Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman
It may be unknowable now, but I don't see why this question can't be answered in the future, scientifically.
Dawkins argues that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other"
|
Interesting--I didn't know Dawkins had said that. I guess I sort of disagree--because religion is premised on the notion that there is a universe beyond the material, and science is based on the
description of the material, observable universe.
This is one reason that it's so daffy when theists try to recruit science into theology--Christianity (and indeed, all religion to some extent) is based on the notion that the material, observable universe is illusory, a veil that lies over the true nature of existence. This is expressed in many different ways--the notion of an ascent from sinfulness into a state of purity, let's say--or the notion that through a cleansing process of perpetual resurrection, eventually you acquire knowledge of the universe.
But at their core, these ideas are the same: they hold that the world we can see, touch, feel, smell and measure etc. is not the true universe, but merely a doorway through which we must pass before arriving at a place where we can comprehend the non-material, non-observable, true universe.
The point is this: science is limited to the Material. God, if he exists, does not exist in the material universe. It can't be proven or disproven--indeed, to attempt to do so would be akin to using a telescope to look at microbes.
EDIT: Also, Superman would totally kick Batman's ass. Tool-belts and craftiness versus invulnerability? Please. Superman has faced worse in his sleep.
EDIT2: Just saw your edit, troutman. The second guy puts it a little better than I do...