Now, we can see human history in individual human development: In childhood, creationism, and in the teens, scientists.
which might explain the desperate desire for Creationists to get their message to school kids... perhaps a last ditch attempt to prolong the childlike view before logic and reason lead to *gasp* science and an inevitable distancing from a fantasy life filled with tooth fairies, mermaids, easter bunnies, and other mythological imaginary beings.
Why not start, then, from forms of thought that ACTUALLY take those questions seriously.
NOT taking those questions seriously is like resorting to a 'religion' that has a specific set of practices based on a diety and etc.
Forms of thought that DO take those questions seriously: Philosophy: for instance Martin Heidegger's book Introduction To Metaphysics is nothing but the elaboration of the question Why is there Something rather than Nothing? . . . you will note that he does not merely stop taking the thought seriously by saying 'you see, thinking is hard, so I am a Baptist or etc"
He also takes the ntin of Nothing and Nothingness very seriously . . . not just something to try and show peope that they should stop thinking and accept vulgar 'religion' as the answer or that they are inconsstent if they think about nothingness and yet still want the world to be a better place . .
Another form of thought, that is too often misidentified as a 'Religion' is Buddhism: Buddhism is not a Thiesm, there is not G-d in Buddhims, (even forms of Buddhism that have dieties realy only believe that thise dieties are manifestations of energy and of compassion and or the will: meaning, tantamount to psychic embodiements: meaning sections of mind, your mind, your psych) For Buddhism there are four things that are real: change, suffering, compassion and the way towards the release from suffering.
For Buddhism there is no creationsims because what can be said about the world is simply that it is: that it is a phenomena, no beginning or end that is significant.
note that Buddhims takes Nothingness very seriously (Shunyata: a 'full' emptyness) as it is a goal, but bases their ethics on it: Compassion.
The forms of thought and the "seriousness" assigned them values assigned by you. I said I was open to alternatives. I said the questions were being investigated and the answers might prove intelligent design but not necessarily purely a Christian god, 7/24 hour days, etc.
Do you think science considers philosophy an equal? Is a philosophy able to be proven right via experimentation? Are the results verifiable and repeatable?
That is the criteria that science asks for, yet cannot provide it for the questions I asked. You provide answer as well, but they don't meet any better criteria, they are just "more serious."
Also many cosmological explanations end up sounding like an endorsement of theism. The fact that some theists read, understand and perhaps endorse them doesn't mean they have stopped thinking.
Finally does Heidegger's book get into the questions that if there is a beginning, is there a beginner, was it purposeful versus purposeless, etc. I did mention those as well.
If you tell me where the book is likely to be found, perhaps used, I'll give it a look.
If you tell me where the book is likely to be found, perhaps used, I'll give it a look.
Why not just read all of the early christian philosophers like augustine, anselm, aquinas, etc?
Anyway, you can't reason from thought to being. See kant and hume. Even if you could, the possibility of 'intelligent design' says absolutely nothing about the nature of the designer and simply anthropomorphizes God.
Why not just read all of the early christian philosophers like augustine, anselm, aquinas, etc?
Anyway, you can't reason from thought to being. See kant and hume. Even if you could, the possibility of 'intelligent design' says absolutely nothing about the nature of the designer and simply anthropomorphizes God.
First why would you assume I haven't read them?
As for the second part, you make my case for me. Philosophy isn't science. Additionally I've already stated twice that cosmological arguments could only endorse a theism at best.
My current thinking is that Creationism grew out of Christian dispair of the line "And at what point in the Bible does God start telling the truth". It must be pretty clear that there are so many flaws available for non-believers to attack Christains with if you dont take every single word of the Bible as the ultimate truth, that someone decided that every word must be the absolute truth and defended at any cost. Thus if God created in 6 days, it really was 6 days, not 5.99, not 600, If someone (like bishop usher) calculates from genesis, the events, timeframes, and duration of every passage to be 6000 years, then the earth must be 6000 years old, and started on a Wednesday. To entertain any perspective other than the absolute words God wrote is to call into Question the whole validity of the Bible.
Id like to know what Creationists think about the passage, (I think is near the end - but strangly I don't have a bible to hand) where Jesus returns after *alot* of bad shit has happened and takes 140,000 Jews with him to Heaven to be saved, and everyone else goes to hell. Perhaps someone can post the actual passage.
