GDR
John separates his science and his faith other than to show how they are compatible.
You cannot show compatibility by compartmentalization though. If they do not support one the other then no compatibility exists except by making claims despite the evidence.
polkinghorne writes:
Religion is concerned with asking, and seeking the answers to, deeper questions about the world in which we live -- questions of meaning and purpose and destiny.
That is just the point though. Religion does not
seek answers, it makes them up. If we had answers we could implement them, yet thousands of years have gone by and religion has solved nothing.
It moves us from the largely impersonal world of scientific knowledge, to the world of personal encounter, with all the risk and ambiguity and necessary commitment that's involved in that.
That is staggering to me. Exactly how is the study of the nature of our structure and how things work in anyway impersonal? Religion has a personal encounter with what then? A claimed deity that performs incredible feats without leaving a trace? A being whose qualities vary dependent upon which religion you inquire of?
I can see the ambiguity being as it is self imposed but where is the risk? What commitment are you speaking of, stubbornness?
Someone else might find it compelling. Both of us lack objectivity.
That is not an answer. What could possibly make sentences pasted together without logical progression and in much contradiction of itself compelling? And please expand on where you think I lack objectivity.
But you only acknowledge scientific evidence. The scientific evidence is that the universe is finely tuned. That doesn't constitute scientific evidence for the existence of God, but it might make one think about whether or not there is an intelligence or "Mind" that caused it to be that way. We come to different conclusions but neither of us can prove our beliefs.
But that is just it.The universe is not finely-tuned for life. We presume that the world is somehow of such balance and beauty because we thinking creatures can comprehend it out of arrogance.
On this one pale blue dot{credit to Carl here} orbiting a star with 7 other planets on which we have yet to detect life we find that there is just a little sliver of conditions available in which sentient life can barely survive. On this planet we are at the mercy,
even with the technology, of the forces of nature.
The vastly greater realm of the cosmos is distinctly hostile to organisms such as ourselves. On this planet we adapt to the conditions or die,except by dint of the technology we have learned to harness by scientific study of the nature of things.
Even if we had fine-tuning why would it not be us who are fine-tuned to the world rather than vice-versa?
What exactly is the evidence that speaks of a "Mind" or intelligence that is somehow disembodied and leaves no trace nor exists except in those who first adhere to believing
in spite of a lack of any reasonable support to show this to be the case?
And then you state that this non entity caused something to happen without explaining except to purport that magic really exists as though this were a perfectly reasonable point of view.
I do not need to believe that which can be evidenced since the evidence speaks for itself. I do not claim that world itself is even completely comprehensible but that does not make a case for the patently absurd.
Polkinghorne, unlike Dawkins is clear as to when he is talking science and when he is talking religion. He is not saying that his "faith" is scientific. He is saying that they aren't contradictory and that in his view they compliment each other.
Please do explain how they compliment one another because I think that is not the case. It appears to me that John keeps them separate in order to avoid the inevitable conflict. He is of two minds which does not make for a stable platform methinks.
He is saying that he believes that there is a Mind behind all of creation. He is saying that the way he views and experiences the world causes him to come to that conclusion. I have come to the same conclusion and you the opposite conclusion. There is no scientific evidence to prove any of us right.
There is ample evidence to show that the world was not created specifically by way of the fact that there is no evidence to show it was.
If the world was created by an entity or intelligence then the evidence would show itself and in that way eliminate the other possibility that it was not. It is telling that the world operates exactly the way in which we would expect it to if there were no driving intelligence behind it.
On a purely scientific level I agree, but that isn't the point of his polemic.
Then you have been misleading in your OP as this sentence shows.
GDR writes:
I know that opening a discussion by just providing links is not the norm but frankly this lecture addresses many of the issues that are raised on this forum
such as where is God in the world of physics and biology
Polkinghorne never does manage to do what I have highlighted in this paragraph.
™ Version 4.2
