Science and Theology: Incompatible?

[Cherrypress]

Please share some of the "scientific discoveries" that have been absolute enough to confirm to you something as your "faith" surely the whole thing with faith/belief is just that... You don't know it's true.. That's why it's belief/faith and not plain fact,

So Hence are you saying that there are certain experiments that do confirm to you that what you belief is certainly not known to be true? Thus confirming what you believe is faith and certainly not truth?

Thanks, Im really interested in the different bar people use before they subscribe to an idea or belief and call it "fact"

One can be a scientist and believe in God.

Many scientific discoveries have affirmed my faith,

as there is much I cannot accept as mere chance.

Plus, while some would rationalize anything,

thankfulness won't let me deny miracles.

Edited May 8, 2014 by Cherrypress

[redhen]

Thanks, Im really interested in the different bar people use before they subscribe to an idea or belief and call it "fact"

Just wanted to jump in and re-iterate that scientific beliefs and religious beliefs, indeed any ideological beliefs, are not mutually exclusive. Humans can entertain all kinds of ideas at the same time. If you really want to explore this topic, you should look for some books or even courses in epistemology. It's a large and popular field of philosophy.

As for your last question, I think many people would point to some of the universal physical values and constants that would make it appear to be a case of "fine tuning", by a "tuner". I'm not sure how strong an argument it is, but it seems to be much debated.

[Leonardo]

To paraphrase something I wrote in another thread - mainly because it gives me the chance to paraphrase myself - science is about believing what you see, and religion/faith is about seeing what you believe.

Those two mind-sets are not mutually reinforcing, but independent.

[redhen]

science is about believing what you see, and religion/faith is about seeing what you believe.

I don't think that's always the case. Scientists use inference for those "things", in the broadest sense of the term, that they can't observe, with eyes or instruments.

Religious beliefs, like many other beliefs are sometimes held on the authority of others. There is so much of our personal knowledge that we defer to experts, in many human fields of endeavour.

[theotherguy]

Let's say God/a god created the world. You can agree with this proposition or not, but just run with it for a minute. That God also set forth rules--not just moral rules, of the "Thou shalt not worship thy neighbor's idol" type, but physical rules, of the "Gravity canst not run backwards" type. Throw in some small-scale rules, like "A proton hast a charge of the same magnitude but opposite polarity as hast an electron", and some large scale rules, like "The curvature of the universe shalt be basically flat", add a dash of rules that directly correspond to life--"Thou shalt be composed of cells beyond counting, and those cells shalt have nuclei, and mitochondria, and other bits"--and voila! Science-the practice of finding those physical rules. Religion-the practice of finding those moral rules.

[aka CAT]

Well you see one has evidence. Bringing up eugenics kind of implies you're trying to invoke emotion, and not anything remotely factual.

People's playing God is hubris. Their playing God with mankind,

especially their make-believing themselves fit to decide who should live

and who should die, along with their dream of controlling the world is

satanic. Whether people want to believe the devil exists or not,

the Machiavellian sort certainly share his designs.

[aka CAT]

Please share some of the "scientific discoveries" that have been absolute enough to confirm to you something as your "faith" surely the whole thing with faith/belief is just that... You don't know it's true.. That's why it's belief/faith and not plain fact,

So Hence are you saying that there are certain experiments that do confirm to you that what you belief is certainly not known to be true? Thus confirming what you believe is faith and certainly not truth?

Thanks, Im really interested in the different bar people use before they subscribe to an idea or belief and call it "fact"

My greatest scientific discovery was both unexpected and highly personal on account of a onetime gift.

That account involves many testimonies and more details than is appropriate for this medium. My

conclusion is unspoken for, while God alone is to credit, its telling is presumptuous, i.e. there are some things

that one has to humbly experience for himself.

0:-) MGby.

Edited May 8, 2014 by aka CAT

[Arbenol]

In regard to the bible,

much wasn't intended to be literal,

it is subject to misinterpretation

and there is dispute over which books

were or were not actually inspired.

Admittedly, not all of them inspire me.

And, to complicate things,

some religions leave beliefs, not core,

and devotions optional.

The intentions of the authors is largely irrelevant. For example, the creation story may not have been intended to be taken literally, but those that do so create a conflict between what is known and what some believe.