How many creationists are there in the world?, a few more than 140,000 I'd bet. I'd change my association to 'Jew' if I was you. Too bad, Thats what god has explicitly said. I guess they're not the chosen ones then.
Actually, I assume most people have since it's taught in pretty basic college-level phil classes.
The reason I bring it up is because when you go through early christian philosophy and combine it with the problem of reasoning from thought to being, you see that intelligent design can never be proven.
So my response was in reference to this:
Quote:
I said the questions were being investigated and the answers might prove intelligent design but not necessarily purely a Christian god, 7/24 hour days, etc.
I think it's been demonstrated pretty clearly that intelligent design can not be proven, and aside for the more well known reasons and the ones mentioned in this thread, I have a few of my own.
I agree with BRussell... However, I would add that while early religions may have been about explaining why lighting causes forest fires, their leaders quickly became influential enough to assign or be called upon to assign moralities etc etc. But the sum total of human knowledge at the time was limited to what tools your particular tribe used and the "knowing" of the deities that controlled the river otter. As time progressed, and human knowledge moved into areas beyond locality and into more abstract terms, science (and perhaps all non-faith based fields) separated from religion and the two have co-existed since then. The direct attack religion feels from science is a result of the ordering of all of science around the time of newton. Alchemist started to systematically look at the discoveries they had made. Physicist were given a language. etc etc... Instead of being used to empower religion, scientific discoveries began to suggest that the simple deist model of the universe wasn't substantially complete and that perhaps a belief in a god wasn't necessary at all...
It must be pretty clear that there are so many flaws available for non-believers to attack Christains with if you dont take every single word of the Bible as the ultimate truth, that someone decided that every word must be the absolute truth and defended at any cost.
This is what I don't get. Isn't that really swimming upstream? Why not have some humility, and admit that the Bible was written by people, and is an imperfect source of knowledge like everything else, and be willing to say "we just don't know for sure." It would be so much more believable.
I agree with BRussell... However, I would add that while early religions may have been about explaining why lighting causes forest fires, their leaders quickly be
snip
matically look at the discoveries they had made. Physicist were given a language. etc etc... Instead of being used to empower religion, scientific discoveries began to suggest that the simple deist model of the universe wasn't substantially complete and that perhaps a belief in a god wasn't necessary at all...
I believe that 'a sense of the spiritual' was materially useful to our very distant ancestors. We've survived in inhospitable environments all over the world before the agricultural revolution where our ritual culture helped us to make sense of the world and to act on our decisions when the stakes were very high indeed.
Hunter-gatherer cultures don't have 'religion', not like we understand it, but they do have ritual, and they take an idea of 'the spiritual' for granted. Religion is what you get when all those imaginative resources no longer necessary to your survival get applied to the kind of mindset that comes with agriculture. Monotheism is less than 5,000 years old, tops. We've been hunter-gatherers for %90 of our 1,000,000 year history and the inheritance still defines as spiritual creatures.
This is what I don't get. Isn't that really swimming upstream? Why not have some humility, and admit that the Bible was written by people, and is an imperfect source of knowledge like everything else
Because if you leave any room for doubt about the validity of bible passages, people can drive their wedges into those cracks and finally dismantle the core concept (which rests on some pretty shaky foundations). It is much easier to defend it as a whole if you disallow doubt. Works well with the Quram too.
All God has to do is have a little personal time with me, without any preconditions on my part. Simple honest chat. No smoke or mirrors, no telepathy, no invisible stuff, no trance state on my behalf, no bullshit.
Appear on my bed tonight and give me 2 minutes. I'd like 10, but 2 would do if you're really busy. I'd really like to believe, my life is shit, I could really do with the answer, you know it drives me mad, and you also know, if you don't appear and have this chat, so that I will have undisputable evidence of your existance, that I will never accept you.
The forms of thought and the "seriousness" assigned them values assigned by you.
Assigned based on how much effort to follow-through is put into it: how much effort at circumspection and how much contextualization is endeavored. Throwing up one's hands and saying 'ok, I tried, it is faith or nothing" is not serious
Quote:
Do you think science considers philosophy an equal? Is a philosophy able to be proven right via experimentation? Are the results verifiable and repeatable?
Science and Philosophy have been related, sometimes happily sometimes not, since the beginnng of the scientific method: in fact Scientist first called themselves Philosophers.
