Post by Al Moritz on Jul 29, 2008 16:20:49 GMT
many (or even most) theists also do not always operate on the highest levels of scientific, historical and philosophical knowledge and of intellectual consistency, honesty and integrity
Al, I wonder if you are being a little harsh here? I seem to be the sort of person who needs to think things through, have reasons for what I believe, based on evidence, etc, as I guess most of us on this forum would be. And such an approach is necessary for a scientist, and for many other aspects of life. But it is obvious that many people are not the same, and live their lives without a great deal of intellectual reflection on metaphysical (or other) issues - but that does not necessarily prevent them living satisfactory lives. We may feel they miss out somewhere, but they may not have the time, interest, education or temperament to approach things in a more knowledgable, reasoning way, and it would be unfair to criticise them for that. Our acceptance of this should be all the more willing if they are believers, because revelation and faith are clearly ways of knowing for believers that are not totally dependent on logic and evidence.
I think the problem comes when (1) such people get out of their depth by joining discussions they are not really up to (but then, sometimes I think the same is true of me when I mix with knowledgable scientists or historians), or (2) those who say they believe only in logic and science, then behave otherwise, as we have seen in the discussion which started this thread off.
Yes, you are right. And from the point of accepting the existence of God, it really does not matter too much if you believe that God created everything "directly by His hand" or, more in line with the findings of science, simply designed and sustains an elegant set of laws of nature that let the world self-assemble by physical and biological evolution. That these laws have to be very special to allow for physical and biological evolution is clear from the study of anthropic coincidences, and the commonsense explanation (which can only be avoided by miserably contortionist mental acrobatics) is that they clearly and unmistakably point to a designer. So I would still say that not just for the "folk" interpretation of things, but also for what science actually tells us, Romans 1:20 still holds:
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible attributes-his eternal power and divine nature-have been understood and observed by what he made, so that people are without excuse."
Knowledge of science is desirable for theists, however, for two reasons. First, it can increase the awe for God's creation and thus of God tremendously, since He is apparently much "cleverer" than anyone could have imagined, and second, without it believers are helpless, often even ludicrous, in their confrontation with atheists, and make things worse rather than better.
Al