Grergory S. Paul - Original air 01-03-13 скачать в хорошем качестве

Grergory S. Paul - Original air 01-03-13

Researcher, Author&Illustrator Paleontology,Sociology Theology Can Science Be Used to Investigate the Existence and Nature of the Gods? It has become a standard line to claim that science and religion are separate magisteria that despite occasional bursts of contention can peacefully coexist sort of like the USA and USSR during the Cold War. In this view science always assumes that it is investigating natural causes, because supernaturalism is not subject to investigation. Both opinions are quite wrong, it not being at all hard to disprove the supposed compatibility of science and paranormalism, or the alleged inability of science to test supernaturalist claims. Contending that science and religion should respect each another is like saying astronomy and astrology should get along with one another, or that physicists and psychics should respect the other -- after all, the latter are prone to citing the quantum mechanics developed by the former to justify belief in ESP. Can you imagine astrology being the subject of a university department in the same manner as there are divinity departments and even colleges? (Actually astrology is taught in some Indian universities, which only goes to prove the point.) Although it can be argued that the existence of the supernatural can never be totally falsified for the same reason I cannot prove there is not an invisible elephant in your room, many if not most acknowledge that modern science has thoroughly discredited the existence of ghosts (that a third or more Americans believe in), speaking to the dead, fairies (that Conan [Sherlock Holmes author] Doyle believed were about to reveal themselves to the world during the fairy craze of the early 1900s), astrology, psychic powers and a host of paranormal beliefs (Gallup finds that three quarters of Americans believe in something paranormal). So exactly why are the gods less subject to scientific investigation and refutation or confirmation? Of course they are not free from scientific examination. For example, if astronomers showed that the universe was just a few thousand light years across, and geologists found that our planet was just a few thousand years old, and paleontologists discovered that all creatures great and small were present from the get go, then there would be no choice but to conclude that some form of super powerful intelligence had created it all just like the Bible says. Or if articulated elephant skeletons were found in 260 million year old Permian sediments, then it could only be concluded that some form of intelligence rather than natural evolution was running the big show. ------------- A basic problem with faith-based belief is that it is at worse ospeculative opinion that is no better than other discredited forms of improbable supernaturalism. Science-based conclusions are superior because science tries bstinate opinion held despite the facts to the contrary, and even at best is wildly To objectively go wherever the data and analysis indicates the reality lies. That's how science has shown that a myriad of diseases are caused by microbes, that the earth is a sphere orbiting a star in a colossal universe, that evolution has occurred over deep time, that it is not possible for a moral creator toexist, and that the most atheistic democratic nations and regions are the most successful (the last two items being subjects of this series".