Common Ground?: Deep Faith and Deep Science

Its jaw-dropping when you hang some figures on things like that Q. I would be interested to hear (an even speculatively reasoned) view as to how you see things panning out. It seems clear that the world system: well-developed and consumptive OR aspiring to be well- developed and consumptive - must undergo some kind of significant modification. The fires of raw capitalism must run out of the fuel at some point.If that is the case, the question it seems to me to be whether the landing will be a soft or hard one. No doubt it is possible to have a far less consumptive lifestyle whilst still having a decent standard of life. A simpler life but one which doesn't require us to forego some of the essential benefits that technology has enabled for us. The hallmarks of such living might be captured by sentiments such as: restraint, conservation, design-for-long-life, undersize-me! etc.,. All words which would appear to stick knives into the heart of the capitalist system.Do you envisage the powerful captains of capitalism giving up without a fight? Or envisage governments being voted in who would be proposing the kind of change that is becoming ever-increasingly necessary? Do you perhaps see war as being inevitable as man attempts to wrest control of dwindling resources so as to offset the dreaded day when he will have to tighten his belt and reduce his eco-footprint.My query has less to do with whether our respective views can be reconciled and more to do with seeing how it is that the deep science view reconciles with itself. How do you see it panning out?

I've had in mind going back to horses for transportation, and gardens and a cow and chickens in the back yard for some years now. A romantic fantasy I suppose.

It is unfair to characterize everyone the same way. The leaders of industrial giants are people too; with children and grandchildren. Some of them realize the dangers you are pointing out and are trying to turn the mammoth organizations they lead while not killing them in the process. I think Shell is an example of an oil company that broke ranks on the global warming issue while Exxon is an example of the worst kind of behaviour.In order to change governments we must change those who vote. I am rather concerned that this is taking much too long for there to be time to act even if we have not driven over the edge of the cliff as you suggest. (If forced to be realistic I might agree with you that we have.)There will be war(s). It is possible that we already see some.

A picture of Dublin city centre in my dads youth shows about 20 cars and thousands of bicycles. Its only that we've gone a little soft and can't hack a bit of cold and rain or our fine clothes being creased - that has us huddled in traffic jams now.Our kind of living could be reversed in a flash. Humans are very adaptable when push comes to shove. The problem to me seems to be how we get to that point. What kind of labour will this new birth entail.It probably won't happen in our lifetime. But in our childrens lifetime?Hmmm

Right, BICYCLES. Of course. It would do me a lot of good too. But I like horses. Yes, I think we are adaptable too.

I agree that not all are as shortsighted as others. But whatever about turning supertankers (a very slow process) it seems to me that this particular ship must be scuttled. Capitalism requires fuel in ever increasing amounts (and people get right tetchy with governments who preside over recessionary economies) But if fuel on this level: new products, new markets, more lavish lifestyle, more experiences, more choice, more 'stuff' cannot be provided forever then do you envisage as being be sufficient? Biofuels and the like stave things off. But they are not solutions to the dwindling myriad of relatively-easy-to-extract-resources which make the consumptive world spin on its axis

I have not read the rest of this thread, just the OP. I'll read the thread tomorrow or this evening. I don't know that Deep Faith is a good description of the one side. I think as a person who believes in evolution and believes in God, it would be easy to label me as straddling the middle. However, as a central member of a rather radical Christian community, and as a person who has given away his business and forsaken a couple rather promising career paths for his faith, and who's been asked to leave several churches and even seminars for speaking my mind, I like to think I qualify much more as being very much a Deep Faith person.This Deep Faith person loves science, believes in population control and would love to see us take radical steps to clean up the environment.I think the conflict is not between religion and science. The conflict is between literal interpreters of the Bible, that I generally refer to as Pharisees*, and science. Maybe the terms should be Deep Biblical Literalism (DBL) and Deep Science.If I were a literalist (which I was for a decade or so), then I would say the earth was 6,000 years old and that God commanded us to be fruitful and multiply, and I'd forsake the use of birth control, because that's what even I think the Bible says. However, since the Bible also says the sky is a hard dome with water over it, I'd also have to deny that stars are big, burning balls of gas.So I want to argue that Deep Faith and Deep Science are most definitely NOT the two sides. I think Faith is a terrible description of literalists, who in my opinion, have very little belief in God at all, and that's why they work so hard at arguing for him, because they have no faith he can defend himself.*"Pharisees" - Jesus told the Pharisees, "You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have life. But these are they which testify of me, and you refuse to come to me so that you might really have life." A perfect description of modern fundamentalists.

Judging by what I heard attributed to some of the whacko fundimentalists who reside in your country I'm not surprised that you split the scene.This particular biblical fundamentalist however reads this: ...and takes it literally. I recognise I need instruction and am prepared to go the the well and drink of it. Life is about living Truthlover - an action word. A word set in the present continous tense. You can lead 1 of 20,000 Christian denominations to water - but you can't make it drink.There are many ways to stumble over the stumbling stone. Phariseeism is but one

I'll note that it does not mention history or science.

Unbelievable. Write this down and mark this day, someone. Iano and I agree on something. Whoo, whoo!A few years ago we were ordered off the land we were living on. About 35 poor (by American standards) families moved from our houses (large, communal houses) onto a piece of farmland with one two-bedroom house and one well. We installed one temporary electric pole and ran a hose from the well 800 feet up a hill to a temporary campground on the new land. We built two roofless bathhouses to shower in (with cold well water, about 60 degrees) all summer, and we lived in tents and old buses. Other families camped around the farmhouse, so they had a warm shower, but only one. We built some outhouses for toilets.It was one of Tennessee's hottest summers ever, and at one point we had a 3-week rain spell that put us ankle deep in mud. I had bought an army kitchen tent that many of us cooked in.We're Americans, so it only took us a few months to get new electric poles installed, set up RV pads, turn the buses into rather efficient RV's, etc.All of us look back on that time as some of the fondest memories we have. It was a delightful summer, and the togetherness we felt couldn't have been exchanged for anything.Humans are very adaptable. Even the American variety. (Hmm, maybe especially the American variety.)

Months!??

Thanks for saying that.And I think maybe the Pharisee has been misidentified in this case anyway, Phariseeism being basically making the scriptures conform to human opinion.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Oh, thanks for quoting that. I need to clarify. By "we're Americans," I didn't mean to say we were industrious. I was pointing out that we were not really poor by the standards of the real world, just by American standards.

Passing fads nwr passing fads - you follower of fashion you.

Actually, the Pharisees put the Scriptures in God's place. Jesus said about them, "You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have life, but these are they which testify of me. Yet you refuse to come to me so that you may have life" (Jn 5:39).This is very applicable to the topic of this thread, which is Deep Faith vs. Deep Science. Those with deep faith in God have no reason whatsoever to oppose science. Those with deep faith in the literal words of the Bible do, because science contradicts Bible literalism, beginning with the sky not being a "firmament," which means a hard object.The "Deep Faith" side that Q talks about is not really a Deep Faith side. It is a literalism side, and it is exactly like the verse above describing the Pharisees. I believe that Jesus would oppose the modern Bible literalists, who think they have life in the Scriptures but refuse to come to him, and he would accept most science, because he was the Truth, and science, despite the literalists' complaints to the contrary, is all about finding out what's true.