Science is one of the issues that Philosophy deals with most often: how can a world exist where scientific method produces real results? what does it mean for our capacities to think? what does 'Reason' mean in such a world? What is the 'ground' of reason? etc.
Many philosophers set out to find a ground for science, to explain why it tells the truth -some found that ground lacking (Heidegger, for instance) in scientific terms and even found it lacking in terms of the 'Reason' that science utilized . . . but most Philosophers still endorse the capacity for humans to think, if not 'rationally' and accept science as the most direct and powerfull, if not 'rational' form of thought . . . outside of Logic and, yes, Philosophy
Quote:
Also many cosmological explanations end up sounding like an endorsement of theism. The fact that some theists read, understand and perhaps endorse them doesn't mean they have stopped thinking.
However, most often, when it comes to issues of the being of the world they have stopped: 'it is in the Bible!'
Argue as you will, buth the majority of Creationists think only as far as they can to try and defend their allready 'established' position . .. and even then, only well enough to please themselves and the like minded . . . that is NOT serious thought . .. serious thought extends itself tirelessly and is willing to change to fit discoveries after real effort.
Quote:
Finally does Heidegger's book get into the questions that if there is a beginning, is there a beginner, was it purposeful versus purposeless, etc. I did mention those as well.
That is basic Aristotle stuff: Aristotle, of whom Heidegger said: "you can begin to understand my work when you have studied Aristotle for fifteen years exclusively before moving on to the history of Philosophy"
Quote:
If you tell me where the book is likely to be found, perhaps used, I'll give it a look.
His most complete statement, which would address those questions is Being and Time
All God has to do is have a little personal time with me, without any preconditions on my part. Simple honest chat. No smoke or mirrors, no telepathy, no invisible stuff, no trance state on my behalf, no bullshit.
Appear on my bed tonight and give me 2 minutes. I'd like 10, but 2 would do if you're really busy. I'd really like to believe, my life is shit, I could really do with the answer, you know it drives me mad, and you also know, if you don't appear and have this chat, so that I will have undisputable evidence of your existance, that I will never accept you.
I'm not so sure that God's a member of this forum, Marc.
If you had a parent that didn't love you than you wouldn't ask such a smug question . . . not all mothers love their children . . . though evolution made it such that it is almost impossible to be otherwise.
ahh jumping to conclusions I see... well I did have a parent didn't love me *chuckles* we're digressing but still science doesn't necessarily prove anything... its merely a construct on how to base a thought on and then build on that, and bam! you have a principle to go by. What a lot of people don't realize is, is there truly nothing... and if something is there does it quantify to some degree that it is what it is.
Thats why I like the bible, its finite, it is what it is. If you can't take it for what it says, then why are you trying to disprove it, when you can simply go your own way. Why can't you just let it be?
Religion isn't something to resort too, its an explination as it also is a way to cope with life. I don't see why 'non-believers' look down believers of religion as such. They think that science helped soceity more than religion or somethen, and yes it has maybe to an extent, and it has also only lead people to enact their worst sick perverted fantasies of disaster, as people have done with religion. I guess they are such opposites, and yet in the end exactly the same no? In the end the value is null.
What I find interesting in this debate is that science does not rule out the possibility of a creator, because ultimately science will not be able to figure out how it all started.
But creationist are completely willing to tread one path and one path only, and don't leave room anything else.
Why can't creation and evolution both be possible at the same time? I don't personally believe in the creation theory, but it would be erroneous of me to completely discount it, because science does leave room for it's existence.
An argument I like to use against creationist when discussing evolution is this: If God created man in His image, then given that general statement is it unfair to assume the deity we know as "God" may have evolved from other creatures over an unknown period of time? And if that be the case then God could have created man in His image in a more abstract way than people want to think.
I often get a cross look when I suggest that. But more and more often humans are gaining God-like abilities and knowledge. Cloning being a perfect example of this. Did you know that there is currently a project under way to clone mammoths from frozen DNA and open a mammoth park by something like 2025? We are to the point now of being able to resurrect extinct species.
Additionally, science is becoming more interested in nanotechnology. One use I've read about for this technology is that scientists think it could be possible to develop technology that can literally pick atoms from "thin air" and build non-biological items from basically nothing. Sounds eerily creationist. And this is only foreseeable technology...
