Common Ground?: Deep Faith and Deep Science

Heres my 2 centsThe way I look at it, there is a fundamentally (pun) different way the two sides look at reality itself.Concerning Fundamentalist Christianity and most of this forum, on the Faith side, all reality one usually has in common with others is secondary to the message of salvation. The message is that this reality is transient and therefore worthwhile of consideration only as a means to an end, the end being divine revalation. Since the fundamentalist, through divine revelation of truth already has all the answers, discussion is not a means of learning, as in meaning a change, but only a means to convert those who do not adequately share their beliefs.Concerning Science, the reality of this world is assumed and therefore something to be studied and learned. This applies to the Athiest, Agnostic, and Theist alike, that does not believe the sole or primary way to apprehend the situation is to renounce this reality as transient and therefore unworthy of consideration.While the concern for one's soul on the faith side is touching, there remains the problem of another's divine revelation that may be different from their exact divine revelation.I have more but I'm getting the bum's rush. May elaborate later if still open.Edited by anglagard, : clarity

I don't see how you get this out of anything anyone has said here. This is a very recent phenomenon, and EvC brings out this aspect of things in particular. But Bible-based Christianity is completely in harmony with all forms of science until Darwin, except of course with the rationalist assumptions that eventually threw out God. Christians were the earliest scientists in Europe and I know of at least one book that credits Christianity with the growth of science in the West, as growing out of its concept of a rational Creator and Law-driven Creation, concepts not consistently held in pagan societies. Science was for some a way of worshiping God through the wonders of His Creation. (The famous dispute with Galileo was due to the church's commitment to Aristotle's pagan cosmology through Aquinas, not the Biblical revelation which has no argument with Galileo -- just to head that one off at the pass.) Edited by Faith, : To add parentheses and finish the statement.

There is the other side of this as well. Science has an issue of faith itself. Many believe that it is science alone that can give answers to life and it's meaning. There is no way of providing empirical proof of that as there is no means of proving Christianity or any other faith.Maybe someone should establish the "Church of Deep Science".

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

I was actually wondering if you saw my post # 37

It is established and along the same lines as the Christian church. Its made up of the body of believers. Where two or three are gathered in its name...

I did TL. However, your first point (definition of the two sides) was addressed in the OP and further clarified in my post 71. To recap, I stated the question was a continuum, and that I pegged myself at one end, allowing the "opposition" to clarify their position rather than erecting a strawman.I had no fundamental disagreement with anything else in your post, and didn't even understand the "Pharisee" reference, so I didn't have much reason to reply. No offense - it wasn't intended to ignore you, rather the questions you posed were either addressed in other posts or not in disagreement with my position.

I've never met a scientist who believes this, let alone many. Did you have someone specific in mind?

Any Atheistic scientist on this forum or how about Richard Dawkins.

I've read some of Dawkins' popular work, though not a lot; still, I don't recall any discussions of the meaning of life.I am confident that the overwhelming majority of scientists, atheistic or otherwise, would consdier "the meaning of life" to be a metaphysical or philosophical question not addressed by science.I'd be curious to see if any atheistic scientist here at EvC will endorse the notion that science can determine the meaning of life.Anybody?

GDR Science strives to establish the rules of how nature operates and,in doing so, allows us to better establish the actual state of our species relationship in the larger theatre of the universe.It is not a neccesity of science nor a function of its mandate that it answer questions that people have about reasons for things. That the universe is quite capable of being described by the findings of science as a blind pitiless phenomena is not a fault of science per se.Humans are the only ones that long for answers such as these however,this does not mean that these are valid questions to ask.We would no more ask of science why poisonous elements and compunds exist in nature when we are so vulnerable to such chemicals. This is an invalid question to ask of science because it is presuming that there must be a reason since we are somehow special just because we view ourselves as such.The universe is under no such obligation to the pleadings of mercy from men. That this is so is observable but if you wish to add a layer of comfort by surmising a state of being beyond the reach of these strictures and laws of nature you are free to do so.You merely cannot prove it to any degree at all.I am atheist and I am also a person who sees that scientific knowledge is the one thing that tends to elevate us above the level of farce and pity. The grandeur of the universe that is revealed through proper investigation of all aspects of the world, most especially those things we hold sacred and sacrosanct, allows us to understand and through understanding achieve a measure of real peace about ourselves.It is also a personal view of my own that I do not aspire to seeking truth {since that particular word is so very wrought with silliness and philosophical baggage} and have contented myself with seeking clarity instead. In my view "truth" is a rigidity and a curse of small minds while clarity is a living,changing, process of inquiry and discovery where each answered question is found to generate more questions wherein we find ourselves locked into adventure of a special nature.

---

Dear Mrs Chown, Ignore your son's attempts to teach you physics. Physics isn't the most important thing. Love is.Best wishes, Richard Feynman.

True, but you can't prove that it doesn't exist either. Either one is a position of where and with whom you want to put your faith. This sounds to me like a statement of where you find meaning in life.Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

In my opinion, something that has no evidence for it, and it totally undetectable has a striking resemblence to something that doesn't exist.

We're off topic and this debate has been hashed out dozens of time on this forum.I'll just say that the fact that I exist is evidence. We have just come to different conclusions on what to make of that evidence.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Why is it that only those people who believe in a literal 6 day creation say that?

Is it only the 6 dayists? If so, it is for the same reason that the church of science holds to what it holds to: that there is no central, man-sized hierarchy who sit on high and tell us whats what. All who have faith in scientific method belong to the church. As with the Christian (and I don't think it only consists of 6 day adventists) church, the church of Science is a great leveller. Anyone who has something to say can stand up at the pulpit of peer review. It doesn't matter if you are a king or a serf - if what you say comes from your god then that's all that matters.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : insert 'only' 5 lines from bottom