Science and religion

Sure! There is a great deal of reasoning and logic about God, even his purpose. However, I would imagine that there cannot be science about God (unless you say all science is about God).
For considerations on God, from a Christian perspective, try the classics - Aquinas and Anselm.

You might call Aquinas "complicated", perhaps even Anselm, but I recommend them either way. Reading them certainly will not do any harm.

Good quesiton... I've heard lot's of purposes that people think God has for man: For his own glory, to demonstrate his love to, to show that a free will (human) can love God, to have relationship with Him... Those are a few that I've heard before from a Christian perspective. All of those have some sort of reasoning behind them, though I'm not sure I'd call it science...

Fankly, I think it's a tough topic from a number of directions... And possibly one that can't be fully understood while we are still going through the experience. But I would assume that His purpose for humans during their natural lifetime would revolve around Jesus' two greatest commadments: Love the Lord, and Love everyone else.

While we are sugesting good books on the topic, I found (the first half anyway) of CS Lewis's THE PROBLEM OF PAIN to be very thought provoking...

Scattered
this for me is a work in progress so the clarity i am atempting may not be there.

Reason and Knowledge, or could it be the knowledge of the Reason that is needed. If we seek the knowledge for our own reason, rather than the Reason, surly we would find nothing but ourselves. So if the reason for all that is knowable how shall that be? Yes there are many out there that can give us very challenging synopsis. But no matter how many ways one can fold a flat piece of paper, it is still a flat piece of paper. To what good is this if one is trying to prove a flat piece of paper is a flat piece of paper. Tho it is good to be as skilled as one can possibly be, but showing how many ways one can fold a piece of paper proves skill, not that the paper is paper and is flat. This is not to say guys like C.S.Lewis, and others, don't know what they are talking about. It is more like they serve those in need of the presentation that they are capable of providing.

Members of the science and religious community especially christian have a long history of animosity toward one another do to misunderstandings on one part or both. If the Reason for all things is the reason for all things then the reason should be the same on both parts. But I believe the science community does not desire the responsibility of proving the Reason rather they seek how things are and work so that man may use the knowledge of how things work and are for what ever purposes that the powers in the world may be to use. I believe that it is the general public that is under the impression that science is the answer to all things known, that miss leads them in to thinking that science must know all things.

This may be an over simplification :
science it seems always finds something smaller and discovers that it is made up of something smaller, it seeks the know what is biggest but it seem that it always discovers that it is a part of something bigger.
There is a program on tv called "planet earth" excellent photography, and there is a segment covering the empire penguins where the males stick it out through the winter at the south pole or near it. There it is, that which is made up of dirt and water executing a purpose for a reason. How does that knowledge and reason come in to dirt and water? And if you notice that those that were capable of not only obeying the reason but able to execute the purpose not only survived but maintained the possibility of new of the same.

The reason man is, is to know and obey his Creator, but as illustrated in Adam and Eve they fell short of that, just as if the empire penguin would make just one mistake and the purpose is lost. The Christ, Jesus is the one who did not make a mistake and is capable of not only surviving death, (the resurrection) but in Him make new of the same.

You have offered nothing but dirt and water. Perhaps God gave humans (and penguins) more than that. You say that science knows no more than paper, perhaps it can know what God gave humans. No religion claims to know God's purpose for humans. What if it could be revealed by science? Wouldn't that make science a special thing. The realm of science includes reason and logic. The world seems to have been made to work that way. Is that perhaps not a message from God and about God? God shows us every day and in every way that this is a world of physical laws. Perhaps it is the preachers that have sinned by refusing to accept that truths that science has revealed.
You are incorrect about the schism between religion and science. That has only come from preachers since the time of Darwin. Before that, science fit with religion harmoniously enough to be referred to as the Book of Nature and was considered another kind of scripture that revealed God's creations. Maybe it even revealed something about God. It is too bad that the preachers felt threatened by science when perhaps it could have told them so much that is no where else.

For Didymos Thomas:
Thomas Aquinus liked reason and was good at it, but he really did not have science available as a tool. There has been a lot of recent development in the understanding of science as it applies to humans, particularly in terms of life and genetics. With all that brand new knowledge, isn't it about time for a new testament of some sort. Clearly there are things we know about life that could not be conceptualized at the time of Jesus or the Bible. Do any of these new things reveal something about God? You might just be shocked.