Oops... I forgot to actually state what it would take for me to believe. Oddly enough, I think science is showing me more and more often through our own technological advances that God may very well exist, though not necessarily in the form we've assigned to him. And along with that possibility comes the possibility that something created everything we know. I'm not sure even if presented with evidence that this is true, that I am advanced enough to even understand it.
"Now my suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. ... I suspect that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in any philosophy."
J. B. S. Haldane
I think this applies to science and theology alike. Anyone who thinks they've got it all right is undoubtedly all wrong.
Comments
Originally posted by BRussell
.
That's fascinating
But a Christian will rightly say: "lest you be like little children . . " etc
while of course a Nietszchean would aggree (with the exception of the 'heaven' part) and say "we must regain the seriosness we had as a child at play"
Wrong thread---misread the topic.
duh
*looks for coffee cup*
Originally posted by BRussell
Now, we can see human history in individual human development: In childhood, creationism, and in the teens, scientists.
après teens, what's the parallel human history for adults?
Originally posted by Timo
après teens, what's the parallel human history for adults?
Hmm, Canadians?
Originally posted by BRussell
Now, we can see human history in individual human development: In childhood, creationism, and in the teens, scientists.
which might explain the desperate desire for Creationists to get their message to school kids... perhaps a last ditch attempt to prolong the childlike view before logic and reason lead to *gasp* science and an inevitable distancing from a fantasy life filled with tooth fairies, mermaids, easter bunnies, and other mythological imaginary beings.
Originally posted by pfflam
Why not start, then, from forms of thought that ACTUALLY take those questions seriously.
NOT taking those questions seriously is like resorting to a 'religion' that has a specific set of practices based on a diety and etc.
Forms of thought that DO take those questions seriously: Philosophy: for instance Martin Heidegger's book Introduction To Metaphysics is nothing but the elaboration of the question Why is there Something rather than Nothing? . . . you will note that he does not merely stop taking the thought seriously by saying 'you see, thinking is hard, so I am a Baptist or etc"
He also takes the ntin of Nothing and Nothingness very seriously . . . not just something to try and show peope that they should stop thinking and accept vulgar 'religion' as the answer or that they are inconsstent if they think about nothingness and yet still want the world to be a better place . .
Another form of thought, that is too often misidentified as a 'Religion' is Buddhism: Buddhism is not a Thiesm, there is not G-d in Buddhims, (even forms of Buddhism that have dieties realy only believe that thise dieties are manifestations of energy and of compassion and or the will: meaning, tantamount to psychic embodiements: meaning sections of mind, your mind, your psych) For Buddhism there are four things that are real: change, suffering, compassion and the way towards the release from suffering.
For Buddhism there is no creationsims because what can be said about the world is simply that it is: that it is a phenomena, no beginning or end that is significant.
note that Buddhims takes Nothingness very seriously (Shunyata: a 'full' emptyness) as it is a goal, but bases their ethics on it: Compassion.
The forms of thought and the "seriousness" assigned them values assigned by you. I said I was open to alternatives. I said the questions were being investigated and the answers might prove intelligent design but not necessarily purely a Christian god, 7/24 hour days, etc.
Do you think science considers philosophy an equal? Is a philosophy able to be proven right via experimentation? Are the results verifiable and repeatable?
That is the criteria that science asks for, yet cannot provide it for the questions I asked. You provide answer as well, but they don't meet any better criteria, they are just "more serious."
Also many cosmological explanations end up sounding like an endorsement of theism. The fact that some theists read, understand and perhaps endorse them doesn't mean they have stopped thinking.
Finally does Heidegger's book get into the questions that if there is a beginning, is there a beginner, was it purposeful versus purposeless, etc. I did mention those as well.
If you tell me where the book is likely to be found, perhaps used, I'll give it a look.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
If you tell me where the book is likely to be found, perhaps used, I'll give it a look.
Why not just read all of the early christian philosophers like augustine, anselm, aquinas, etc?
Anyway, you can't reason from thought to being. See kant and hume. Even if you could, the possibility of 'intelligent design' says absolutely nothing about the nature of the designer and simply anthropomorphizes God.
Originally posted by giant
Why not just read all of the early christian philosophers like augustine, anselm, aquinas, etc?
