MeJennifer said:Well people who believe make theories that are not particularly scientific.
I so 100%, totally, beyond all doubt, agree. :tongue2: If I understand you, a "believer" cannot be objective. If that isn't what you meant, please feel free to ignore the rest of my post.
Now, you seem to criticize theories that "are not particularly scientific." Does that mean you believe science is the epistomological standard by which we can evaluate all claims? The spirit of such a comment is that we need to pursue knowing over self-serving or exciting theories. I wholeheartedly agree with that. But how do you know science really does reveal all that can be revealed?
If you think it can, then you have put a filter in place that excludes what science can't fathom. Now YOU are the believer who is limited by your own beliefs.
MeJennifer said:Basically in theology anything goes.
Not really, but I would concede that theology extends so far beyond the facts as to be useless. But I suspect you are commenting about theism too.
An enlightened way to view theism is to say the universe may be conscious as a whole, and that aspect has naturally helped evolved life and human consciousness.
Unscientific? Yes. So what. Science hasn't proven it can answer all the questions. It likes to lay claim to explaining life and consciousness, but it's a premature claim. Science can't support with evidence that chemistry has the self-organization potential necessary for abiogenesis, it can't support with evidence that consciousness emerges from brain matter, and it can't demonstrate genetic changes are capable of creating organisms. So what we have is an element powerful in society because of how dependent we are on technology using that power to bully everybody into accepting physicalist/mechanist theory. And guess who are the "gurus" of mechanics? Yep, scientists. Isn't that quite convenient.
So is the science "believer" self-serving or objective? Are their creation theories self-serving or objective?