Unity of Science and Faith

a reply to: DOCHOLIDAZE1

There are many versions, i.e. translations of the Bible - none are updated versions, expect for perhaps an updated translation, i.e. no new material is added.

i am talking about real theorys that are accepted as fact without proof, not misconceptions that are proven false

Once again, I ask you for a concrete example. You are making a blanket claim but failing to produce one example that illustrates your claim.

a reply to: scorpio84

what about the books that are excluded?

a reply to: scorpio84

gravity has yet to be proven there is one yet people speak of it as if it is fact

originally posted by: scorpio84
What's not true?

This or that religion.

On the flip side, how many billions of people claim to have that experience? Getting that many people all in on one massive lie seems a bit difficult to me.

Except those billions of people are all having different experiences, some vastly different as they are from separate religions entirely. Are they all lying? No, I don't think so. But to think that their experiences proves their religion is doing oneself a disservice. At best it could be proof of "something more" but that something more wouldn't be representative of any one religion and would not be proof of any of them.

Belief in God, however, I think is a different ball game than the question of religion.

Every single person has a different idea of God. So what is yours?

This seems to be a variant of the "I'm an atheist minus one" argument. It looks at belief in God as if everyone believes in a different God, they are all equally likely to not exist. What of the other side of the coin - that they are all equally likely to exist?

But they aren't likely to exist. Equally or otherwise.

This becomes possible if we think of the discrepancy as human error in saying "my god is different than other gods that people believe in". When we say "God" we aren't really talking about God, but rather giving a word to a concept that no one - atheists or theists - know the first thing about. That would be what is meant by "limitless" and "undefinable." Speaking about God necessitates that we turn something limitless into something limited (by our minds/language) - doing so is bound to bring about more than a few errors.

Sure, ok. Maybe all religions have some link to something divine. That still doesn't make their gods or narratives true at all. So they remain incorrect.

I didn't make that accusation, did I?

No.

Anyhow, since you brought it up - let's test that. Can you think of a situation in which you would believe in God (forget the religion part of it) without having empirical proof?

None at all.

a reply to: scorpio84

My pleasure.

Give me one fact that goes against belief in a higher creative power.

I think I already have. You can have your God, but you must accept either that He is limited in power and knowledge, and hence at best foolish to have taken on the task of creating the world, or that he is careless, as Tennyson put it, of both the individual and the type, and doesn't mind what pain and suffering he puts His creation through. A creative power then, but not what I would call a 'higher' one.

Since the prospect of an evil, stupid God is much more frightening to me than the proposition that no God (in the conventional sense) exists, I pefer to embrace the latter.

I have nothing to say concerning your arguments about the literal and metaphorical veracity of this or that saying in the Bible. Such attempts at justification are heartrendingly tattered and patched.

But as for this:

Perhaps God is objectively good. What is good for everything as a whole may not be good for some of the parts.

It sounds very much like 'the end justifies the means' to me, and it makes me think of yellow stars and Belsen.

a reply to: scorpio84

You appear to have attended a theological college or seminary. Let me guess: Episcopalian?

a reply to: DOCHOLIDAZE1

gravity has yet to be proven there is one yet people speak of it as if it is fact

Just come and stand on this diving board here, and I'll prove it to you.

Thanks for responding so quickly and to all my points

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
You certainly could say that - and if the infinite universe theory is true, there probably is a land of unicorns. While you are correct in that something unfalsifiable not necessarily being a credible argument, it also isn't necessarily an incredible argument either.

Precisely, but that just makes the claim a moot point to begin with.

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
You make the assumption that a higher reality doesn't exist. Of course, I should have qualified my OP with an "if" so it would read, "If a higher reality exists, then we can think of Scripture as a window hitherto." When you say "it's just a fictional book" could you specify which book you have in mind? If you mean the Bible, I'd describe it as an allegorical historiography filled with scientific errors and other mistakes you may expect from ancient authors writing something over the span of several centuries. If it's the Qur'an you are talking about - I'd say pretty much the same thing as the Bible, except with more focus on divine commands (could be wrong on this - maybe a Muslim will chime in). I certainly wouldn't place scriptural literature in the same category as, say, LOTR.

