Included below are some interesting comments from our earlier Web site. Now you can use the Discussion Forum to leave your thoughts about The Thread and any issues the book raises for you.
B. A. in Cleveland on October 2, 2005 at 4:00 PM
OK Page 3…”Although this book begins with the assumption that God exists, we offer some consideration of the question in the Further Consideration sections of the book. In the final analysis, an objective thinker will admit that denial of God’s existence is a faith position – that is a religious position. An abundance of reasonable evidence for His existence is available. The “God is only a great imaginative experience” as DH lawrence claimed, is not a scientific fact.”
I take issue with what is written here.
You open with the assumption that God exists and that is a fair statement to make from a faith/religious-based perspective. But the last two lines are written in that murky tone often used to combine faith with science. A scientific principle is not based on “reasonable evidence” – a hypothesis may be, but until the evidence passes beyond the realm of reasonable in to the world of fact (facts that can be examined by anyone) then the hypothesis remains simply that – a hypothesis. Now, the line you quote from DH Lawrence, whereby God to him personally is a great imaginative experience – this is closer, in actuality, to him personally being a fact – it is not a scientific fact but i don’t think his statement was ever made from a scientific point of view – it was from his own personal philosophy/faith/religion. It is his own personal sensation of what “God” means to him. So to attach the statement “is not a scientific fact” to that quote is
a) taking it out of context and
b) a definite attempt to bring about scientific confirmation of the standpoint of “An Abundance of reasonable evidence for his existence is available”.
Alas they are not connected and the link here is a very, very tenuous one.
Keith on October 2, 2005 at 4:02 PM
I’m glad you’re enjoying your interaction with the book!
I would not say DH Lawrence’s quote actually provides any such evidence – evidence comes from other sections of the book. Lawrence’s quote typifies the world view of a naturalist, however. I think it is a fair representation, for he makes the distinction between what is “imagination” and what is “real” just as an empiricist assumes that the scientific method is the only possible measure of absolute truth – that anything outside this narrow criteria is absolutely relative. Lawrence was the offspring of the Enlightenment, and his statement accurately reflects the Religion of Man which he embraced and was so popular during and shortly after the rise of Optimistic Humanism that fueled the bloody French Revolution.
What the empiricist cannot prove with the scientific method – and yet necessarily accepts it – is Decart’s fact of existence: “I think, therefore I am.” Additionally, the empiricist cannot prove the “Law of Non-Contradiction”: that both “A and ~A are equally true.” Decart’s formulation and the Principle of Non-Contradiction cannot be empirically established, yet empiricists necessarily must accept these as absolute truth.
All I’m saying is that the scientific method has its limits, and within those limits it is infinitely useful. The problem arises when people assume that “There is no God” has been empirically established
The empiricist often fails to acknowledge the validity of knowledge outside of purely deductive logic. In fact, alongside deductive logic there is also inductive logic, and forensic evidence falls within the realm of the latter. Inductive proofs are perhaps not as certain, but neither are they worthless. The case for the existence of God falls within the realm of inductive proofs; the denial of His existence is also an inductive argument – not deductive. Both the theist and the atheist stand on common ground.
In short, I’m simply saying, “Give the case for God a chance,” because you may discover considerable evidence exists.
Dr. John McCallum on October 2, 2005 at 4:13 PM
I’d like to hear from the commenter who wrote the following:
I take issue with what is written here.You open with the assumption that God exists and that is a fair statement to make from a faith/religious-based perspective. But the last two lines are written in that murky tone often used to combine faith with science. A scientific principle is not based on “reasonable evidence” – a hypothesis may be, but until the evidence passes beyond the realm of reasonable in to the world of fact (facts that can be examined by anyone) then the hypothesis remains simply that – a hypothesis.
I’m wondering where the writer places Ideas like theory of Plate Tectonics, theories of Evolution, and Theory of Global Warming in the context of his definition fact (facts that can be examined by anyone) since no one can reproduce any of those theories by examination???