| |
| Is faith and science reconcilable? |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| arkofnoah |
 Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:42 am Post subject: Is faith and science reconcilable? |
 |
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 102
|
Mankind has always tried to explain natural phenomenon that they don't understand with the supernatural. Lightning, fire, earthquakes were once considered to be disasters created by God.
In today's world many religious groups pit themselves against evolution along other scientific advancements that may potentially erode away the necessity of religion in the assessment of nature.
Faith in religious term is the belief in the unknown, or even unknowable, whereas science, and logic as whole, observe the knowable and deduce knowledge from them.
So my question is: Should religion meddle with science, besides simply providing the motivation and spiritual reason for scientists?
My stand is that faith is more or less standalone from science. God might be experienced, and hence "proven", subjectively, but from the more objective viewpoint of science, God is never, and should never be, involved in the nature. My belief is not set in stone so my mind is open (I hope).
And this discussion is not about whether God exists or not. That belongs in the "Why do you believe God exists?" thread. The premise here is the assumption that God exists as a supernatural being, so with this assumption, can there be areas in science where God is the only explanation? Personally, I highly doubt so.
Discuss.
_________________
₪ [size=75]Blog[/size] ₪ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Obviously |
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 1221
Location: Norway
|
Well, as I mentioned somewhere else, religion might work as a motivator for doing science, but so can a cheeseburger. But to avoid things like confirmation bias etc, religious presuppositions has to exluded when doing scientific investigation. If we're to assume some things can't be explained, we wouldn't know what it was anyhow. As far as we know, everything that's unknown today might as well be unknowable, but we will never know unless we figure it out, thus the paradox. And the paradox can be avoided if we take an absolute stand that "everything can be explained rationally", but the possibility that we might never figure out what that rational explanation is remains as a paradox of its own.
Either the wall has a door which reveals the explanation for everything, or its simply a wall we can't pass through. If the first premise is true, no worries. If the second is, then we'll never ever know.
And with that we can conclude that yes, maybe there's some places God is the only explanation, but we would never know 
_________________
"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."
-- Albert Einstein
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
-- Albert Einstein |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mitchellmckain |
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:44 pm Post subject: Re: Is faith and science reconcilable? |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 06 Oct 2005
Posts: 1987
Location: Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
|
First the main question: "Is faith and science reconcilable?"
Only in the sense that a single person can most definitely embrace both of them as valuable activities in their life, but NOT in the sense that they should ever be one and the same thing.
| arkofnoah wrote: |
In today's world many religious groups pit themselves against evolution along other scientific advancements that may potentially erode away the necessity of religion in the assessment of nature.
|
MMmmm... Lost days of glory I suppose, when religion was the be all and end all of life. But now religion will have to takes its place in a much more modest portion of human life, and as something that people will take or leave as they like, just like most everything else in modern life.
| arkofnoah wrote: |
Faith in religious term is the belief in the unknown, or even unknowable, whereas science, and logic as whole, observe the knowable and deduce knowledge from them.
|
Nonsense. Faith is the basic process by which we choose those premises for which we can never have any proof but which the living of our lives requires us to take some stand or other. Religion is just one of those over which people get more excited about than others.
| arkofnoah wrote: |
So my question is: Should religion meddle with science, besides simply providing the motivation and spiritual reason for scientists?
|
Absolutely NOT. On this hangs the existence of science. If religion is allowed to meddle with science then it ceases to exist as science and becomes a part of theology. Let those who want to do theology, do theology and those who want to do science, do science. And then some people like me can even do both if they like.
| arkofnoah wrote: |
My stand is that faith is more or less standalone from science. God might be experienced, and hence "proven", subjectively, but from the more objective viewpoint of science, God is never, and should never be, involved in the nature. |
Huh? God certainly is never and should never be any part of science. However, although you can choose to believe that God is never involved in nature, if you like, I choose otherwise.
| arkofnoah wrote: |
My belief is not set in stone so my mind is open (I hope).
|
But not so much that your brains fall out, right? We do make our choices, and not all choices are equal. Such is life. So which choices in my arrogant opinion are better than others? Why those which best enable us to learn more effectively, right? In this way we can be solid without being stone, for stones do not learn. This is the incredible trick of living things that they maintain their identity not by the static invulnerability to the world (like a stone) but by responding dynamically to the world in a process of growth and learning.
| arkofnoah wrote: |
And this discussion is not about whether God exists or not. That belongs in the "Why do you believe God exists?" thread. The premise here is the assumption that God exists as a supernatural being, so with this assumption, can there be areas in science where God is the only explanation? Personally, I highly doubt so.
|
I don't believe in God in the role of explanation at all. Since when does the person God explain anything in a halfway decent manner, let alone the idea of God being a halfway decent explanation of anything?