I wonder how people can believe

in physical evolution

and not spiritual evolvement.

The former without the latter

reflects survival of the worst

(namely, eugenicists).

I don't know what you mean by "spiritual evolvement". Do you really think that the eugenics movement was restricted to atheists?

[Arbenol]

Science-the practice of finding those physical rules. Religion-the practice of finding those moral rules.

I know how science goes about formulating and testing hypotheses for finding these physical rules - and testing the validity of these findings.

But, how does religion do the same for the moral rules?

[aka CAT]

The intentions of the authors is largely irrelevant. For example, the creation story may not have been intended to be taken literally, but those that do so create a conflict between what is known and what some believe.

The reading of anything is subject of point of view.

God's speaking to mankind involves communicating on multiple levels.

Genesis speaks to adults and children from different cultures. Besides,

one needn’t think, for example, a day in the life of an immortal earthly.

I don't know what you mean by "spiritual evolvement". Do you really think that the eugenics movement was restricted to atheists?

Spiritual evolvement accounts for persons not brutes, mad scientists

nor otherwise deluded enough to fancy themselves fittest of mankind.

Again, I believe Eugenicists typified by every biblical description satanic.

[Arbenol]

Spiritual evolvement accounts for persons not brutes, mad scientists

nor otherwise deluded enough to fancy themselves fittest of mankind.

Again, I believe Eugenicists typified by every biblical description satanic.

You didn't really address my point. I agree that eugenics was an abhorrent practice and ideology - but what does that have to do with conflict between religion and science. In it's heyday, eugenics was favoured by people from both fields.

[aka CAT]

You didn't really address my point. I agree that eugenics was an abhorrent practice and ideology - but what does that have to do with conflict between religion and science. In it's heyday, eugenics was favoured by people from both fields.

Way back, on page one of this discussion, Redhen introduced Darwinism:

Sure it's possible. A quote from Galileo comes to mind; "The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.".

I think your choice of Teilhard de Chardin may be misplaced, he was after all condemned by the Jesuit order.

There are several modern scientists that can serve as examples though. Francis Collins, former head of the Human Genome Project wrote a book on the topic; The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

The biologist Ken Miller also wrote a book; Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution

They both make compelling arguments, and I see no inherent conflict. The showstopper for me is the problem of evil.

I think Stephen Jay Gould is on the right track with his Non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) theory; "that science and religion each have "a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority," and these two domains do not overlap".

Reading that again, it sounds like we've come full circle to Galileo's proposition.

Your quoting/questioning me in connection with the subject of evolution prompted elaboration. Edited May 8, 2014 by aka CAT

[theotherguy]

I know how science goes about formulating and testing hypotheses for finding these physical rules - and testing the validity of these findings.

But, how does religion do the same for the moral rules?

The hypothesis-Killing another person because they have something you want is bad. The test-Somebody murders somebody else during the course of a robbery. The result-A family has lost an important member and gained nothing in return. The conclusion-The murderer must pay retribution. If that doesn't happen in this life, it will certainly happen in the next.

I'm not presenting this as a history or psychology lesson, just as how moral rules can be interpreted in a scientific manner. An exercise in critical thinking, sort of.

[Leonardo]

People's playing God is hubris.

People creating/inventing God is hubris. People having an unexplained experience, then going out to convince other people that experience was "of God" is hubris.

Lot's of things are hubris, not just 'science things'.

Edited May 9, 2014 by Leonardo

[aka CAT]

People creating/inventing God is hubris. People having an unexplained experience, then going out to convince other people that experience was "of God" is hubris.

Lot's of things are hubris, not just 'science things'.

Yours is precisely the prejudice

that cares not to recognize prayers' being answered,

not because the petitioner is holier than thou

but because he has faith to believe

Matthew 7:12

The Answer to Prayers.

7

^e “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.^f

8

For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.^g

9

Which one of you would hand his son a stone when he asks for a loaf of bread,^*

10

or a snake when he asks for a fish?

11

If you then, who are wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give good things to those who ask him.^h

[Arbenol]

The hypothesis-Killing another person because they have something you want is bad. The test-Somebody murders somebody else during the course of a robbery. The result-A family has lost an important member and gained nothing in return. The conclusion-The murderer must pay retribution. If that doesn't happen in this life, it will certainly happen in the next.

