Comments on: Religion, Technology and Science in the 21st Century – Part 1: Uncertainty in a Changing World https://techsomogro.com/religion-technology-science-21st-century/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=religion-technology-science-21st-century Science, Technology and the Future Sun, 11 Aug 2013 04:18:48 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.1 By: Techso Mogro: ‘Religion, Technology and Science in the 21st Century – Part 1: Uncertainty in a Changing World’ « carapace – Not your father's america https://techsomogro.com/religion-technology-science-21st-century/#comment-9930 Sun, 11 Aug 2013 04:18:48 +0000 http://www.21stcentech.com/?p=11037#comment-9930 […] http://www.21stcentech.com/religion-technology-science-21st-century/ […]

]]> By: lenrosen4 https://techsomogro.com/religion-technology-science-21st-century/#comment-9919 Thu, 08 Aug 2013 13:01:02 +0000 http://www.21stcentech.com/?p=11037#comment-9919 Niccolo5. I love the idea of an XPrize for someone who can prove the existence of magic. I don't describe myself as a theist. I am decidedly an atheist.]]> In reply to Niccolo5.

I love the idea of an XPrize for someone who can prove the existence of magic. I don’t describe myself as a theist. I am decidedly an atheist.

]]> By: Niccolo5 https://techsomogro.com/religion-technology-science-21st-century/#comment-9914 Thu, 08 Aug 2013 00:04:56 +0000 http://www.21stcentech.com/?p=11037#comment-9914 Religion is about belief in propositions that are not demonstrated. Science is about belief in propositions that have been demonstrated, or at least are demonstrable in principle. The proposition of the “virgin birth” is not demonstrable. The two approaches are logically irreconcilable. The “true believer” thinks it sinful to subject his beliefs to rational criticism. He certainly refuses to do so himself, and is insulted if others do so. He will not read and honestly address the excellent points W. K. Clifford makes in his Victorian era essay, “Ethics of Belief.”

While I’m personally a theist, not a deist, I refuse religious discourse with all “believers” who cannot provide a rational reconciliation between the kinetic theory of gases and the workings of ordinary household refrigerators. That eliminates 99.99% of the “believers.” My second “no-discourse” filter is even more severe. Given that the “believer” supposes God created the cosmos and all its physical laws, does God have the power to realize his purposes working entirely within the physical laws? If he has that power, why would he cheat and use magic?
On the other hand, if he lacks that power, why would the believer insist that God is omnipotent? The only view that makes sense to me is that whatever it is that God does, he does within the laws of physics. I suppose the Creator of all the laws knows the laws better than anyone else, hence many lawful enterprises are possible to God, that are impossible to all those with deficient understanding of the laws.

I have no use for a “magic” God, and I refuse discourse with all that insist that they know God does magic. For several decades now, the “Amazing Randi” has offered his million dollars to anyone that can prove magic. Randi still has his million. When a true believer gets Randi’s million I might have to revise my no-discourse standards. I’m thinking the prospects of that are vanishingly small.

]]>