_________________
See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com
Last edited by mitchellmckain on Sat Jul 12, 2008 1:57 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| portcontrol7 |
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 10:32 pm Post subject: Re: Is faith and science reconcilable? |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Posts: 57
|
| mitchellmckain wrote: |
| Absolutely NOT. On this hangs the existence of science. If religion is allowed to meddle with science then it ceases to exist as science and becomes a part of theology. Let those who want to do theology, do theology and those who want to do science, do science. And then some people like me can even do both if they like. |
I agree here in theory. I just made and deleted a post in which I posed a similar question:
Is Stephen Gould's "Non-Overlapping Magisteria" possible?
I don't understand how this is possible in the long term. I think that science for the most part will continuously erode our current concept of religion, and reshape it into something unrecognizable by todays standards. Faith is anything if not resilient. Whereas Mitchell seems to find a way to reconcile faith and science, I see them as ultimate competitors in the "truth" business.
Conversely, perhaps faith and science will meld together into some hybrid form in the future? From an evolutionary standpoint this is possible, but remaining as two distinct entities in their current form isnt likely.
_________________
"The most monstrous effect of the indoctrination of the young by religion, is not that they are mislead, but are trained to mislead themselves." - Me |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| punarmusiko |
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 12:49 am Post subject: Re: Is faith and science reconcilable? |
|
|
Forum Junior
Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 210
|
| arkofnoah wrote: |
Mankind has always tried to explain natural phenomenon that they don't understand with the supernatural. Lightning, fire, earthquakes were once considered to be disasters created by God.
In today's world many religious groups pit themselves against evolution along other scientific advancements that may potentially erode away the necessity of religion in the assessment of nature.
Faith in religious term is the belief in the unknown, or even unknowable, whereas science, and logic as whole, observe the knowable and deduce knowledge from them.
So my question is: Should religion meddle with science, besides simply providing the motivation and spiritual reason for scientists?
My stand is that faith is more or less standalone from science. God might be experienced, and hence "proven", subjectively, but from the more objective viewpoint of science, God is never, and should never be, involved in the nature. My belief is not set in stone so my mind is open (I hope).
And this discussion is not about whether God exists or not. That belongs in the "Why do you believe God exists?" thread. The premise here is the assumption that God exists as a supernatural being, so with this assumption, can there be areas in science where God is the only explanation? Personally, I highly doubt so.
Discuss. |
I guess there are certain gray areas with what you are accepting as science and what you are accepting as faith.
For example take this statement
all men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal
It's interesting to note that the premises that form the deductive statement have an inductive foundation (at what point can you say "all men"? after observing 10? 10 billion?)
At what point have you compiled enough information to produce a reliable conclusion?
In other words our innate limited ability means that we are not in the position to make perfectly deductive statements - this means that at the root of all claims is actually faith, and its not, as the empiricists would have us believe, that their claims are beyond such issues.
Since complete knowledge is never within the grasps of empiricism and it's tacit findings, it's not clear on what basis you say god should never be involved in nature? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pong |
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 12:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 08 Apr 2008
Posts: 1412
|
Science is a cold lens to see by. It's a tool. So, yeah, we don't make it all smeary with religion... BUT a person truly guided by science alone is a dangerous psychopath sure as any one who rides the bus with kitchen cleaver in hand. There are many places we must not bring science - its conclusions are insane.
Faith is necessary. It needn't be classically religious in character, and generally isn't. Much of it is unsaid, and unconscious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Scifor Refugee |
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 9:10 am Post subject: Re: Is faith and science reconcilable? |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 1171
|
| portcontrol7 wrote: |
Is Stephen Gould's "Non-Overlapping Magisteria" possible?
|
Only if religion retreats to the making claims that aren't empirically testable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| portcontrol7 |
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 1:39 pm Post subject: Re: Is faith and science reconcilable? |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Posts: 57
|
| punarmusiko wrote: |
| In other words our innate limited ability means that we are not in the position to make perfectly deductive statements - this means that at the root of all claims is actually faith, and its not, as the empiricists would have us believe, that their claims are beyond such issues. |
I think your mistaking probability for faith here? Faith is believing in something we have no direct evidence for, is it not? Science is about finding high probabilities and the predictions we can make about our universe in relation to these probabilities.
