I do not "believe" that thinking, conscious, human beings are random qiurks of nature. For if they are, then in the grand scheme of nature, life is meaningless. That is a logical conclusion.
The fact is, science cannot prove we are random quirks of nature, and religion cannot prove that we are not. Another logical conclusion is: if science could prove life could occur naturally, then it would, and the issue would be closed. But science cannot do that, and the belief that life can be occur naturally, is based on as much faith, as the belief in a creator. However, belief in a creator has much better logic (first cause, morals, life is purposeful, life is precious, etc.).
To me, Plato said it well:
“I think a man's duty is to find out where the truth is, or if he cannot, at least to take the best possible human doctrine and the hardest to disprove, and to ride on this like a raft over the waters of life.” -- Plato
2006-10-02
08:52:48
·
13 answers
·
asked by
Cogito Sum
4