tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6337887555862662350.post9053686579628409917..comments2024-01-18T07:59:31.728-08:00Comments on The Second Son: Search Judaism – A Critique: Chapter Four, section twoG*3http://www.blogger.com/profile/06104739087560005056noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6337887555862662350.post-58540706518123796192010-06-29T12:31:49.841-07:002010-06-29T12:31:49.841-07:00A scientific uncertainty can almost always be defe...A scientific uncertainty can almost always be defended on the basis that maybe someday science will figure it out. This is based on faith, guided to some degree by a reasoned appreciation of the triumphs of science in the past. But it is essentially a form of faith, none the less.<br /><br />It follows then, that if you subscribe to such faith, you can always argue that arguments such as those advanced by this philosopher are flimsy, because science will *surely* emerge triumphant in the end.<br /><br />I'm willing to wager that we will never see DNA, or a bacteria, or a virus spontaneously generate in front of our very own eyes, without laboratory scientists *seriously* loading the dice. But even this point of view of mine is an expression of faith, not faith devoid of reason, mind you- spontaneous generation is (based on its improbability) an absurdity, but perhaps not an impossibility.<br /><br />We all choose where to place our faith when we arrive at the limits of our knowledge. If it's an issue of sufficient important to us, most of us, then, organize around ourselves like-minded individuals, who share our psychological investment in those areas we can't really place a number on. So you see the proliferation of Jewish atheist blogs, frequented by like-minded individuals, who appear oddly similar to their religious counterparts; they are often self-congratulatory, and oddly confident about areas of knowledge that are fundamentally lacking in certainty.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6337887555862662350.post-37584691263504187222010-01-26T17:58:56.973-08:002010-01-26T17:58:56.973-08:00An excellent point.
I think the watchmaker analog...An excellent point.<br /><br />I think the watchmaker analogy is more about order being indicative of design and therefore implying a designer than about where the matter/space/energy that make up the universe originally comes from. It's not a Prime Motivator argument. Still, your point is yet another reason that it fails to be convincing.G*3https://www.blogger.com/profile/06104739087560005056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6337887555862662350.post-48846578941262583482010-01-26T15:52:51.648-08:002010-01-26T15:52:51.648-08:00I think the "create" in context of Unive...I think the "create" in context of Universe and God is integrally attached to the idea of "creating something from <b>nothing</b>". Most theists tend to ask, if not for God, how did the Universe come into existence? When theists give analogies of objects like watch to point out that a creator needs to be there, they are making a fundamental mistake by overlooking the fact that no one created watch from "nothing" - only certain building blocks were <i>transformed</i> into a watch. But nobody (human) had created those building blocks. They were "always" there. For one thing to transform into another, it does not necessarily take an external agent like humans. Likewise, for original building blocks to have transformed into the Universe as we know it need not have an external agent like God.Ketanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02622410643454108685noreply@blogger.com