well, no it's not. if the unknown is always changing, which it is, then that doesn't really help us. indeed, it is always changing through our own agency. this is precisely the old stop-gap god that completely fails. try richard dawkins on this. there's a good essay in _river out of eden_ on the problem, but the title is escaping me. perhaps ian or someone else remembers it?
> >
> >
> > and here's the real rub, because it's clear you DO mean "the unknown"
> > rather than "the unknowable", and this confusion of religion and
> > science is precisely what won't work.
> >
>
> But this is precisely what MUST work in order for logic to enter the
> sphere of religion.
if you think that, it's because you haven't spent much time with religion, as far as i can tell. and this is precisely the problem.
> Unknown and unknowable are the terms that we've
> been given to work with. What does it mean when people say god is a
> greater power - does it mean that beyond the borders of our knowledge
> lies another power of spherical energy much like the universe exists
> in relation to the atom? It's unknown.
so are you saying my distinction between unknown and unknowable is unclear? i'm honestly getting lost here. perhaps i'm missing something.
> Science is much like a
> priesthood anyway, eh?
i disagree. and calling scientists priests through vague analogies to religion doesn't help the cause of science in any way i can see, and it certainly won't go anywhere toward bringing the "religious" over to "science" to just call it another religion.
what has to happen is a clear distinction between religion and science, not a further blurring of the boundaries. is there overlap? yes, absolutely. are they the same thing? clearly not. well, then, let's make sure we know what the difference is and stick with it.
imo.
j
-- Among medieval and modern philosophers, anxious to establish the religious significance of God, an unfortunate habit has prevailed of paying to Him metaphysical compliments.
- Alfred North Whitehead