For Neither Extreme:
The Christians insist though that we can neither increase or diminish God. If God so loves us, perhaps these things are for human benefit, not God's Perhaps a gift like his teachings. What could love for God and love for others do for us? The answer to those at least can perhaps be found in science fairly easily. What else might be found? Perhaps knowledge of God, humans and God's purpose? .... Nah. .... Or maybe someone already knows. Maybe I will start a thread about that question, since I have already wondered about it.

I'll be honest with you: I have not the slightest idea how science could tell us anything about God, or religion. I don't see the two in competition as they seem to deal with entirely different things.
In your response to NeitherExtreme you say that science might teach us how loving God and loving others is good for us. Why do we need science to show us this is so? Are these not evident enough in of themselves?

You said "reasoning, logic or science" so I suggested someone who used reason and logic, at least logic as it was understood in his time.

Yah, that's a problem, but wouldn't it be cool if it turned out that science did. What if science suggested that God existed and was just a logical consequence of what we already know of science, perhaps genetics? Maybe it is so already. Maybe it is an attribute of genetics that is just not well known. Wouldn't that be interesting?
Those things may be evident, but what do they mean in terms of science? Science is a tool. To use it, you must think in terms of science. It's funny that humans have survived by cooperation. It is out basic survival strategy. Wouldn't you think that the best basis for a cooperative system would be to love one another? It seems that Western culture is based on Christianity, based on a strategy of loving one another and Western culture has shown great success.
As for loving God, that seems a bit more complex to put in terms of science, but it is the foundation of faith. Some people think that faith is simply an irrational belief, but it is far more than that. In terms of biology, it appears to have a genetic basis. In terms of survival it appears to have an importance because people obviously have been willing to fight to the death over it. It shows the importance of the survival strategies that we call moralities and that are what religions husband. It is a reflection of our most basic survival instincts. We know logic, reason and science, but we don't consider something to be truth unless it satisfies us emotionally, at the level of right and wrong that we judge by instinct as well as intellect. Faith is our survival instinct, but it can use intellect as well.
Funny, but it seems that faith and love, the foundations of Christianity also seem to be the foundation of very critical, very Earthly survival strategies.
If these can be translated to science, what else can be translated to science?
We are entering a time of the great knowledge of life that genetics offers us. It tells us a great deal about humanity. What if perhaps this knowledge could tell us something about God? Didn't I hear somewhere that God is life. Maybe it would be worth examining this new knowledge. Maybe some of the old stories have literal truth if only we could understand it. Is it possible it would reveal something about not just humanity, but God as well? There is supposed to be a relationship between the two. But then we might have to decide between the truth of the Book and the truth of science. What if they looked similar in both, as love and faith do? Which would you accept if there were differences, even if the differences were small? The preachers say not to, that science is a lie if it disagrees any. What if it agreed though? Would they allow their authority to be diminished? They are only human. Maybe it wouldn't be diminished because it really comes from another source that they just need to trust? Perhaps the truth.
Oh, Thomas Aquinus had reason, but very limited knowledge of life as we have. Also, Kant pointed out limitations to logic if you base it on religious teachings, which Thomas Aquinus did. It might take quite a jump to see God in science. Still, there is another, different problem that is related to both religion and reason that I wonder about sometimes. We are dependant on our learned strategies for survival. (Oh, I'm primarily a biologist) These are commonly called moralities and currrently they are based on authority and prescidence. The authority of the Church, but authority is waning fast in this skeptical age. I think we may need moral systems based on reason and understanding or they will not be used. Those can be created with knowledge and they perhaps could be based on the same foundation as religion, love and faith since those do seem to work powerfully in a very sharp, real world. That is fine, but there is more needed. It would mean that God uses science. Could that be believable? Maybe more so than magic. Maybe it is time that magic will have to pass, vanquished by the emerging power of science. Still, just how would science find God? You've got to do that first. C.D. Darlington talked of the Three Forbidden Questions in Science. I suspect that God would end up being the Fourth. Then again, I solved the Third one... Maybe it is time for a new thread.

