Sure, but only with an order of beer to go with it

Truth is there is no spoon.

But coming back to Kant, what he was basically saying is that due to the complexity of life on this planet, there must be an intelligence that initiated it (nothing this complex can be self-originated), and that is not subject to it - which intelligence I believe to be "God" (although that term is so limiting, I know). 

I was going to say: "Absolutely - will that order be 'to go' ". 

That statement is the basis of the notion of "Intelligent Design" where "irreducible complexity" is one of the major arguments against Darwin's theory of evolution. I did not know that it was already argued by Kant way before Darwin's time.

That seems to be the case, Phobe - I can give you chapter and ver.. sorry, page number and chapter, if you like. 

No thanks. I recommend Richard Dawkins´ "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution"

I have read his "God Delusion" which I found too emotive, too selective, and lacking in integrity/depth of research, and as you have probably concluded, I am a "Creationist"... most scientists (and i am not one) have come to Kant's conclusion by the way. Having said that, I am acutely aware of the utter hypocrisy of world religion as such, and that dogma/ignorance fuelled by the religio-political set-up has gained the ascendancy over true religious practice.

"most scientists (and i am not one) have come to Kant's conclusion by the way"

On what basis do you draw this conclusion, which I think is utterly erroneous? Dawkins' "greatest show" book is really worth reading - the grip on things is very different from that in "God delusion" and a much better read.

Vera Christiana Religio (1771; True Christian Religion) - Swedenborg

Plato's philosophy also led to belief in God, and his Timaeus is a philosophical creation story.

Gottfried Leibniz viewed Descartes's minds as the only ultimate existents, so that even material things were colonies of souls. God was viewed as the supreme monad (the ultimate substance)

The foundation of this idea is to be found, in fact, in those experiences of unity to which moral ideals, beauty, and the notion of a purposive universe all point. This idea of unity, largely implicit in Kant, was developed by Hegel, who came to regard the universe and its cultural, social, and political progress as but manifestations in time of an unchanging absolute spirit.

The existence of an Absolute or a supreme value has never been concluded as a result of an isolated logical exercise but has always arisen in the context of a total metaphysics. Thus, a quasi-mathematical structure, for Spinoza; a dialectic method, for Hegel; and evolutionary considerations, for the modern French philosopher Henri Bergson, determined the discourse that these three philosophers used in order to evoke that situation to which God or Nature, the Absolute Spirit, or the life force became for them respectively key concepts of interpretation. Bradley similarly reached a belief in an Absolute Spirit by reflecting on the logical problems of relatedness. 

Einstein also clarified his religious views, stating that he believed there was an “old one” who was the ultimate lawgiver. He wrote that he did not believe in a personal God that intervened in human affairs but instead believed in the God of the 17th-century Dutch Jewish philosopher Benedict de Spinoza—the God of harmony and beauty. His task, he believed, was to formulate a master theory that would allow him to “read the mind of God.” He would write,

"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages.…The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."

Descartes, Newton, and Leibniz, the leading scholars of the time, were concerned to demonstrate that their positions were compatible with sound theology. Medieval controversies about human knowledge and divine grace found an echo in such arguments as Descartes's assertion that the rational methods of inquiry can be relied on only provided that God does not deliberately deceive us.

"This (A Brief History of Time) is also a book about God... or perhaps about the absence of God. The word God fills these pages. Hawking embarks on a quest to answer Einstein's famous question about whether God had any choice in creating the universe. Hawking is attempting, as he explicitly states, to understand the mind of God. And this makes all the more unexpected the conclusion of the effort, at least so far; a universe with no edge in space, no beginning or end in time, and nothing for a Creator to do." [Carl Sagan's introduction to the above book, 1988] 

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." (A.Einstein, NY, Sept.1940)

(most of above quoted from: Encyclopædia Britannica. Deluxe Edition.  Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 2008.)

