God vs. Science By James Jaeger

I read the below article, God vs. Science last night and it put me to sleep.

These idiots in the media (e.g., TIME mag) often write and host the most banal and wandering interviews on this button subject possible. Who wants to hear Collins and Dawkins rehashing what many, for instance, covered exhaustively at the MIND-X 10 years ago?!

For starters, these two endlessly throw around the following terms without even defining them: God, natural world, mind, brain, faith, reason, morals, science, religion, universe, supernatural, existence, creation, physical world, evolution, outside space and time, full knowledge, intelligence, intelligent design, God, God, God, God, ad nauseum ...

One of the reasons they have failed to define their terms is because if they did they would more easily make fools out of themselves as they would be forced to be consistent in their thinking -- "God" forbid! Case in point: Collins says: "By being outside of nature, God is also outside of space and time. Hence, at the moment of the creation of the universe, God could also have activated evolution, with full knowledge of how it would turn out, perhaps even including our having this conversation...."

Then Dawkins chirps in: "I think that's a tremendous cop-out. If God wanted to create life and create humans, it would be slightly odd that he should choose the extraordinarily roundabout way of waiting for 10 billion years before life got started and then waiting for another 4 billion years until you got human beings ...."

God is commonly defined as an entity (or static) that is omni-intelligent, omni-potent, omni-present and that is the creator of matter, energy, space and time. Had Collins or Dawkins actually defined and agreed on a definition of the word "God," Dawson's statement would be foolish because obviously 10 billion years would create no "waiting" time for a God, as defined. Such "time" would go by instantly thus the "process" of evolution would be no "roundabout way" or methodology. Thus Collins statement could/would make sense.

So rather than actually exploring the NATURE of God or supreme Being or existence or the infinite, or existence, from the starting point of agreed upon terminology, these two just massage their egos. For a finite mine, such as the ones we all MAY have (there is no proof either way), nothing is a more noble study than the study of epistemology and ontology. These ARE the supreme studies of all human existence and ALL other studies, even the realm of science, are of secondary consideration. Whether we approach an understanding of existence (approach being epistemology and ontology) inductively (through so-called science) or deductively (through so-called religion) probably makes no difference as the end cognition is the same.

If God IS all powerful, by definition, THEN God COULD imitate a human being to such perfection that no other human beings could differentiate the GOD-human from the human-human.(1) This is a given, given the definition assumed about an infinite entity. Also, if God could assume the status of one human, it could also assume the status of all humans. Thus is may be correct to say GOD is ME (i.e., or YOU), whereas it may be incorrect to say I am GOD.

If GOD is ME, that doesn't necessarily mean I am GOD, but if it does mean this, then an individual's SUBJECTIVE view of existence is equal to a GOD's OBJECTIVE view of existence, by definition. In otherwords, the objective view of existence becomes tantamount to the subjective view of existence, hence we CAN approach an understanding of existence inductively OR deductively. Thus religion and science ARE effectively the same study as are epistemology and ontology because they are seeking the SAME goals. Epistemology is the study of the nature and extent of knowing (knowing HOW to know) and ontology is the study of the nature of being and existence.

Thus, epistemology is really a SUBJECTIVE study and ontology is really an OBJECTIVE study. Accordingly, religion is a subjective study (it's governed by "belief") and science is an objective study (it's governed by empirical observation).(2)

I feel the path to ultimate truth is to embrace both the objective study as well as the subjective study.

Why aren't Dawkins and Collins talking about any of this?

Because what their whole moronic "discussion" really comes down to is nothing more than an attempt to sell magazines by generating controversy. Our first cue is the title of the piece itself: God vs. Science. Create conflict and you can sell crap. That's the media and film industry's formula. All writers are even taught this at age 3. A good story MUST have conflict. This is of course all crap itself. A good story does NOT need conflict, it simply needs dramatic CHALLENGE or interesting CHARACTERS or a wild-river ride plot.(3) Thus, again, this TIME article does nothing more than stir up conflict without making any attempt to reveal truth. Since none of the words or terms were defined, these two stooges are given free license to talk AT each other endlessly with no regard to rational thought or argument.


All of this is thus just more "amusement" for our popcorn-brain culture. If you want to really discuss God verses science (which would have been more appropriately named, Religion vs. Science) go to the MIND-X and actively participate in the arguments and discussions there or get actively involved in the religion of your choice.