I'm not presenting this as a history or psychology lesson, just as how moral rules can be interpreted in a scientific manner. An exercise in critical thinking, sort of.

I agree that moral rules can be interpreted in a scientific manner, in the manner you state. Our morals come about largely by what works in societies' best interests.

But I don't think it's a theological issue - just a logical one.

[Arbenol]

Way back, on page one of this discussion, Redhen introduced Darwinism:

Your quoting/questioning me in connection with the subject of evolution prompted elaboration.

This thread is about where science and religious belief conflict with each other. Redhen's reference is to a book that addresses this very point.

I'm struggling to see why you brought eugenics into the discussion. How does this illustrate such a conflict?

[aka CAT]

This thread is about where science and religious belief conflict with each other. Redhen's reference is to a book that addresses this very point.

I'm struggling to see why you brought eugenics into the discussion. How does this illustrate such a conflict?

Do you not know that eugenics pertain to Darwinism?--

that Darwinism pertains to the theory of Evolution?

that evolution is the premise of such brainwash as Manifest Destiny?

In any case, it was Redhen who introduced the the subject of Darwin

as the theory is said to relate to science and, which by the way,

ties into my earlier mention of Genesis.

Science, religion--

what isn't obvious about the interconnectedness of the above subjects?

Why belabor it with me?

Tired of your line of so-called reasoning,

I'm not your couch case.

Edited May 9, 2014 by aka CAT

[Arbenol]

Do you not know that eugenics pertain to Darwinism?--

that Darwinism pertains to the theory of Evolution?

that evolution is the premise of such brainwash as Manifest Destiny?

In any case, it was Redhen who introduced the the subject of Darwin

as the theory is said to relate to science and, which by the way,

ties into my earlier mention of Genesis.

Science, religion--

what isn't obvious about the interconnectedness of the above subjects?

Why belabor it with me?

Tired of your line of so-called reasoning,

I'm not your couch case.

A strawman argument, then.

No belabouring anything, but if you don't like justifying your point of view, then don't make it.

And you still didn't answer the point.

Never mind.

[Rlyeh]

People's playing God is hubris. Their playing God with mankind,

especially their make-believing themselves fit to decide who should live

and who should die, along with their dream of controlling the world is

satanic. Whether people want to believe the devil exists or not,

the Machiavellian sort certainly share his designs.

This has nothing to do with evolution. Besides how is dreaming to control the world satanic?

Do you not know that eugenics pertain to Darwinism?--

that Darwinism pertains to the theory of Evolution?

Actually no it doesn't, eugenics can be based off Darwinism but Darwinism itself is not nor includes eugenics.

that evolution is the premise of such brainwash as Manifest Destiny?

Apparently you need to brush up on your history, the concept of eugenics has been around a lot longer than the concept of biological evolution. Edited May 9, 2014 by Rlyeh

[aka CAT]

A strawman argument, then.

No belabouring anything, but if you don't like justifying your point of view, then don't make it.

And you still didn't answer the point.

Never mind.

Reviewing our dialogue, I noticed that one of my posts was missing.

Immediately, I reflected upon a storm here during which I lost connection.

The lost communique, in addition to the above, addressed your stating,

"I'm struggling to see why you brought eugenics into the discussion"

[which, from page one, includes darwinism]. Pardon my consequent

impatience for perceiving much that transpired redundant.

I associate eugenics with darwinism, because the former poses the latter as a theory

provable mainly to feign a scientific basis for systemic discrimination against those

thus deigned inferior for the purpose of exploitation. And that is an example of

propaganda that goes against God's commandments, Christianity, the Golden Rule...

and said science for sheer lack of actual authority. To God alone answer.

With nothing to justify, I go in peace.

Edited May 9, 2014 by aka CAT

[Arbenol]

I associate eugenics with darwinism, because the former poses the latter as a theory

provable mainly to feign a scientific basis for systemic discrimination against those

thus deigned inferior for the purpose of exploitation. And that is an example of

propaganda that goes against God's commandments, Christianity, the Golden Rule...

and said science for sheer lack of actual authority. To God alone answer.

Many people have associated eugenics with Darwin but this is a strawman argument.

The truth of evolution is not a guide to human behaviour. And I would challenge anybody to post a quote by any evolutionary biologist who believes we should construct our societies based on evolutionary pricnciples.

