Reconciling faith and science

Heliotrope,

You may have seen tonights BBC programme on "the Story of God". The point was made that "the God of Heavenly Love" was a Pauline move away from "the God of Justice" of the OT, instigated by the injustice of consecutive earthly suffering by the hitherto "obedient faithful". This new God profile was superimposed by the Romans on the immortality cult of Mithras which provided a receptive audience for the hybrid "God of Eternal Love".

Such "rational discussion" would of course be as unlikely amongst Christians as the epileptic visions of Mohammed are amongst Muslims.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Heliotrope,

You may have seen tonights BBC programme on "the Story of God". The point was made that "the God of Heavenly Love" was a Pauline move away from "the God of Justice" of the OT, instigated by the injustice of consecutive earthly suffering by the hitherto "obedient faithful". This new God profile was superimposed by the Romans on the immortality cult of Mithras which provided a receptive audience for the hybrid "God of Eternal Love".

Such "rational discussion" would of course be as unlikely amongst Christians as the epileptic visions of Mohammed are amongst Muslims.

Do you think heliotrope or you will demand proof that the BBC programmes assertions were based on fact.

I think not.

0 Replies

I will try to keep an open mind by looking at what realities you guys are trying to express to me.

Would you give me some links that you might find helpful? Will you as well?

Just wondering if you guys have read any of the scriptures...of what religions?

There is a scripture that says "Wide is the gates and path that leads to destruction and narrow is the gates and path that lead to life"

Is anything that exists not pernicious. Either destructive to other things or self destructs? (temporal) What?

0 Replies

Heliotrope wrote:

All this defensive byplay is causing a resurgence of a thought I had some time ago.
That thought was this :
Is a mind that contains religion capable of rational thought concerning religion ?

I understand that the question raises a dichotomy given an affirmative.

I personally find that dichotomy well within the bounds of human capability but I also understand that the capability renders the religious thoughts of the mind in question invalid and irrelevant.

If the answer to the question is in the negative then we are left with the conclusion that all religious thoughts are irrational, invalid and clearly, given the current state of thinking, no longer relevant.

Who defines rational and from what perspective? Do you have faith in it? Is that which defines rational thinking evolving? Has it evolved as man has evolved? Has that evolution of terms come to it's final conclusion?

Man has authored what is rational and also defines what is logical?
Are these definitions...still being redefined through time.

I am not God.

http://www.gracecommunity.info/discus/messages/8/8.html
http://www.gracecommunity.info/discus/messages/8/19.html?1021421992

0 Replies

Bartikus,

You are wasting your time. If you can't see or won't see that religious websites Christian, Jewish, Muslim etc are all equivalent and have the same parochial and tribal status vis-a-vis "dogma free science", as that of a football fans website, then there's nothing more to be said. There has even been a war precipitated by football (Salvador vs Hondras 1969), so you stick to your cosy rationality, they will stick to theirs, and we'll all continue to suffer the consequences.

Virus 1 - Common Sense 0 Sad

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Bartikus,

You are wasting your time. If you can't see or won't see that religious websites Christian, Jewish, Muslim etc are all equivalent and have the same parochial and tribal status vis-a-vis "dogma free science", as that of a football fans website, then there's nothing more to be said. There has even been a war precipitated by football (Salvador vs Hondras 1969), so you stick to your cosy rationality, they will stick to theirs, and we'll all continue to suffer the consequences.

Virus 1 - Common Sense 0

Does the scoreboard make you feel better about your suffering? Does it make you feel better about not addressing my questions? Does it support a cozy rationality you have chosen?

Maybe.....you are not that cozy and maybe neither am I.

I do not mean to belittle your concerns or views....
they are just as valid as others.

No one thinks their own ways and rationality is wrong! No individual maintains the exact same rationality as any other.

Every man's way is right in his own eyes, But the LORD weighs the hearts. Proverbs 21:3

I don't have a scoreboard because I don't know if a game is being played and I would not presume to know who was winning, or if anything is to be won for that matter.

