Awww…I certainly hope this isn’t a caricature of my position in the other thread. But I’ll bite anyway: I don’t have any belief about God; I don’t know, and therefore I don’t believe. I don’t see how one can say, “I don’t know” and reject the statement, “I don’t believe.”
LostGuy, could you explain why there should be a problem reconciling belief in God and belief in Molecules? Someone has to be pulling the strings. (viz. string theory)
Is this supposed to be like the question of how to reconcile Aristotle with the atomic theory? Do you mean Western Buddhism as well as Western Christianity is interdependant with science?
I guess I need to hear more about how you see them as being interdependant.
I don’t believe in god, as most here I guess, but certainly in science.
The existance of a “god” simply doesn’t make sense to me.
Simply by looking at the universe as a whole or looking at all the many universes combined and then believing that some “spirit” or “higher power” created this little piece of dust in the middle of nowhere called “earth” is just too wierd!
What for?!? Is the so called “god” in charge for all the universes? Or each planet or universe have their own creator or what??
There are simply too many questions, so I choose to believe in the imperfectionality of man, instead of some “higher spirit or force”.
Its not that there is a problem reconcileing them, its quite the opposite actually. Almost, everyone I meet who belives strongly in God, aslo cannot be bothered to question molecules. There seems to be a system of support between Science and Religion that is much deeper than the superfical bickering. That’s the theory anyway.
Hey truthseeker, welcome to ILP forum. Did you ever come to think that when you look at the universe and this piece of dust, that you and it might be one thing, and that thing is God. This is a belief formally known as pantheism. It does not require that there is a God that created the universe, only that there is a universe, and that universe is God. God therefore, also is not incharge of the universe in the sense that God commands the universe, only in the sense that by God moving, the universe moves. We being part of the universe move also, and are part of God. From being part of the universe we can say that divinity lies within. That is to say when looking for God, we need look no further then ourselves. Molecules too, are a part of God. Therefore we can also say that by looking outward in constant analysis we can also find divinity. When we carefully compare the two, we can find that both looking inward and outward are the essentially the same search for divinity and both yield substantial results. It’s thought vs. perception. What would perception mean if there were no thought? At the same time what would thought mean if there were no perception. It is by taking the contrast of the two that we find our true divinity.
I don’t think the two mutually exclusive in any form or fashion. Obviously science has more substantiation than God, but the problem does not lie in God itself, only our perceptions of God. See above post.
First of all, there is no such thing as a “molicule.” I think the word you’re searching for is “molecule.”
Second, to say that molecules are even something to “believe in,” putting it at the same philosophical level as God, is utter stupidity. Molecules are not something to believe in - it is proven, observable fact. That is, unless you’d rather believe that you, and every other object is completely solid, and not composed of anything smaller. I wonder… did you even take a chemistry class in high school?
And you also said that you’re taking this poll because everyone you meet believes in God and also in molecules. So what? If everyone you met believed in God as well as trees, would that give either one more or less credibility? You can put matter under a microscope and observe its molecules(for the record, “molecule” applies only to covalently bonded substances - an ionically bonded particle is called a “formula unit”), but you cannot put God under a microscope, or any other observation tool, so I fail to see the similarity and interdependency.
Sure I took chemistry class; I think I got an A. Yet there are problems, lots of problems, big fat Humeian problems. As much as it may be taught as unquestionalble fact it simply isn’t so. They might not be on the exact same level of questionability (whatever that might mean) but they are both definately questionable.
eh, lostguy, really, molecules(and even very large atoms) can be observed directly… scanning tunneling microscopes, electron microscopes, freeze-fracture electron microscopy…
just saying…
Well maybe molecules are not the best example. But still their are always issues invovled with instrimentation. For example, imagen if a one point during the process of makeing the first Eletron Microscope they had a device that showed them not roundish atoms but some form of differentiated grid. Then the makers would have to say that either the theory was wrong, or that the device was not function. They would have likely decided the device was funtioning, and “fixed” it until they had what they wanted to see.
So you are saying that scientists may have obscured the observations by adjusting the microscope to see what they wanted to see? That idea may have held some water back when the first electron microscope was invented, but now there are a few machines in the world(no more than a dozen or so) that can actually pick up and move an individual atom or molecule.
Nowadays, there is much more evidence for the atomic theory than just microscope observations, such as the behaviors of substances before and after going through certain reactions, nuclear physics, etc. Any chemist will tell you that the existence of atoms and molecules is proven fact, and has been since the 19th century.
Silence: But outside of high-powered microscopes, does the fact that substances combine in simple ratios prove the existence of molecules? How do we know that microscopes really see?
LostGuy: I think most people believe what they’re told. They are taught about molecules and don’t think to doubt them. That’s why belief in religion and in science may similar. (But note that some who question still believe in molecules and/or the deity.)
Well the likely thing would be they the descion on molicules would be replaced not reversed, if one is too look at history. Someone comes up with theory of matter Z which at first agressive replaces molecules but after a few years there will back written consistency. Much like people now say “Well Newtons physics works well locally.” Even though Newtons physics and Einstiens physics require completely differnt concepts of time, and can’t both exist in the same universe. Any way the only point im trying to make is that philosophy of science is an active and lively debate, and no claim made about the unseen world is currently considered absolutely beyond question.
My Real Name: I guess it could be just that simple.