Sure, I can agree that -in the way that you've currently described religious texts- LOTR's would not be an accurate analogy. However, saying that a history book with varying amounts of fictitious sections would create an equal effect that any religious texts would. Reading books that reference actual or diluted parts of history, or mythology, does not open a view into a higher reality, it simply is reading. There's nothing really special to it.

Unless, of course, I still am misunderstanding what you're trying to portray when you state "higher reality"?

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
See, I always thought that both science and religion were concerned with "why are we here?" and "where are we going?" and questions of that nature. What would your take on it be - other than just saying I'm wrong?

Science, by definition, is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the Universe. (Sitation) It is not a philosophy, it does not invoke purpose in a philosophical sense. Yes, there are parts of science which focus on human evolution, behavior, development, biological history, and so forth, but it most certainly is not the focus of science in general.

Religion can be argued to be focused on Humanity, depending on which one you're referring to, and it can be philosophical. However, it can also be the total opposite, and require not asking questions. Many religions violently (in the literal sense) oppose questions. Because knowledge about reality leads to doubt about the religion itself. Blind faith is a necessity for that very reason. In many cases it's not about answering questions, it's simply about having unarguable statements (hence the existence of the God of The Gaps).

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
Theology shouldn't make claims about the natural world. By definition, theology is the study of God. If you are debating a theologian and they start making claims about the natural world in terms of religion, walk out of the debate.

The issue with this is that every god is the creator, ruler, embodiment, or governor of some kind of naturally occurring phenomena, event, feeling, or action. This makes it impossible for theists not to make claims about the natural world.

The very first words of the bible are "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth". Everything about genesis is about god having a hand in the natural world.

I completely agree with you that theology should not make claims about the natural world. However, it simply isn't possible not to.

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
Which foundation is that? Do you mean the actual foundation of the OP - that science and religion are not mutually exclusive so long as they remain in their respective domains? Or do you mean some other foundation? I'm going to take a leap here and guess that your accusation of my OP being illogical stems from you not believing in another plane of existence. If that's not it, clarify.

Yes, you are correct. The totality of the op is illogical because the notion requires an existence of an unprovable thing. You could have replaced 'Religion' with 'fairy philosophy' and 'god' with 'interdimensional magical teddy bear universe creator" and the logic would be unchanged. The level of hypothetical implications is limitless, therefore the foundation and context of the OP is meaningless.

originally posted by: DOCHOLIDAZE1
a reply to: scorpio84

what would you call it. i believe in the scientific method as well, if you cant prove something using it, then it is a theory

You're using the incorrect definition of the word 'Theory'. a Scientific theory requires excessive evidence before it becomes a scientific theory at all.

originally posted by: DOCHOLIDAZE1
a reply to: scorpio84
i guarantee if you do a survey. the books that present theorys will be believed as fact by the majority of the people.

So you don't accept the existence of Gravity, Germs, Atoms then? Those are are scientific theories after all...

originally posted by: DOCHOLIDAZE1
a reply to: scorpio84
Thus making a book written by man and presented in our curriculum and then followed blindly because people are to lazy to do their own research and accepted as fact. Just like religious texts are blindly accepted by many.

Well, I have tested Evolution, personally. I used to selectively breed species for variations in genetic mutations, which resulted in new mutations occurring that previously had not existed. Which is what the theory of evolution predicts.

a reply to: Astyanax

i never said things don't fall i can see that and i belive it to be fact,

a reply to: Ghost147

i dont know because they are not fact they are good ideas, but just that ideas.

a reply to: Ghost147

so you proved evolution dont you get a prize now?

a reply to: DOCHOLIDAZE1

It's been proven for a long time by a great many people.....why do folk attempt to talk like they're an authority when it's clear they haven't got even the most rudimentary grasp of the subject?

originally posted by: DOCHOLIDAZE1
a reply to: Ghost147

i dont know because they are not fact they are good ideas, but just that ideas.