Maybe not time for a new thread. This one is a bit whacked, but it amused me to write it.
.
I think I'm like a lot of people. I know and I feel that the world is in trouble. It's not just global warming or economic whiplash. It's not just humans, nature is under siege, but it does seem to be the caused by humans. It's seen in racism, religious conflict and the cultural divide. It's seen in paralyzed politics and economics of the moment. The level and intensity of celebrity fascination is downright scary. It's hard to make sense of values and the secular verses sacred conflict we see in the technological world is comparable to the conflict between Islam and the West. That's just the mainstream conflict without looking at the extremes of morality and politics that want not just acceptance, but ascendancy.
They don't talk about those tests they did in the 70's where they put too many rats in a cage and they all went insane. It would seem all too familiar to us. The only hope is that somehow we could all work together. That is the only way we could possibly solve the massive problems we already face let alone achieve some thing more. But how could that happen? Perhaps facing the global calamity of global warming? It doesn't necessarily seem like even that will be enough. Besides, wouldn't it be better if we all pulled together not because of a common disaster, but to achieve some goal so grand that we all could agree and value it enough to work together?
We need someone or something to pull us together or a leader to guide us. We don't need another sport star, starlet or musician. We don't even need a great artist or scientist. We need a moral leader. One whose vision can validate and clearly express the positive values of humanity that are universal. They will have to also be a scientist because that is where so many problems and solutions lie. They will have to understand genetics, because we learn every day that they are what we are made of. They will have to have the humanism of a holy man because they must feel humanity's faith and mortality. They will have to have the courage of a sergeant to stare truth in the face and the moral commitment of a dedicated preacher to tell it. They will need to reconcile race, religion and value without favor. They will need the will to bare the burden and
lead their people. They will need a vision to lead to.
If there is such a person, they must be alive now, because this is when they are most needed. Can such a person exist? Could they survive without being destroyed, because they would be so unusual that certainly there would be trials for them? How could a person like that be found? Maybe place an advertisement on the internet for a philosopher/scientist/priest/warrior. Does such a person exist and how could they be recognized. If you met them, would you accept their leadership? But then, that is not how humans work. Some more gifted individuals, gifted enough to be our leaders, are the ones that must find this person. But how and where? Something can be said about the where. They will come from a center of culture and science. An person with that knowledge and wisdom must come from a center of culture. They must stand on the shoulders of giants. They must be at the forefront of knowledge. Their humanism and wisdom will not be so localized. It may have to be found within or come from knowledge of the greatest people of all of humanity. What more will it take to create this person? What crucible will they be made in? What forge will shape them?
Sometimes at night when I lie awake in fear for humanity and in fear for the future of my young children, I ask these questions and hope ... hope that this is possible. I hope that there is someone who has found a path and that there are people to protect and aid them until they can lead us, but somehow I doubt it. I hope that some day they will appear to us like a prophet of old and tell us the truth that can take us beyond our limitations and ignorance, a path to a bright tomorrow. Most of all, I hope that we will not destroy them when they try to help us.
Inquiring minds ... are so easily distracted.

Scattered,
A great leader is absolutely nothing without followers.

Such negitivity. Absolutely nothing?
What you say simply cannot be true, because he must be a leader before he will have a single follower.
"Everything you can think of is true..." ??? I wonder of your respect for truth.

Scattered, and it might be appropriate to add (brained)

It is apparent that distorting with deliberate intent is the purpose for some. Maintaining blindness to the possibility of Truth to be known, and not only that, glory in such. It is a fool that mocks the honest search for Truth, and truly it is a fool that thinks every one else is a fool.

Cool. I think I've been flamed.
Say what?
If I point out an obvious weakness in someone's logic, I hardly think it distorts anything. I just disagreed. It wasn't a lot there to distort anyway.
If everything you can think of is truth, you don't have to do much of a honest search for it. I must think that seriously devalues truth. Frankly, that is something I am critical of. Truth is a rare and valuable jewel that must be separated from the trivial. Not some cheap product of anyone's imagination.
People willing to lead are as common as sand on a beach. Real leaders are as rare and valuable as real truths. I made the postulate that the world seriously needs a new leader with some broad new vision. I think it is true. Is that a problem or do you think the world is going along fine with the old values of gross materialism, celebrity, excessive exploitation, pandering to the lowest and devaluation of humans?
Where did fools enter this conversation anyway?

