« Religious believers, what if you're wrong? | Main | Buddhism without supernaturalism leaves reality »

January 15, 2014


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Nope, science is different from philosophy - the distinction being that science is based in evidence. In effect, therefore science is limited by what we know.

Philosophy is based in speculation - like mathematics, a branch of philosophy, may even be based on logic, but just because something is logical does not mean it is necessary real.

Science is limited by the evidence and that is why it is the knowledge which is most accurate or that we can be most sure of, yet still it is fallible and constantly being refined and overturned.

Analytical Philosophy based on logic its also limited to only logical possibilities

continental philosophy is pretty much a free for all sett of beliefs not dissimilar to religion - pure speculation, completely unlimited and often completely wrong

It seems the more unlimited the method used to try understand reality, the more inaccurate but conversely its also true that done of sciences greatest theories have started as precisely that, an unsupported hypothesis which goes completely against the conventional wisdom only later to become a scientific theory when the evidence arrives to back it up.


check this out.

it's called
"The Signs of God's Existence"
a scientific look at the issue

Nice try, "The Scientist". Most readers of this blog will listen to the first 2 minutes of that video and shut it off.

Then, life will go on - as it always has.

Hi TheScientist. I checked out (some of)‘The Signs of God’s Existence’. It seems to be another re-hash of much of the arguments supporting a God designer - together with accusing science (or whoever) of secularisation of the world through propaganda and programming.

A few points: - It (the intelligent design video) talked of the theory of evolution as a way of denying God. Evolution by natural selection has just provided the evidence that plants and creatures evolved over millions of years – which is not denying God but just presents the facts. If it does not fit in with religious scriptures that is not the fault or intention of the theory.

The Cambrian explosion is instanced as some sort of proof that no life existed before that period insinuating that God created all life then. The evidence show that there were primitive worms, molluscs, jelly fish and sponges emerging many millions of years before that in the Ediacaran Period where many soft bodied fossils have been found.

The question is I feel, “why do faith-based believers in religious scriptures get so defensive and angry to the point of denying facts”? I can only deduce that they have such huge psychological, emotional and cultural investments in their various beliefs they have become part of their identity of ‘who they are’ and to suggest anything that threatens their beliefs in effect threatens the very ‘self structure’ that their lives are based on.

"Philosophy done well is science. Philosophy done poorly is .... well ... philosophy."

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.