Again, you're confusing the word Theory with Scientific Theory. They are not interchangeable terms. Scientific theories require an excessive amount of evidence, that has been heavily scrutinized by other scientists in order to be a scientific theory in the first place.

Perhaps you missed that explanation when I said it the first time?

originally posted by: DOCHOLIDAZE1
a reply to: Ghost147

so you proved evolution dont you get a prize now?

So you're just a troll then and have absolutely nothing to offer to this conversation except pronouncing your ignorance over and over again? Got it.

The very fact that new genes occur in EVERY generation of EVERY species (which we can and have verified) is evidence of evolution. How can you possibly deny that?

Oh right, you have no idea what you're talking about, and your only argument is based off of incorrect terminology. False Premise much?

a reply to: scorpio84

While you are correct in that something unfalsifiable not necessarily being a credible argument, it also isn't necessarily an incredible argument either.

It's less about it being an incredible argument and more about it being an unscientific one.

You make the assumption that a higher reality doesn't exist. Of course, I should have qualified my OP with an "if" so it would read, "If a higher reality exists, then we can think of Scripture as a window hitherto." When you say "it's just a fictional book" could you specify which book you have in mind? If you mean the Bible, I'd describe it as an allegorical historiography filled with scientific errors and other mistakes you may expect from ancient authors writing something over the span of several centuries. If it's the Qur'an you are talking about - I'd say pretty much the same thing as the Bible, except with more focus on divine commands (could be wrong on this - maybe a Muslim will chime in). I certainly wouldn't place scriptural literature in the same category as, say, LOTR.

Maybe not in the same category as the works of Tolkien, but certainly in the same category as the works of Homer.

See, I always thought that both science and religion were concerned with "why are we here?" and "where are we going?" and questions of that nature. What would your take on it be - other than just saying I'm wrong?

Just my opinion, but I'd say that science is more of the mechanistic "why" and religion is more of the philosophical "why".

Theology shouldn't make claims about the natural world. By definition, theology is the study of God. If you are debating a theologian and they start making claims about the natural world in terms of religion, walk out of the debate.

How are you differentiating theology and religion? Because religion frequently makes claims about the natural world e.g. creation myths.

a reply to: DOCHOLIDAZE1

what i speak of are all the "theorys" that get passed down in books, and how people are blindly faithful to these theory with out any real evidence.

The word theory when used in a scientific context has a completely different connotation then when used in a colloquial context. Here, this should help clear it up for you a bit:

US National Academy of Sciences:

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.

American Association for the Advancement of Science:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

Can you explain which scientific theories are being "passed down in books... with out any real evidence"?

a reply to: DOCHOLIDAZE1

i believe in the scientific method as well,

Yet you don't seem to really understand how it works, as witnessed by your next statement...

if you cant prove something using it, then it is a theory,

No. Emphatically, no. Science doesn't prove things. Proofs are for math. No scientific theory is ever considered proven. This holds true for the theory of gravity, germ theory, cell theory, atomic theory, tectonic theory, and a host of other theories, including modern evolutionary synthesis.

i guarantee if you do a survey. the books that present theorys will be believed as fact by the majority of the people. Thus making a book written by man and presented in our curriculum and then followed blindly because people are to lazy to do their own research and accepted as fact. Just like religious texts are blindly accepted by many.