Scattered, what do you mean by truth? It seems to me that if someone thinks of anything, that which is being thought of is true in many ways. Cows do not seem to be able to jump over the moon; in our imagination, it is true that cows jump over the moon. At least to some extent, anything that can be thought of seems to be true.

Uhhhh.... Is that a useful truth?
My kids come up with things like that and it is my responsibility to make sure they don't confuse truth with thought.
I looked up truth on Wikipedia and didn't find anything corrosponding to anything like truth being equivelant to imagination... Quite the contrary in fact.
If you want to say that any random thought is truth, then please suggest another word I can use to indicate thoughts that are generally factual as opposed to imaginary.

Scattered

Then since you know so much about what the Truth ought to be, then why don't you seem to know it? Or have you been hiding that from us?

Wow! Thanks. You give me such credit, but alas, my knowledge is limited. I do know many things and many things I have thought of I decided were certainly not truth... Well, at least in my limited view of truth being things that reflect facts or at least reality.
The only definition of truth I use is that which satisfys both the head and the heart.
And yes, I have been hiding the truth from you. I've been wondering if anyone would be interested.
Tell you what. My version is complicated. You seem very clear on what the truth is. Could you please enlighten the rest of us?
The truth is that this here looks like silly web slanging. Truth is far more than imaginings, but you seem to want to argue about it. That is not of interest to me. I know that truth is something I worked hard to find and the little bits of it I found are far more valuable than imaginings that the cow jumped over the moon. The others on this list talked about the thoughts of people like Thomas Aquinus. I talk about the thoughts of C.D. Darlington or Michael Polanyi. If you can't tell the difference, I'm doubt that I would be interested in your truths.

I didn't read all of the posts, so somebody may have said this.

Kant showed that any reasoning about God cannot be scientific, since God is beyond the reach of human intelligence.

He has a book called 'Prolegomena to any future metaphysics that should come forth as science' (I think). This book is a version of the Critique of Pure Reason written for the everyday man. I believe this title says a lot about Kant's philosophy, especially his philosophy on God.

See, there can be no 'science', as we understand it, about God because science has to do with what we can know about the world around us. We cannot know God, scientifically at least, because he is above and beyond the world around us.

Of course, this is where faith comes in. One connects the science we discover with God. We must connect it with something, why not God?

A side thought, Kant says that he must 'abolish knowledge... to make room for belief'. Most people might assume that this is only the case to believe in a "Higher Power". However, there is a lot of faith in what we call science. For example, we cannot know about the beginning of mankind, or life in general. It takes just as much faith to believe in this as it does to believe in God.

Very very good! No one has brought Kant's logical problem up yet.
I think there is an easier way to express it. You have to be suspect of any reason or logic based on the premise of God or that God exists.
>Kant showed that any reasoning about God cannot be
>scientific, since God is beyond the reach of human intelligence
Who says and based on what evidence???? This statement is based on assumptions about God that Kant himself said were inherently invalid since no assumptions can be made. We have almost no data on God, so anything we say is likely to be an assumption.
We do have a couple of things to work with. If God exists, it seems that he is interested in humans. Can that help us? It suggests against the idea that God is toatally apart from this world.
If the third forbidden question in science is heredity, then the fourth would be God.
What if you could, with fairly simple reasoning, based on direct scientific principles show that God was likely to exist? That is the question I am here to find out from this forum. One corallary would be that God uses science. In terms of memes, it would mean that religion, now based on magic, might need to be based on reason. But look around you. The whole world operates on physical laws. Logic looks universal in this world. Is that perhaps a lesson? If it is not, God is deceiving us, which if God exists, does not seem likely. What if everything in religion (I'll limit the question to inherently non-fundementalist Christianity) could be made sense of in terms of reason?
I'll carry this further. Anselm of Caterbury said "Nor do I seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe that I may understand. For this too I believe, that unless I first believe, I shall not understand." ...... What is needed is a proof with a good enough foundation that it does not rely on prior belief. If a scientist says that they have found magnetized particles in a bird's brain that seem to act like a compass, you need no prior belief to find that it seems true. It fits with previous knowledge and a previous way of reasoning. The same should be with God. You need to find a principle that logically leads to God where you say "ah ha, that makes sense". Ah, were we to find that! By the way, that is my jest above a few posts. What person already posesses that knowledge?