Anyway, you can't reason from thought to being. See kant and hume. Even if you could, the possibility of 'intelligent design' says absolutely nothing about the nature of the designer and simply anthropomorphizes God.
First why would you assume I haven't read them?
As for the second part, you make my case for me. Philosophy isn't science. Additionally I've already stated twice that cosmological arguments could only endorse a theism at best.
Nick
Id like to know what Creationists think about the passage, (I think is near the end - but strangly I don't have a bible to hand
How many creationists are there in the world?, a few more than 140,000 I'd bet. I'd change my association to 'Jew' if I was you. Too bad, Thats what god has explicitly said. I guess they're not the chosen ones then.
Originally posted by trumptman
First why would you assume I haven't read them?
Actually, I assume most people have since it's taught in pretty basic college-level phil classes.
The reason I bring it up is because when you go through early christian philosophy and combine it with the problem of reasoning from thought to being, you see that intelligent design can never be proven.
So my response was in reference to this:
I said the questions were being investigated and the answers might prove intelligent design but not necessarily purely a Christian god, 7/24 hour days, etc.
I think it's been demonstrated pretty clearly that intelligent design can not be proven, and aside for the more well known reasons and the ones mentioned in this thread, I have a few of my own.
Originally posted by MarcUK
It must be pretty clear that there are so many flaws available for non-believers to attack Christains with if you dont take every single word of the Bible as the ultimate truth, that someone decided that every word must be the absolute truth and defended at any cost.
This is what I don't get. Isn't that really swimming upstream? Why not have some humility, and admit that the Bible was written by people, and is an imperfect source of knowledge like everything else, and be willing to say "we just don't know for sure." It would be so much more believable.
Originally posted by billybobsky
I agree with BRussell... However, I would add that while early religions may have been about explaining why lighting causes forest fires, their leaders quickly be
snip
matically look at the discoveries they had made. Physicist were given a language. etc etc... Instead of being used to empower religion, scientific discoveries began to suggest that the simple deist model of the universe wasn't substantially complete and that perhaps a belief in a god wasn't necessary at all...
I believe that 'a sense of the spiritual' was materially useful to our very distant ancestors. We've survived in inhospitable environments all over the world before the agricultural revolution where our ritual culture helped us to make sense of the world and to act on our decisions when the stakes were very high indeed.
Hunter-gatherer cultures don't have 'religion', not like we understand it, but they do have ritual, and they take an idea of 'the spiritual' for granted. Religion is what you get when all those imaginative resources no longer necessary to your survival get applied to the kind of mindset that comes with agriculture. Monotheism is less than 5,000 years old, tops. We've been hunter-gatherers for %90 of our 1,000,000 year history and the inheritance still defines as spiritual creatures.
Originally posted by BRussell
This is what I don't get. Isn't that really swimming upstream? Why not have some humility, and admit that the Bible was written by people, and is an imperfect source of knowledge like everything else
Because if you leave any room for doubt about the validity of bible passages, people can drive their wedges into those cracks and finally dismantle the core concept (which rests on some pretty shaky foundations). It is much easier to defend it as a whole if you disallow doubt. Works well with the Quram too.
All God has to do is have a little personal time with me, without any preconditions on my part. Simple honest chat. No smoke or mirrors, no telepathy, no invisible stuff, no trance state on my behalf, no bullshit.
Appear on my bed tonight and give me 2 minutes. I'd like 10, but 2 would do if you're really busy. I'd really like to believe, my life is shit, I could really do with the answer, you know it drives me mad, and you also know, if you don't appear and have this chat, so that I will have undisputable evidence of your existance, that I will never accept you.
Originally posted by trumptman
The forms of thought and the "seriousness" assigned them values assigned by you.
Assigned based on how much effort to follow-through is put into it: how much effort at circumspection and how much contextualization is endeavored. Throwing up one's hands and saying 'ok, I tried, it is faith or nothing" is not serious
Quote:
Do you think science considers philosophy an equal? Is a philosophy able to be proven right via experimentation? Are the results verifiable and repeatable?
Science and Philosophy have been related, sometimes happily sometimes not, since the beginnng of the scientific method: in fact Scientist first called themselves Philosophers.
Science is one of the issues that Philosophy deals with most often: how can a world exist where scientific method produces real results? what does it mean for our capacities to think? what does 'Reason' mean in such a world? What is the 'ground' of reason? etc.