I'd blame this on not educating people on how science works, not on science itself.

a reply to: DOCHOLIDAZE1

gravity has yet to be proven there is one yet people speak of it as if it is fact

I think I see where part of your difficulty with science stems from -- the differentiation between fact and theory. I'm going to speak in a scientific context here, not a colloquial one, so please keep that in mind. A fact can be thought of as an observation -- if I do this, under these conditions, I measure and observe this. That's a fact. In that regard, the fact of gravity and the fact of evolution (as well as a whole host of other observable phenomena) are facts. They are observed under reproducible conditions. A theory is a broad framework that seeks to explain these observed phenomena -- the theory of gravity seeks to explain all of the observations around gravity, the theory of evolution seeks to explain all of the observations around evolution.

In other words, gravity and evolution are both facts in that they are both observable phenomena. They are also both theories, in that there are broad frameworks that attempt to link and explain the facts about both.

a reply to: Ghost147

Precisely, but that just makes the claim a moot point to begin with.

Probably. It would also make the claim "God doesn't exist" a moot point and by extension make the whole debate of God vs no God pointless. This is actually where my own thoughts lie - I'll probably make a thread expounding on this later.

However, saying that a history book with varying amounts of fictitious sections would create an equal effect that any religious texts would.

I don't think you even have to put any history in it for people to fall for it. That said, I question the notion that you could "create an equal effect." I seriously doubt anyone can produce a text that has even a fraction of the effect the Bible or Qur'an have had. Or the Hindu texts for that matter.

Unless, of course, I still am misunderstanding what you're trying to portray when you state "higher reality"?

I could be using the wrong term - more like reality free from the illusions caused by our senses.

Science, by definition, is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the Universe.

Yes - but I wasn't arguing about the definition of science, I was arguing that the reason for science is to have a better understanding about everything and by extension of ourselves. Why do we want to know, for example, how large the universe is - except to try to understand our place in it?

Because knowledge about reality leads to doubt about the religion itself. Blind faith is a necessity for that very reason. In many cases it's not about answering questions, it's simply about having unarguable statements (hence the existence of the God of The Gaps).

I realize you are using the term "religion" in the broad and widely understood sense. However, when I see the word, I just think of a set of traditions associated with a particular group of people, often having to do with a deity/deities. So, when you say knowledge of reality leads to doubt about religion, two things go through my mind immediately: 1). you are limiting yourself with the phrase "knowledge about reality" whereas I'd argue we have no knowledge about reality. I would agree we have some sort of understanding/insight into certain things that happen within a material reality, but we still don't know what reality is. The second thing that comes to mind has to do with "doubt about religion." What in reality would make people doubt their traditions? Now, I'm guessing you mean religion in the sense of "belief in a deity," and on that point I'd have to agree with you, at least in part. It all would depend on what a person believed prior to learning something new from science. Of course, some people *cough, cough* will reject sound evidence so as not to be forced to change previously held beliefs.

A big problem is that atheists will say to theists, "you have made a claim, now prove it" and theists are either dumbfounded - or try to offer various "proofs" - one of which is the God of the Gaps, which is, of course, ludicrous. Ascribing to God things not yet explained/explainable by science is hardly a good argument coming from the theological side of the debate. However, when the atheist asks for evidence for the existence of God, s/he is committing in error in asking for empirical data about something that theological tradition holds to be untenable. In other words, I can't just ask God to take a selfie with me as proof. Another point is that from the theistic point of view, God is omnipresent. Unless I am mistaken in what they mean by "omnipresent," I take it to mean a God who is literally everywhere - inside every atom or wave or energy that makes up the universe and all in it. So, evidence of God? How can one ask for a limiting evidence of something that is everywhere. If it were possible to look at all of reality from some point beyond reality (how this would be possible is beyond my scope of reasoning) - then perhaps we could say "show me you evidence." Another thing I'll point out quickly is that burden of proof is on the theist if s/he says "I know God exists." Beliefs require no proof, claims of knowledge do.

The issue with this is that every god is the creator, ruler, embodiment, or governor of some kind of naturally occurring phenomena, event, feeling, or action. This makes it impossible for theists not to make claims about the natural world.

It could be that I'm a little tired at the moment - but I'm finding this hard to argue. Can you give me an example of a claim theists make about the natural world?

