hambo and his jesus dinosaur saddle). Some even claim that god created fossils to appear as though they were millions of years old. Anything science comes up with that demonstrates evolution, change, the age of the universe etc. etc., they claim that god just made it look that way.
Then there are those who accept that species do evolve, that the universe is constructed pretty much as astronomers tell us it is but that god still created it all. The whole premise of christian faith is ‘god the creator’.
People of science who believe in god accept a few, some or many parts of the scientific information regarding evolution, astronomy etc. But if the sciences ultimately show us that the universe and life were not blinked into existence by a deity, where does that leave them?
“nor the belief that the cosmos owes its genesis to God.” – then what is god’s purpose? What has he done? Why would we heed him?
“Your first version asserted that the currently evident irreconcilability of science and faith will become evident to persons each in their own time” – that is not what I said.
“Your second version asserted that future knowledge for humanity in general would force the same choice for people of faith” – yes.
“the second coming of science.” – there is no ‘second coming’, it is continuous.
“Putting God and empirical knowing in an either/or relationship is irrational” – hardly, it’s either god the creator or it’s not.
“The rest of us are content to esteem science for what it is, and worship God for who he is” – and when science shows us a non-god cause of the universe and life, what are your reasons for worshipping god?
“But if the sciences ultimately show us that the universe and life were not blinked into existence by a deity, where does that leave them?”
That “if” leading to a question makes a lot more sense if you believe certain knowledge about all this lies in the future. Right? It makes a lot more sense than being certain about it now, since you’ve ruled that out by claiming that what I’ve called your second revision was your original intention. You don’t believe it’s knowable now, so you’d be wrong to be certain that it will be knowable in the future (because certainty about that future scenario implies knowing that it will be known, which you’ve ruled out as a present possibility).
“‘the second coming of science.’ – there is no ‘second coming’, it is continuous.”
You’re being as literalist as a fundamentalist again. The trope was refering to this future knowledge you anticipate — some noetic culminus I compared with the “second coming” because it’s in the future for you. I’m certainly not implying that nothing scientific is going on until this future scenario you imagine. How you would intuit something wildly improbable in that sense, and miss a simple figure everyone’s familiar with (“second coming”) and identify it as a proxy for your own future revelation of truth regarding origins…
“‘The rest of us are content to esteem science for what it is, and worship God for who he is’ – and when science shows us a non-god cause of the universe and life, what are your reasons for worshipping god?”
You realize that event is as inaccessible to your mind as the second coming of Christ himself, right? Neither what you predict nor what Christians await has occured.
I think that means we’re at an impasse.
But by way of reply, do you believe a non-divine cause of the universe satisfies the law of sufficient reason? This cause could not be contingent if it were to satisfy the law of sufficient reason. No merely contingent cause could eliminate God from consideration. But how, exactly, would science identify that a cause it discovered is non-contingent? It wouldn’t be science if it did that — it would be philosophy (though Aristotle would have called that science) or theology. Eh?
“But by way of reply, do you believe a non-divine cause of the universe satisfies the law of sufficient reason?” – yes.