Reconciling faith and science

rosborne979 wrote:

Bartikus wrote:
We can get past saying whatever we choose...that does'nt mean we will get past the will of a vastly superior intelligence.

That's true. A vastly superior intelligence might just choose to squash our entire civilization like a bug.

But I'm not going to spend my life worrying about that.

lol. No I would'nt worry about that either. I would be more worried about our civilizations destroying themselves and each other...thanks in some part to science and some to our very nature.

With science we definately do learn a great deal of knowledge. I hope science reveals that which we need to learn most and can someday change our very nature.

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

With science we definately do learn a great deal of knowledge. I hope science reveals that which we need to learn most and can someday change our very nature.

I hope so too. And I suspect that we (or our descendents) shall see, because the learning curve leads down hill, right into a singluarity (an information singularity See: _Singularity Sky_ by Charles Stross, a very cool book. ).

0 Replies

I suspect Mr. Creasy may not have heard of the Templeton Prize. All I know is that maybe you should have a go at reconciling science and religion yourself. There's a prize in it.

0 Replies

John Creasy wrote:

I don't even know what descrete means

Then do something that sets you apart : educate yourself.

Quote:

and I still know your wrong.

How can you know I'm wrong when you don't understand what I wrote ?
You have made an assumption which is patently in error.
I suggest you not make any more misguided comments.

Quote:

Last time I checked, science is yet to prove the non-existence of God.

Last time I checked, religion is yet to prove the existence of god.

0 Replies

John Creasy wrote:

I'm not attempting to prove God's existence, but from my experience I would vote in his favor.

Well quite.
Your life is clearly replete with absolutely undeniable and incontrovertable manifestations of god's power, will and most importantly of all, actions.

Share them with us.
Preferably videotape them so we can all see what has you convinced.

0 Replies

John Creasy wrote:

Thank you. You at least seem like a fair-minded person.

'Fair minded' being a synonym for 'allowing the "god of the gaps"' ?

0 Replies

John Creasy wrote:

Then where did the universe come from???

No one knows.
That's it.
All of it.
No one knows.
Conjecture and absurd speculation are not required.
Nor is the fabrication of a 'higher force' responsible for it's existence.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Is there not an infinite regress of "God" and "Moron" at all boundaries of human knowledge ?

This is all there is.
Ignorance replaced by knowledge.
If you don't know something, go find out about it.
Do not fabricate.

0 Replies

Science is just an endeavor to seek knowledge and pool of knowledge and expertise. It has no intrinsic value as such. Evil people could acquire it and use for evil. Eugenics was the reason the Nazis used to kill homosexuals, Jews and the disabled. Science is a tool. Religion is a way of life and it also encompass knowledge. It is this area that there is a conflict. The knowledge religion espouses is a collection of wisdom and observations often anecdotal and not procedural. So in this area religion cannot compete with science or any field of learning. If religion avoid those areas I see no conflict. Religion is far more than knowledge as it is a social organization and community hup bub. It is the fundamentalist religionists whom I find are the rabble rousers with their inerrancy mantra.

0 Replies

Nothing that comes from man is inerrant.

0 Replies

talk72000 wrote:

Science is just an endeavor to seek knowledge and pool of knowledge and expertise. It has no intrinsic value as such. Evil people could acquire it and use for evil. Eugenics was the reason the Nazis used to kill homosexuals, Jews and the disabled. Science is a tool. Religion is a way of life and it also encompass knowledge. It is this area that there is a conflict. The knowledge religion espouses is a collection of wisdom and observations often anecdotal and not procedural. So in this area religion cannot compete with science or any field of learning. If religion avoid those areas I see no conflict. Religion is far more than knowledge as it is a social organization and community hup bub. It is the fundamentalist religionists whom I find are the rabble rousers with their inerrancy mantra.

Excellent points.
Although the only knowledge that religion encompasses is revealed knowledge and not that gained through observation.

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

Nothing that comes from man is inerrant.

Quite so.
Whereas that espoused by religions of whatever stripe is perfect, fully formed and allows no room for change or the ingestion of new knowledge.
In other words; stale, rigid and irrational.
And no longer relevant.

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

Nothing that comes from man is inerrant.

disagree somewhat. mathematics and logic are generally inerrant, so unless they come from outside humanity, they're counterexamples.

0 Replies

Yitwail,

This depends on what we mean by "error". Do we mean "consistency" or "applicability".

Godel showed that any system relies on at least one axiom that cannot be derived from the system itself. Binary logic is a relatively consistent system which relies on the axiom of discrete static set membership, but it has been superceded somewhat by "fuzzy" or "many valued logic" where degrees of set membership are seen to more accurately reflect "reality". Within binary logic itself, Russell's Paradox (from which Godel developed his own position) is at least one example of aberration from "perfection" if "error" is considered to be about "consistency" rather than "applicability"

0 Replies

freso, good point. that's why i said "generally inerrant". but i'm more interested in the question of whether logic, and math by extension, are human artifacts, or whether they exist independently, in the manner of Plato's "ideas."

0 Replies

yitwail,

If you try Google "Wittgenstein vs Russell" you will find reference to Russell's abandonment of Platonism with respect to logic.

0 Replies

haven't found it so far, fresco, although i did come across a reference to a "famous elephant dialogue," which sounds intriguing. Smile

0 Replies

yitwail,

http://sammelpunkt.philo.at:8080/archive/00000463/

0 Replies

thanks, fresco. i may have to ask you for a plain language translation. Embarrassed

0 Replies

yitwail,

I may have to decline that tempting offer (LOL) because (a) the original article is in German and (b) I am more familiar with Wittgensteins later work on language than I am on his earlier work on logic.

However, based on W's later dictum that "the meaning of a word is its use" it is not hard to infer that W thought there was no such thing as a Platonic idea such as "tree". The concept did not constitute a static set of ideal properties embodying "treeness". Instead the meaning of the word lay in its dynamic relational context with other words and was subject to modification over time. (Ask a linguist to draw a "tree" and you might be surprised).

0 Replies

Reconciling faith and science

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know