You say it was used to give a "scientific basis for systemic discrimination against those

thus deigned inferior for the purpose of exploitation".

Replace the word 'scientific' with 'theological' and you could apply it to slavery.

Truth and reality are just what they are. The human capacity for cruelty can use any justification. And let's not forget, many Christians were also part of the eugenics movement.

[aka CAT]

"Christians" in name only.

[MyOtherAccount]

Often in UM, people of faith and religious belief are rejected by the scientifically-minded posters. My question is whether faith and reason are always, ultimately, at odds. Much of the dialogue tends, in my opinion, to reducing positions to stereotypes (the rigid scientist; the gullible person of faith). There are great historical (the Jesuit paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin) and contemporary (Rev. Dr. John Polkinghorne; David Ray Griffin) figures who have knit a synthesis of sorts between science and faith. I believe their work is instructive and commendable.

Are there UMers who consider such a synthesis possible, if not desirable?

I am such a person, as well. In fact the first time I heard someone say they were in conflict, it was a man working on his doctorate in theology--that might be humorous to an etymologist. I was very shy yet with 45 people there I spoke up and argued that there could not be a conflict. I was eleven--in the sixth grade.

IMHO, the ability of synthesized coexistence has already been established in the academic community. People who knew Greek, Latin, French, and English, and who discussed such topics, coined the term theology:

theology: theos- = god -logy = science/study of

The term has been in use since 1362 to now, apparently without major objections.

Like WCF I don't particularly like using the term theology to discuss this.To me the book is not yet closed on what is spiritual and what is science. Both have had times when they have had to return to the drawing board. On that basis I think I can be intellectually honest in stating that in the end there will be no conflict.

Now for the part I can not prove, yet why I say I know there can be no conflict. The spiritual and science co-exist right now. You see in the same way you guys know there is scientific fact, I know there is also a spiritual realm. There are too many solved police cases, etc.

One of about 20 personal experiences like this one. I had to travel by coach (bus) from Fayetteville, Arkansas to Dallas. My wife was with me but would stay in Fayetteville. After buying the ticket I was in the parking lot with her and had an "insight". I related everything that was to happen from getting on the bus to Fort Smith, the next large city. 100% accurate! I have had about 20 of those in as many years. I no longer have them either because of retiring or getting a sleep apnea machine.

I am an ordained Christian worker. I am also trained in Science in a number of different disciplines.

I do not expect anyone to believe my precognition experiences either--neither my OBEs--nor my trip to a place of light upon nearly dying at that time...

I have the impression that a superior person is trying to get all of us to answer a wake-up-call. Doctors turning to all kinds of spiritual matter. The blood moons/holidays thing. Books like Davies's, and there is other stuff I'll not bring up.

==============================

I Think religious pple ... Science has nothing to do.... If religous people....

Here is the main issue to me. I really could care less about religion in general as long as religious pple keep their religion to themselves. Do not bring it into the schools. Science belongs in schools. You do not see scientist going to church and protesting. You do not see scientist or athiest protesting on church lawns, you do not see scientist or athiest protesting inside the homes of parents about them teaching religious beliefs to their kids.

So keep religion out of the science class and school in general unless it is in history/social science classes and religion of a region is being taught in order to understand the people and what their traditioins means.

Thats my take on it.

I really hope I am not being offending to you, willowdreams. But I couldn't help but recognize something I feel you should note. Do you see any contradiction between your request above and you complaint below. Are you doing what you are asking others not to do?

to me, capturing the events of the history of the universe, IS about as spiritual as you can get!!!

If we were going to capture something like the spirit world that notforgotten is talking about, wouldn't we have done so by now? I do not believe in it to begin with, but there ya go.

Again, this is my opinion and I am well aware that many pple believe in heaven and hell and the 'so called' spirit world.

I do not.

[Arbenol]

"Christians" in name only.

We don't get to say who are real Christians or not. This is just a denial that people who share your core ideology could have such abhorrent beliefs. But true Christians have supported eugenics, been engaged in slave trading and, today, would deny rights to people who's lifestyles they don't approve of. We can't dismiss them as Christians because we don't like some of their other beliefs.

Whilst eugenics as been rightly discredited, in it's day it had supporters from all ends of the social spectrum.