Re: creationism

Verdop (
Thu, 25 Jun 1998 20:26:13 +0200

jonathan colvin wrote:

>Sorry, but that is an incredibly facile explanation for religious origin
>myths. Two thousand years ago, when people didn't even know what stars

Well, I didnt pretend to give a complete treatise for all existing
religions. Of course, you`re right, this is not a very satisfying
explanation if you want to go and look into the stuff more intensively.

>were, there were many smart people who wondered why there was something
>instead of nothing, and why the world was the way it was. In those days,
>and even a few hundred years ago, the idea of a creator was a perfectly
>rational, metaphysical explanation for the universe. Unfortunately for

I remind people like Archimedes - I don`t think he was religious... at least
he didn`t try to explain the world by religion. Citizens like him criticized
the old myths and tried to help the people understand.

>religion, there are now better explanations for why this world exists
>(although we are still working on why there is something rather than
>nothing). But dismissing religion as mindless, unjustified belief does a

I don`t really believe those new explanations are definitely the better
ones, and I don`t think anyone can say that. The "riddle" "why is there
something rather than nothing" hasn`t been solved yet, and I think, it won`t
ever be solved by science. I know you`ve got a different opinion.

>major disservice to what has been a central intellectual force in this
>up to the beginning of science, a fairly recent phenomenon indeed. I am an

Sounds like science is the heir of religion.

>atheist, but having studied the history of science and religion
>I become irritated when religions are dismissed lightly. Fundamentalists
>are loony-tunes. But science as we know it today would not have existed
>without the Judeo-Christian belief in "rational explanation", which

Do you really believe this? Some kind of myths and religion might have been
the origins and causer of science, ok.

>contrasts greatly with Buddism for example, where the question of origin is
>not really considered at all. The first scientists were theologists,
>observing the universe around them and trying to explain it.

I`m not sure about that.