Many philosophers set out to find a ground for science, to explain why it tells the truth -some found that ground lacking (Heidegger, for instance) in scientific terms and even found it lacking in terms of the 'Reason' that science utilized . . . but most Philosophers still endorse the capacity for humans to think, if not 'rationally' and accept science as the most direct and powerfull, if not 'rational' form of thought . . . outside of Logic and, yes, Philosophy
Quote:
Also many cosmological explanations end up sounding like an endorsement of theism. The fact that some theists read, understand and perhaps endorse them doesn't mean they have stopped thinking.
However, most often, when it comes to issues of the being of the world they have stopped: 'it is in the Bible!'
Argue as you will, buth the majority of Creationists think only as far as they can to try and defend their allready 'established' position . .. and even then, only well enough to please themselves and the like minded . . . that is NOT serious thought . .. serious thought extends itself tirelessly and is willing to change to fit discoveries after real effort.
Quote:
Finally does Heidegger's book get into the questions that if there is a beginning, is there a beginner, was it purposeful versus purposeless, etc. I did mention those as well.
That is basic Aristotle stuff: Aristotle, of whom Heidegger said: "you can begin to understand my work when you have studied Aristotle for fifteen years exclusively before moving on to the history of Philosophy"
Quote:
If you tell me where the book is likely to be found, perhaps used, I'll give it a look.
His most complete statement, which would address those questions is Being and Time
Originally posted by MarcUK
Back on topic.
All God has to do is have a little personal time with me, without any preconditions on my part. Simple honest chat. No smoke or mirrors, no telepathy, no invisible stuff, no trance state on my behalf, no bullshit.
Appear on my bed tonight and give me 2 minutes. I'd like 10, but 2 would do if you're really busy. I'd really like to believe, my life is shit, I could really do with the answer, you know it drives me mad, and you also know, if you don't appear and have this chat, so that I will have undisputable evidence of your existance, that I will never accept you.
I'm not so sure that God's a member of this forum, Marc.
Originally posted by pfflam
If you had a parent that didn't love you than you wouldn't ask such a smug question . . . not all mothers love their children . . . though evolution made it such that it is almost impossible to be otherwise.
ahh jumping to conclusions I see... well I did have a parent didn't love me *chuckles* we're digressing but still science doesn't necessarily prove anything... its merely a construct on how to base a thought on and then build on that, and bam! you have a principle to go by. What a lot of people don't realize is, is there truly nothing... and if something is there does it quantify to some degree that it is what it is.
Thats why I like the bible, its finite, it is what it is. If you can't take it for what it says, then why are you trying to disprove it, when you can simply go your own way. Why can't you just let it be?
Religion isn't something to resort too, its an explination as it also is a way to cope with life. I don't see why 'non-believers' look down believers of religion as such. They think that science helped soceity more than religion or somethen, and yes it has maybe to an extent, and it has also only lead people to enact their worst sick perverted fantasies of disaster, as people have done with religion. I guess they are such opposites, and yet in the end exactly the same no? In the end the value is null.
But creationist are completely willing to tread one path and one path only, and don't leave room anything else.
Why can't creation and evolution both be possible at the same time? I don't personally believe in the creation theory, but it would be erroneous of me to completely discount it, because science does leave room for it's existence.
An argument I like to use against creationist when discussing evolution is this: If God created man in His image, then given that general statement is it unfair to assume the deity we know as "God" may have evolved from other creatures over an unknown period of time? And if that be the case then God could have created man in His image in a more abstract way than people want to think.
I often get a cross look when I suggest that. But more and more often humans are gaining God-like abilities and knowledge. Cloning being a perfect example of this. Did you know that there is currently a project under way to clone mammoths from frozen DNA and open a mammoth park by something like 2025? We are to the point now of being able to resurrect extinct species.
Additionally, science is becoming more interested in nanotechnology. One use I've read about for this technology is that scientists think it could be possible to develop technology that can literally pick atoms from "thin air" and build non-biological items from basically nothing. Sounds eerily creationist. And this is only foreseeable technology...
"Now my suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. ... I suspect that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in any philosophy."
J. B. S. Haldane
I think this applies to science and theology alike. Anyone who thinks they've got it all right is undoubtedly all wrong.