Maybe it is not good to take ourselves too seriously...

oh..and thanks for ruining football for me. lol Razz

football is not to blame....people are Sad

0 Replies

Personally, I feel that evolutional algorithms can not only explain evolution but the origin of life here or anywhere (Panspermia is just a geographic relocation of the origin of life on earth debate not a solution to it) and even the existence of planets and stars.

If "God" exists and had anything to do with this particular universe it was only shortly before and perhaps during the "Big Bang". Given this paradigm, God need only be the one who sets up the rules for this particular Universe, lights the fuse, the resulting Bang initiating the whole ball of wax, then walks away. God's stewardship is not needed in this Universe, perhaps in others but not here.

So yes, belief in Scientific explanations (and its subset--evolution) and faith in God can coexist but God need not show up. God could make an appearance to change the laws in the middle of the game but might not this imply more indecision or arbitrariness and less design?

JM

0 Replies

It seems to me that according to the "rational" worldview only the intellectually gifted people can really aspire to living a moral/decent/worthy life and existence.

They are the only ones who would be capable of really knowing what is right and wrong by their study of empirical proof, and trials of error reduction.

Those of us simpletons who can't grasp the details of the theorems, proofs, evidence, logic etc, would be doomed to a life of moral confusion or a life dependent on the "smart" people to tell us what right and wrong is.

Maybe the simple folk like myself in this world would be better off to abandon our pernicious (wicked) myths and beliefs in a loving God(theism) in order to be lead by you people(man/men) who are intellectually and rationally supreme. For the sake of all mankind....of course? Yes/No

Maybe even for the sake of...."peace"?

If you believe this to be true, based on evidences,logic,rational thought then....say so. If a direct answer is not given....simple and "uneducated" folk are only left to assume this assertion to be false.

fresco, helio....anyone care to answer?

0 Replies

Science is only a threat to Fundies with an insistence of literal interpretation of the Bible. I am not religious but I prefer a liberal church than no church and a secular government.

0 Replies

talk72000 wrote:

Science is only a threat to Fundies with an insistence of literal interpretation of the Bible. I am not religious but I prefer a liberal church than no church and a secular government.

If anyone believes they are above another they believe a lie.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Heliotrope,

You may have seen tonights BBC programme ...

Unlikely I'm afraid. I rarely watch TV.
Unless there is something like last Sunday's 'Top Gear' on of course.
Splendid stuff.

Actually all the stuff I post is a product of the thought processes that seem to form themselves from the Hawking Radiation fizzing off the black hole I call my brain.

Quote:

Such "rational discussion" would of course be as unlikely amongst Christians as the epileptic visions of Mohammed are amongst Muslims.

Absolutely.
I've experienced that at exceptionally close and frightening quarters I can assure you.

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

Do you think heliotrope or you will demand proof that the BBC programmes assertions were based on fact.

I think not.

Quite so.
You think not.

Else you would have realised that I do of course demand accuracy and precision and I go to great, indeed some would say extreme, lengths to verify that which I understand to be correct is indeed so.
If information comes to hand that demonstrates the inaccuracy, incompleteness or lack of precision in what one understands then one must of course modify one's view to take account of new information.

I suggest you make no more unwarranted assumptions nor make ill-considered and callow remarks concerning my personal requirements.

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

Maybe the simple folk like myself in this world would be better off to abandon our pernicious (wicked) myths ...

Wicked ?
That implies a moral and therefore irrelevant standpoint.
This almost sounds like you're taking offence.
Especially considering the remarks you made immediately after the section I quoted.

Quote:

and beliefs in a loving God(theism) in order to be lead by you people(man/men) who are intellectually and rationally supreme. For the sake of all mankind....of course? Yes/No

It reads almost like malice towards those who have knowledge in excess of your own. Almost as if you would perfer them to not know anything and thus be on your "level" so you could avoid potential feelings of inferiority and insecurity.
That sort of defensiveness inevitibly leads to fundamentalism, total insularity of thought and a refusal to accept, see or even react to information that stands contrary to the beliefs of the system.
Irrationality, in short.

