What's left is scientific enquiry.Simples.
Scientific enquiry is how people understand the natural world. God don't come into that so it cannot be reasonably applied..
not so simples
Everything is open to enquiry, including human-generated suppositions.
Everything is open to enquiry, including human-generated suppositions
Sure, but not all to scientific enquiry
The phrase is not "queerer than we can know", as you conveniently twist it. It's "not only queerer than we think, but queerer than we can think".The idea that there is a god is a thought, ergo it's inadequate.
What's left is scientific enquiry.
Don't understand. God and science are orthogonal concepts, not opposing. Science seeks to explain how the universe works. Believing it was created by God does not stop you tryign to figure out how it works, does it?
Creationism and evolution - they are opposing concepts, for sure.
No scientist worth his salt has ever said god is beyond our thinking and our science.
Except Stephen Jay Gould
link to the quote
Can't be arsed, pretty sure there is a Wiki site dealing with it
Can't be arsed, pretty sure there is a Wiki site dealing with it
nothing on his page hence my request.
Can't be arsed, pretty sure there is a Wiki site dealing with it
nothing on his page hence my request.
Whoosh?
There is no conflict between science and religion. Creationism is only a local movement, prevalent only among the few sectors of American Protestantism that read the Bible as an inerrant, literally true document. Creationism based on biblical literalism makes little sense in either Catholicism or Judaism, for neither religion maintains any extensive tradition for reading the Bible as literal truth. The lack of conflict arises from a lack of overlap between the respective domains of professional expertise of science and religion. No conflict should exist because the magisteria of science and religion do not overlap. According to the principle of NOMA — “nonoverlapping magisteria” — science covers the empirical universe, while religion covers questions of moral meaning and ethical value. This principle was obeyed by both Pius XII and John Paul II. They both saw no conflict between Catholic faith and a theory of evolution. However, there is one important difference between their positions. Pius XII admitted evolution as a legitimate hypothesis, but at the same time he proclaimed that the theory of evolution had not been proven and might well be wrong. On the other hand, John Paul II stated that evolution can no longer be doubted. Now, he stated, evolution must be accepted not merely as a plausible possibility but also as an effectively proven fact. This fact is no threat to religion if one accepts the principle of NOMA. As a consequence of this principle, religion can no longer dictate the factual conclusions that belong to the magisterium of science, nor may scientists decide on moral truths.
while religion covers questions of moral meaning and ethical value.
take point with this, my moral and ethical values are not religion derived
also there is nothing in that paragraph that says god is beyond our thinking and our science. it also only discusses one god, what about others.
take point with this, my moral and ethical values are not religion derived
you can disagree with the points he makes
also there is nothing in that paragraph that says god is beyond our thinking and our science.
Well, there is really.
it also only discusses one god, what about others.
So did you, was i supposed to guess which God you meant?
But you know what? You asked for where he said this. Sure, he didn't use exactly the words you used but you really would have to be quite pedantic and churlish to say this is not an example of a scientist 'worth his salt' saying 'god is beyond our thinking and our science'. You asked for an example, you have one. It would behove you to accept this gracefully. You are in danger of refusing to change your view despite the evidence.
you can disagree with the points he makes
totally, religion is the last place you should look for your moral compass unless sexism, homophobia and discrimination is what you are looking for.
So did you, was i supposed to guess which God you meant?
any god not just the Christian/Jewish one. you've got over 3000 that you can discuss.
Well, there is really
well there isn't, he is discussing the separate nature of science and religion, not that god is beyond our thinking and our science.
religion is the last place you should look for your moral compass unless sexism, homophobia and discrimination is what you are looking for
Really not generally true, at least in this country.
any god not just the Christian/Jewish one
erm... It was 'any' God
well there isn't, he is discussing the separate nature of science and religion, not that god is beyond our thinking and our science.
I think most people, not looking to score points, would recognise that he was making the point that religion lay outside of the scientific domain and this is broadly the point you asked for evidence of.
It's not really worth discussing further, if you don't think it amounts to the same thing, then nothing else will convince you unless of course SJG at some point chose to use exactly the same words you did, which i think would be quite unlikely.
Really not generally true, at least in this country.
So sayeth the resident virtue-signaller...
But Islam has a problem with homophobia :
http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/maajid-nawaz/proof-islam-has-problem-with-homophobia-maajid/
The stats for this country aren't great either but I cannot find the ones he has quoted on his radio show.
Obviously stats for other religions/countries are available, but I was just aware of that link because I listen to his excellent show.
https://theboar.org/2017/02/lgbt-muslims-uk-peter-tatchell/
[url= https://medium.com/@tommauchline/15-things-i-learnt-about-islam-and-british-values-being-a-gay-boy-living-opposite-a-mosque-ebd385eb3113 ]Not all of Islam.[/url]
You made that up cheekyboy.Still waiting to hear your explanation as to where god came from, BTW.
However the simple answer is nobody knows.. the supernatural energy that created the universe is an unknown, we have our best minds looking into it but it may take thousands of years to come up with an adequate explanation. To then expand that knowledge to find the potential superdupernatural energy that created the supernatural energy is unlikely to happen for quite some time
Not all of Islam.
one persons experience in Briton - the stats still aren't good, and I haven't even mentioned those child grooming gangs...
the stats still aren't good
Do you have any actual stats?
Do you have any actual stats?
I was trying to locate the ones that Maajid quotes but haven't found them yet. You really should listen to his show - it is illuminating and very fair.
This Guardian article is from 8 years ago:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/may/07/muslims-britain-france-germany-homosexuality?CMP=twt_gu
Here's a more up to date one with less severe stats:
"However, when asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed that homosexuality should be legal in Britain, 18% said they agreed and 52% said they disagreed, compared with 5% among the public at large who disagreed. Almost half (47%) said they did not agree that it was acceptable for a gay person to become a teacher, compared with 14% of the general population."
"39% agreed that “wives should always obey their husbands”, compared with 5% of the country as a whole."
the[b] supernatural [/b]energy that created the universe is an unknown
this isn't ghostbusters.
But The Flintstones is a documentary, right? 😐
You made that up cheekyboy.
not unlike religion :p then
