Is science wrong to be naturalistic?

The last post on this topic at the old club was Message 6507 by thmsberry.--Percy[This message has been edited by Percipient (edited 01-01-2001).]

I noticed this question sitting at the bottom of the discussion board and I thought it would be nice to "revive" it.I think that the more we learn about the universe and its workings, the more in awe we will be of how intricate, infinite, and surprising nature is. I feel like science that is purely naturalistic unercuts this wonderful response. For those who already believe in God, the things which science uncovers may serve to strengthen their faith in and praise of God--but not if they are constantly hammered over the head with the notion that science is Godless and that proponents of science think religious faith is irrational and foolish. Not all of them do. Science does *not* have to be the "death" of God! Religion/spirituality is a very powerful force in the human mind, and it can bring a fullness to life--I would not want to lose that.--Redwing

This remembers me a metaphor:A group of people lived his entire life in the darkness. So, as they didn't see anything around them, they thougt the ground they step was surounded by the "abyss".Some day they discovered fire. And the fire illuminated the ground and make the darkness
retreat and people saw that the so called "abyss" around them was just more firm ground.Then was said that the "abyss" was a little more far than they thougt, just where the light does't reach.This illustrates my opinion about conciliations between religion and science. Religion doesn't need to fear science because there will always be darkness. Where the "abyss" can be seen and enjoyed.But, speaking for myself, I prefer to wait for the light before say what I am seeing.(sorry for the english, again)

Personaly, I think that science should not try to undermind spirituality. I think that spirituality is a good thing for people. I think that it is wrong to tell people that there is no such thing as God(S). I do think that there is a God and I think that I would enjoy science and be more at ease studying it if I wasn't always bashed for having faith by those who claim to be logical,rational and scientific. I am actually very logical in personality. However, the explanations of science have failed to prove to me that God doesn't exist. It has failed to truely prove evolution to me. All it has done by condemning my faith is make me wish that we did not have to learn such things. A science that denies the probability that anything outside their grasp doesn't exist, fails to make me see how they can answer such large and important questions. Why make people sit through hearing a theory with such loop holes. I have already said a few things that I believe to be loop holes in my own posting. Consider this:If we die and there is no God then oh well at least we believed and would not be shrieking at his prescence. If there is a God and we believed then all the better for us.I personally believe that if you consider what it would mean to no believe in God and die and find out he does exist, you would suddenly find that it is not such a bad idea to trust in a power higher than yourself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ShannonMay:
Personaly, I think that science should not try to undermind spirituality. I think that spirituality is a good thing for people. I think that it is wrong to tell people that there is no such thing as God(S). I do think that there is a God and I think that I would enjoy science and be more at ease studying it if I wasn't always bashed for having faith by those who claim to be logical,rational and scientific. I am actually very logical in personality. However, the explanations of science have failed to prove to me that God doesn't exist.

---

Where does science do this?

quote:

---

It has failed to truely prove evolution to me.

---

Science doesn't prove in the sense most people think of it. However, the evidenc eis quite overwhelming--what would convince you?

quote:

---

All it has done by condemning my faith is make me wish that we did not have to learn such things. A science that denies the probability that anything outside their grasp doesn't exist, fails to make me see how they can answer such large and important questions.

---

But science doesn't deny God, it simply doesn't address God. It does address specific claims made by some conservative Protestants, but that isn't denying God, that is falsifying specific claims about the natural world.

quote:

---

Why make people sit through hearing a theory with such loop holes. I have already said a few things that I believe to be loop holes in my own posting. Consider this:If we die and there is no God then oh well at least we believed and would not be shrieking at his prescence. If there is a God and we believed then all the better for us.I personally believe that if you consider what it would mean to no believe in God and die and find out he does exist, you would suddenly find that it is not such a bad idea to trust in a power higher than yourself.

---

Perhaps you should move the loophole discussion to the Great Debate and start a discussion on the loopholes.Larry

First of all ShannonMay, you claim to be very logical."However, the explanations of science have failed to prove to me that God doesn't exist. It has failed to truely prove evolution to me. "How is this logical? You believe something without basis, but reject something that does have? It seems ILLOGICAL to me that you expect evolution to prove itself as absolute fact before you accept it, yet persist in a belief with no evidence, accept it as fact & put the onus on others to disprove a negative. This is biased thinking in the extreme."A science that denies the probability that anything outside their grasp doesn't exist, fails to make me see how they can answer such large and important questions."Science DOESN'T disprove God, it merely says there is no evidence for God. NO one can tell you God doesn't exist on the basis of science. If people think they can then they misunderstand what science is. You need to be clear on this. All science does is form scientific theories based on observable evidence. That theory ISN'T FACT, it is merely something that has a higher chance of being true than some idea not based on evidence. New evidence requires new theories, meaning the old ones were never 100% true in the first place. I'm not giving you a way out here, science says to theorise, there must be evidence, religion lacks it. The best science can do to religion is say "why believe that, why not believe anything ridiculous you can think of", & they would be right. Thats different to disproving God."If there is a God and we believed then all the better for us.I personally believe that if you consider what it would mean to no believe in God and die and find out he does exist, you would suddenly find that it is not such a bad idea to trust in a power higher than yourself."Firstly, it takes more than just saying it. Secondly, are you suggesting your God is so immature as to reject me from Heaven for not believing in Him? Thirdly, why would it be so bad to die & realise I'm wrong about God? I hope I am. Just can't see it, thats all.