Just because we are limited in our ability to find absolute truth, does not mean we are incapable of measuring to a high degree of accuracy.
_________________
"The most monstrous effect of the indoctrination of the young by religion, is not that they are mislead, but are trained to mislead themselves." - Me |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| punarmusiko |
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 4:27 pm Post subject: Re: Is faith and science reconcilable? |
|
|
Forum Junior
Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 210
|
| portcontrol7 wrote: |
| punarmusiko wrote: |
| In other words our innate limited ability means that we are not in the position to make perfectly deductive statements - this means that at the root of all claims is actually faith, and its not, as the empiricists would have us believe, that their claims are beyond such issues. |
I think your mistaking probability for faith here? Faith is believing in something we have no direct evidence for, is it not? Science is about finding high probabilities and the predictions we can make about our universe in relation to these probabilities.
Just because we are limited in our ability to find absolute truth, does not mean we are incapable of measuring to a high degree of accuracy. |
so if the size of a given set is unknown, how do you determine a high degree a accuracy without approaching issues of faith? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Obviously |
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 7:40 pm Post subject: Re: Is faith and science reconcilable? |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 1221
Location: Norway
|
| punarmusiko wrote: |
| so if the size of a given set is unknown, how do you determine a high degree a accuracy without approaching issues of faith? |
By not approaching issues of faith.
_________________
"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."
-- Albert Einstein
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
-- Albert Einstein |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| punarmusiko |
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 8:38 pm Post subject: Re: Is faith and science reconcilable? |
|
|
Forum Junior
Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 210
|
[quote="Obviously"]
| punarmusiko wrote: |
| so if the size of a given set is unknown, how do you determine a high degree a accuracy without approaching issues of faith? |
By not approaching issues of faith.[/quote
too late
looks like you already have
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Obviously |
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 8:43 pm Post subject: Re: Is faith and science reconcilable? |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 1221
Location: Norway
|
| punarmusiko wrote: |
| Obviously wrote: |
| punarmusiko wrote: |
| so if the size of a given set is unknown, how do you determine a high degree a accuracy without approaching issues of faith? |
By not approaching issues of faith. |
too late
looks like you already have
|
Well, that's your faith, isn't it? Let's not discuss semantics...
_________________
"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."
-- Albert Einstein
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
-- Albert Einstein |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| prasit |
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Bachelors Degree
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 496
|
Mitch wrote
| Quote: |
| Faith is the basic process by which we choose those premises for which we can never have any proof but which the living of our lives requires us to take some stand or other. |
Where you you get that definition?
_________________
Einstein is not always right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| punarmusiko |
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 9:06 pm Post subject: Re: Is faith and science reconcilable? |
|
|
Forum Junior
Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 210
|
| Obviously wrote: |
| punarmusiko wrote: |
| Obviously wrote: |
| punarmusiko wrote: |
| so if the size of a given set is unknown, how do you determine a high degree a accuracy without approaching issues of faith? |
By not approaching issues of faith. |
too late
looks like you already have
|
Well, that's your faith, isn't it? Let's not discuss semantics... |
erm no
its statistics
I guess they both start with "S"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| portcontrol7 |
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 9:27 pm Post subject: Re: Is faith and science reconcilable? |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Posts: 57
|
| punarmusiko wrote: |
| portcontrol7 wrote: |
| punarmusiko wrote: |
| In other words our innate limited ability means that we are not in the position to make perfectly deductive statements - this means that at the root of all claims is actually faith, and its not, as the empiricists would have us believe, that their claims are beyond such issues. |
I think your mistaking probability for faith here? Faith is believing in something we have no direct evidence for, is it not? Science is about finding high probabilities and the predictions we can make about our universe in relation to these probabilities.
Just because we are limited in our ability to find absolute truth, does not mean we are incapable of measuring to a high degree of accuracy. |
so if the size of a given set is unknown, how do you determine a high degree a accuracy without approaching issues of faith? |
I really think your misrepresenting what faith means here Punarmusiko. Faith is a requirement of belief in a deity, but not necessary, for example, to see the benefits of electricity. Faith doesn't require its claims to be justified by evidence, science however does. Is it faith when I believe that by turning my lamp on it will emit light? Is this what you believe faith to be?
_________________
"The most monstrous effect of the indoctrination of the young by religion, is not that they are mislead, but are trained to mislead themselves." - Me |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
  |
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next |
Page 1 of 4 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
