Balancing Faith and Science

I had never thought of it that way before. Of course you are right. This forum is a real education. Thanks

Ok, my hardheadedness have made me misunderstand you a little bit. So, are you saying that true christianity is about picking and choosing what to believe and what not to believe out of the bible? If this is so, by what key or ledgend do we use? But you said: Religion deals with the supernatural. Agreed? If so, how can the supernatural compliment discipline that strictly deal with the natural? Enlighten me on this. You have no idea how many times I have heard christians say that people like Collins and yourself are not really christians.What confuses me is that IFF christianity is all about picking and choosing (correct me if I'm wrong) what to believe and what not to believe in the bible, what key or ledgend do we use? But I have already pointed out to you several examples of how one is forced to yield to the other.Quick review (in no particular order): Galileio, Copernicus, Dr. Frankenstein (just joking), Heliocentric vs. Geocentric, flat vs. round, and evolution vs. creation.Each time science makes a finding that contradicts a religious doctrine, one of them has to go. Sometimes it was the science and sometimes it was the religion.Are you going to say that it wasn't really christianity back then?

I am not God. I don't have a definition for true Christianity. I do know though that there are certainly different theologies within the Christian faith. I obviously think that what I believe is the truth, but realistically I know that I am bound to be wrong in some ways. (When I get to heaven I'm definitely going to all the lectures. )I would suggest that a Christian has to accept on faith that Jesus is God incarnate, that he was resurrected and is eternal, and that he commands us to love all that is good, hate evil and love and desire the best for everyone. After that the rest is theology and nobody will get 100% on God's theology exam.As I have stated before, God is concerned with the condition of our heart and only is concerned with our theology when it affects the condition of our heart. I believe that when we truly accept Christ as Lord that we have a new spiritual beginning with him and that there is a fresh awakening of the conscience that he planted in us at the beginning.None of what I have said here has any connection with science. That is why I think that the two can be complementary, in that one explains the why's of our existence, and one explains the how's.Gotta run. Thanks for the response.

By showing the irrationality of faith and positing the rationality of science, I take the stance that faith and science are mutually exclusive, since irrational thinking can never be used as support for anything which is the product of a purely rational activity, which is what science is.It may be that science discovers truths that were believed in all along by believers of certain faiths, but these truths are not established any stronger because of pre-existing irrational but, in hindsight, justified beliefs.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

But you're postulating something that many people would never argue with or about. IMHO you've presented no more than a strawman argument. Religion says nothing about how things happen. That is the area of science. Religion does not support science in the realm of being a scientific tool. It deals with things that are totally outside the realm of science. Of course not. I know of few religions that would not agree with you. But science does not deal in truths anyway.I still don't see where there is any conflict or how the two are mutually exclusive.So far it looks like all you're saying is that religion, faith, is not the way to uncover the realities of how the Universe was created and how it operates; that science is a better tool for that task. Okay. No problem. Religion is not the tool to do that.What does that have to do with the topic?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The validity of logic depends on its ground. There is no ground, unless there is some Absolute which grounds it. A biological development is not a logical ground.How do we know that we can perceive truths? We don't, unless there is a ground for our logical perceptions.

You and I may agree on the relative positions of religion and science with regard to how things work, but a lot of religious people, on this forum and elsewhere, would disagree. Creationism specifically wants to tell us how things happened. Creationism is religion, is it not? ID wants to tell us in even greater detail how things happened. ID, despite claims to the contrary, is nothing but religion donning a lab coat labelled "science", in the hope that we don't recognise it for what it really is.The starter of this topic stated:

quote:

---

So much discussion on this forum inevitably seem to concentrate on perceived differences between the Christian faith and science. There seems to be the two routes to sorting out what is truth. The first is the scientific, which largely relies on empirical evidence. The second is the philosophic or theological which relies more on observation and intuition. My belief is that both are important and relevant.

---

and also:

quote:

---

This conversation with Francis Collins goes right to the heart of everything that is at the center of discussion on this forum.

---

There is a conflict between religion - at least some forms of it, not yours probably - and science. This forum is living proof. We also see it when religion tries to influence science education. I am simply taking a stance in the matter, that's all.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Yes, indivisuals can and do hold differing viewpoints. Yes and No.Creationism is a belief that is religous, but it is not Religion. It is but one religion. And it is wrong.A religion, specifically the Roman Catholic Church under Pope Urban VIII (IIRC), forced Galileo to recant and abjure the belief that the sun was at the center of the universe (actually the solar system but why quibble) yet that did not change the reality and at the same time, other religions were far more accepting of the idea. Creationism (in the classic sense) is just as wrong about the scientific issues now as the Barberini's were then.The guy wasn't all bad though, for example in 1638 he outlawed slavery in the Americas.But you go on to say: and that is both significant and important.The author of this thread, the person referenced in the OP, Francis Collins and I as well as others here such as Trixie find that there is no conflict between our religious beliefs and either the scientific method or the discoveries made using the scientific method. In addition if you look at the list of folk opposing the teaching of Classic Creationism you will find that at every court case there is a significant presence of Religious organizations supporting science and opposing teaching creationism.This seems to show that the problem is not one of religion and science, but rather between individual interpretations of beliefs. It is not RELIGION but rather some-religious beliefs held by only a segament of the general population that would fall under the broader characterization.If you take the position that the problem is religion and science are mutually exclusive, how do you account for the people like Francis Collins, Trixie or me?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I account for it by saying what I said:

quote:

---

There is a conflict between religion - at least some forms of it, not yours probably - and science.

---

{emphasis added}The mere fact that court cases are necessary at all, is telling, I'd say. Some religions, pardon me, religious interpretations (not Francis Collins', not Trixie's, not yours, but believe me, enough varieties are left) do conflict directly with science, and it's those that bother me.Believe me, Jar, when I say that I respect your position much more than I respect, say, a YEC's. I can see the difference.Have your say if you will, but I would like to put this to rest now, can we?This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 06-Jul-2005 10:15 PM

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Yup.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

The validity of logic depends on its ground. There is no ground, unless there is some Absolute which grounds it.

---

Logic is grounded in semantics. It doesn't need your Absolute.

quote:

---

A biological development is not a logical ground.

---

Nobody is suggesting that it is. That's just a strawman.Look, if you want to discuss, this please try to discuss it seriously.

Here's the serious point. Our rational intuition either has some basis or it doesn't.What basis does it have? One cannot say, "because it works." That will not do.The fact is it has no ground, just as morals have no ground.I would suggest you try to present an argument, rather than just saying I am violating this or that logical rule. You might want to explain it.

"rational intuition" ? What do you mean ? Isn't intuition non-rational ? And weren't we talking about logic ? Why are you changing the subject ? And you'd better get a clearer ides of the concept of "basis" as it applies to these issues because until you do you are going to keep on making the same mistake. Is it your "rational intuiton" that causes you to beleive Lewis' arguments ?I also have to comment that you are meant to be producing Lewis's arguments and I am criticising them. I regard your insistence that I should produce an argument instad as conceding the point that Lewis' arguments - which you found so convincing - are indefensible.

I do, no evidence, no proof. God does not exist.

How about jesus, or did he get to skip the test?