Oh, for your information :

Pernicious
/prnishss/

Adjective having a harmful effect, especially in a gradual or subtle way

DERIVATIVES perniciously adverb perniciousness noun.
ORIGIN Latin perniciosus ?destructive?.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/pernicious?view=uk

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

If you believe this to be true, based on evidences,logic,rational thought then....say so. If a direct answer is not given....simple and "uneducated" folk are only left to assume this assertion to be false.

Ahhh, here is a simple misunderstanding.
You suggest that I/we/they 'believe' something to be true.
This is incorrect.
The word belief is entirely inappropriate.
Believe

Verb 1 accept that (something) is true or (someone) is telling the truth. 2 (believe in) have faith in the truth or existence of. 3 have religious faith. 4 think or suppose.
DERIVATIVES believable adjective believer noun.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/believe?view=uk

Nowhere in there does it say 'know', 'proof', 'fact' or mention any other concepts pertaining to reality. It merely mentions those that may be true or those that are taken to be true without evidence.

Personally I never use the words 'belief' or 'believe' in conversation because I don't 'believe' in anything at all.
When I am questioned about this I respond thus :
It (whatever it may be) does not require belief. One does not need to believe in gravity in order for apples to fall out of trees. One does not need to believe that grass is green and the sky is blue for these are facts backed up with all the knowledge, observation, investigation and evidence our minds and ingenuity can supply.
One does not have to believe in anything where a mechanism can be found for it's existence or a circumstance found that precludes it's existence.
They are not maybe.
They simply are.

As for the 'simple and uneducated folk'... Well if they choose to they can go and become educated, cease to be simple and have a measure of understanding rather than remain blind and ignorant.

Should they choose to...

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

...But the LORD weighs the hearts. Proverbs 21:3

What Lord ?
Lord Chief Justice ?
Show him to us.
I want to see him.

0 Replies

If God exists could he use uber-science to create everything in such a way evidence of his existence is forever undiscoverable or undiscernible from blind chance?

Absolutely - which is why faith is a belief system where proof doesn't go.

Science is simply a way of modelling in such a way that you can qualify observable, testable hypothesis and build a repeatable framework to understand how things operate.

Faith often supposes why we are here, it rarely says what a diety was doing or what his/her/its/their purpose was?

We live in a non-deterministic reality, governed down to a quantum level by uncertainity, and conciousness is a precious thing.

So faith and science can largely support each other if you wish, so long as one doesn't enter heavily into the others domain. e.g. Noah's biblical flood move a quantity of water in a year that would have unleashed 10 ^26 joules of energy onto our surface - or roughly one Hiroshima sized bomb detonated on every square miles of the Earth's surface every 14 seconds for a year - yet we have no evidence of such force being unleashed only 4,000 years ago. If it had happened the evidence would stand out like a sore thumb!

0 Replies

Personally I think that God does exist - only not as anything so simplistic as a human personality. 'God' to me is the overarching sets of scientific rules that structure our amazingly interconnected universe.

So yes - I suppose I have faith or sorts. It's just not in some omniscient dude with a beard. :wink:

-------------------------------------------
Listen to the "This Week In Science" radio show and podcast at http://twis.org

0 Replies

Reconciling faith and science......

I'm sure someone has already pointed out that faith and science cannot be reconciled by definition.

The whole point of science is to remove all traces of doubt from any given situation.

The whole point of faith is to accept as true ...things that cannot be proven true.

When things are proven to be true they are called facts and faith is not required.

So John Creasy, if you want to look at a situation (like evolution) in a scientific way, you can't allow any preconceived notions to skew your vision...you are just tampering with your own results which destroys the science utterly.

0 Replies

Reconciling Faith and Science is like reconciling apples and oranges. Both exercises are not only irrelevant but unnecessary. Both can and do exist despite and independent of the other. However, problems arise when the apples insist that the oranges do not exist -- this despite the obvious contradiction that arises when the pesky oranges keep showing up time and again.

JM

0 Replies

I don't get the analogy James

I've never heard a scientist claim that faith does not exist, nor have I ever heard a theist claim that science does not exist.

0 Replies

Reconciling faith and science

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know