I appreciated that comment. However, I am not disputing any of that, but the notion of Creationism in place of evolution theory. The question was not whether "most scientists" believe in God, but whether "most scientists" are Creationists. Two quite different issues.

oh, ok, I'm with you - interesting discussion so far, thanks.

Thank YOU for an interesting thread the quality of which has been quite good, and where we all (at least me) have learned!

Ah.. pardon the ringing in of a rather ruggedly remote suggestion:

But isn't a tenet of scientific method evocative of the 'falsifiable' concept.

The methodoloy, or at least what I've learned..?, involves that!

the merit of science, which wouldn't you posit is somewhat substantial...?,

that is it, um, discards anything once is it falsified in preference for a more inclusive explanitory concept.  ..Do you think truth is about explaining things?

I find it so difficult to remove truth from emotions, though.

From a much more action-oriented perspective... (where evidence exists) maybe truth is just a basis for behavior in... in our fellows and this or that! /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

I just try to not reduce it, but, certainly truth must have themes, no?

I admire the question!

--(All apologies for just skipping into writing rather than reading all your replies... ^w^; )

oh!...

Ah.. I just think it might be in the interest of this topic to treat it with due respect... just to add one more patch...!. . .

I was wondering about language.  Do you chessfellows think language is a kind of system, a tool, or requirement for civilization or an emblem of a civilization itself?  It's just that if we are to talk about abstract things, then it seems quite well adivsed to know your tools in which you do so. ^^;

I think language is like... a clothing?  Used to describe, for order?  Terms...

And that... on a broad dialectical spectrum of.. opposites!

What one perceives.. ah, it may always be completely truthful-- I want to not doubt that... even no matter how irrational or dillusional!  There is truth or else that would mean there would be no cause to an action.  Creating an isolated fragment that has no context, no truth.  Even fantasy is truthful to a degree?  Quite so, I feel.  ^^;

It's just... that with the imposition of classification.... a judgement's sword...

in, I suppose to reprise, the abstract vehicle of a spectrum dialectic environment...

Perhaps this returns to the good statement proposed by the author of this topic that, roughly, the tools are too blunt to discern.

However!, it's awfully grand.  I've stated that you the reader really do kinda.. swim in truth?  (So sorry to conjour the image of water)  Yeah, right? o.o

But your knowledge is in a container...

and would you really ever want to be priviliged to understanding a, um.. absolute truth... the point being... or arising... from aesthetic principle... which... returns to emotions.... ^^;

EDIT:  oh, I found the pieces about "relations" and "relativity" rather interesting and germane!  I compliment for that.  Ohh.. but, if I am reading and interpreting from a good angle, --- I wonder if anything could ever exist alone, away from anything.  You wrote that to know any information through something, it comes/enters from indirect sensation.... ah, indirect sensation that illuminates relationship rather than the intrinsic nature of the object?  If this interpretation is sound, then I guess I just wish to say that, mmm.. is that not impossible?  To have anything isolated from anything else?  Indeed distinctions arise, but only through their quality of their relations?  Perhaps, perhaps... quisas.  I quite feel relationships are here rather, um, significant..

EDITEDIT:  Ah... to conclude this little melody here before you,  readerwhatever, that-- ah, with utmost sincere accented intonations-- and admittly trying to keep within the warmth of the subject.. I just can't help but wish to add... do you think truth, quitequite and ultimately, has a lot to do with beauty?  I mean.. apart from the use.. of an insight... /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\\\\////\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

Can you expand on these themes Jilvin?

I disagree- nothing this complex can be designed. Even if you say that the designer is "intelligent" then that intelligence is going to figure out a simpler design. There is a saying that an engineer is not done when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.

Just to let you know I am working on a reply to Twelvemice - taking some time considering the points raised!

the truth it's :

I know one thing, it is that I know nothing  (Jean Gabin)

Thanks Seb. Our attempts at perfect knowledge are tentative, to say the least.