If a man seeks his own wisdom for what would that be? To gratify himself? For some, seeking truth is a matter of preference to honor themselves, not God. For the Truth is and can not be changed. The Truth does not fit man. Man must come to the realization of the Truth by the source of the Truth revealing the Truth of it to man. Is there matter of facts? Yes; all the result of the Truth. Man can search high and low for facts and not know the reason. Never knowing, or the knowledge of, the source thereof, or the Truth of the Reason.

Truly if there is a Living God and He has Created, then surly He speaks:
His Word is Truth for if He speaks it, it will be. The Almighty cannot lie for if He speaks it. It will be. Through His Word is that which all may know Him and all of creation obeys Him. For the Truth is the Truth no matter what the Truth is. Whether all mankind is aware of it, or not. It is still the Truth.
The Truth always was, always is, and always will be. It always was true that parting of the sea would happen, even before time. It always is true that parting of the sea happened, and it always will be true, forever. If one had foreknowledge of the Truth about the parting of the sea, before the parting of the sea , one could "prophesy", or repeat the Truth about parting of the sea . Thus Moses knowing the Truth via the revelation of the Truth to Moses that the sea was going to part. He was able to demonstrate to the Israelites the Truth was with him when he raised his staff so that the sea would part. Just because something is manifest in matter doesn't mean it was not true before it became apparent to the world, via a witnessable event in matter. The world can be like a family man. He is the last one to know, and doesn't believe it, until he sees it himself.

The Truth need not time, to exist. For it always was true that time would exist. The Truth need not energy, to exist. The Truth need not space, to exist. The Truth need not matter, to exist. All four need the Truth in order to exist. But the souls which dwell in the earth needs these things in order to exist, and to come to know the Truth. Though all things of the earth respond to the Truth accordingly, the souls that dwell in the earth, do not. For it is only to the souls of mankind, that it is given to choose not to obey the Word of God.

All things that are, are of the Truth. For if they are, then they are true. One cannot hold all the things that are true, in one's mind. All the collective minds of mankind cannot know all that is true. But of Truth, all things are.
If you think that you would create truth by doing something so that it's true. Think again, for it always was true that you would do that thing. It always was true that you would think to do that thing. it always was true that you would read this, it always was true that you were born into the world to think and do that thing. And you had no control over that. Needless to say it goes farther back then that. The Truth is, and there are a series of events, or responses to execute that which is true, that are all also true.

No matter how you think or believe living things came about in the earth, it is true, that living things came about in the earth. Thus living things or, animated matter, if you prefer, are the result of Truth.

Thus, Truth prevails as above all. Or greater then all. For the Truth cannot be created. The Truth is the source of all we can perceive or understand. Other then lies. But it is true that a lie is a lie, and that the lie was told.
If it were to be true, that there is no truth , then that would be the truth, thus Truth exists, and it is false that Truth does not exist. That which would teach you otherwise, knows this.

If you want to say that there is no Truth in the world, that is conceivably possible, but the Truth does not need the world to know the Truth, in order for the Truth to exist. Just because something is perceived as true in the world does not necessarily make it true. Or if the world insists that something is not true, does not necessarily make it not true. In the world, lies are the order of the day. As in, "what can I say to get them to believe me", not, "this is the truth, whether you like it or not".

The Truth cannot be a lie. Thus the Truth is perfect and incorruptible. Though some try to portray it otherwise. It stands forever, no one can change it. Ether you embrace it, turn from it, or lie about it. If you embrace it, you go with it. If you do not embrace it, what you are, remains where it is. If you are seeking The Truth, you are seeking a Living God. For the Truth is God, not all of God, but God none the less. Who knows and repeats the Truth, is another issue. Don't trust me, trust The Truth, The Word of God.

It is the Will, Love, Truth, Wisdom, Mercy of the Living God to reveal Himself in Jesus the Christ, His only begotten Son, to offer mercy to all man in the flesh that the man in the flesh may be resurrected in the flesh for it is mans purpose to live in the flesh with and in God's presents. The resurrection of Christ is the flesh of the son of man in the presents and at the Right Hand of God. Intrusted by God and ordained by God in His Loving Mercy to those condemned to death by virtue of the will of the flesh.