Oh, wait...you did:

The very first words of the bible are "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth". Everything about genesis is about god having a hand in the natural world.

First of all, we have a problem when reading a translated version of the Bible. There is debate that "in the beginning" is an incorrect translation. Unfortunately, I don't read Hebrew and the best I could do would be to read the Latin version of the Bible (I could struggle through the Septuagint) - but those, too, have translation errors, though the Septuagint beings "En arche" without the definite article. I see no problem with the word "created" - it would depend on how you look at it. If we argue that God was the conscious force for everything coming into existence - even gravity - then what's the problem? Of course, we could argue that there never has been a state of "non-existence" and that gravity, magnetism, etc. have always existed in one form or another with "God" being a placeholder of sorts of phenomena we don't understand. Either way, the problem occurs when people start talking about evolution being false. I also wouldn't use the term "hand" as that anthropomorphizes God.

The totality of the op is illogical because the notion requires an existence of an unprovable thing.

Of course the OP requires the notion of God - but it is meant hypothetically. That is, I would like the topic to be argued with the hypothetical assumption that God exists, i.e. a conscious creative force. That does not mean you have to actually believe in God. For example, I could argue from a standpoint that assumes unicorns exist. I take exception to the claim that the OP is illogical, though, because you base your claim on another unprovable assumption - that God does not exist. If we are working from the framework of God existing, then an illogical statement would be "God required help." The OP is meaningless only if you are not working within the framework laid forth therein. You mentioned that there is a problem when trying to apply theological logic (my words) to science. I pose to you that an equal problem occurs when attempting to apply scientific logic to theology. The one - science- is concerned with the material and observable, whereas the other- theology - is concerned with the immaterial and non-observable.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

This or that religion.

I'm inclined to agree, with the emphasis being on "religion" as a man-made construct whether or not inspired by God.

But to think that their experiences proves their religion is doing oneself a disservice. At best it could be proof of "something more" but that something more wouldn't be representative of any one religion and would not be proof of any of them.

Again, I agree - and this is the problem with religion. People receive an inspiration and interpret it different ways - everyone believing that their interpretation is the correct one. It could be that everyone is wrong or that everyone is right in some way, but without having the big picture. I'm getting a documentary I watched on M theory in my head where there were 5 different versions of string theory, but it was found (at least mathematically) that they were not in opposition, but worked together to give the bigger picture.

Every single person has a different idea of God. So what is yours?

That's a tough question - but based on what the Scriptures say, theological tradition, and my own belief in science (I'd say knowledge, but my forte is foreign languages, not science)...I'd say that what people think of as God must be
-omnipotent
-omnipresent
-omniscient
-know everything, yet allow choices
-not be contrary to scientific understanding of the physical universe
-be unlimited
-be an uncreated creative force
-be immaterial

Based on that above criteria, I'd argue of "God" as being energy in its purest form - maybe even light itself (I think I saw something about a theory that if energy were broken apart you'd get photons). But it's more than that - I'd say energy insofar as God is the sum totality of existence, that is to say God=existence (He even gives his name as "I AM" in the Exodus account).

But they aren't likely to exist. Equally or otherwise.

Maybe not in the exact way interpreted. As you mentioned, it could be a hint of a "higher power."

Maybe all religions have some link to something divine. That still doesn't make their gods or narratives true at all. So they remain incorrect.

Not quite incorrect - unproven. Unless it is proven that they are incorrect they can't be said to be "incorrect."

Anyhow, since you brought it up - let's test that. Can you think of a situation in which you would believe in God (forget the religion part of it) without having empirical proof?

None at all.

Then your mind is not as open as you say. There are a couple of problems I see right away. The first - you want empirical proof for something infinite. The only way a finite brain can know anything about something infinite is through intuition. What sort of proof would you need that you'd find acceptable? Furthermore, what would you think of a God that takes orders from people?