Equating science with faith

Rahvin:The quote I gave you earlier is from an argument in support of my thesis. So as Moose eluded to, I didn't quote mine it, except from myself.You can read it here: rob_lock LiveJournalPart of that argumentation is supported by a quote from Paul Davies who is currently at the University of Arizona. Please note that Davies is not a Christian, but he understands what you do not.So, legitimate scientists disagree with you also Rahvin.

quote:

---

. “The worldview of a scientist, even the most atheistic scientist, is that essentially of Monotheism. It is a belief, which is accepted as an article of faith, that the universe is ordered in an intelligible way.

​

Now, you couldn’t be a scientist if you didn’t believe these two things. If you didn’t think there was an underlying order in nature, you wouldn’t bother to do it, because there is nothing to be found. And if you didn’t believe it was intelligible, you’d give up because there is no point if human beings can’t come to understand it.

​

But scientists do, as a matter of faith, accept that the universe is ordered and at least partially intelligible to human beings. And that is what underpins the entire scientific enterprise. And that is a theological position. It is absolutely ”Theo’ when you look at history. It comes from a theological worldview.

​

That doesn’t mean you have to buy into the religion, or buy into the theology, but it is very, very significant in historical terms; that that is where it comes from and that scientists today, unshakably retain that worldview, as an act of faith. You cannot prove it logically has to be the case, that the universe is rational and intelligible. It could easily have been otherwise. It could have been arbitrary, it could have been absurd, it could have been utterly beyond human comprehension. It’s not! And scientists just take this for granted for the most part, and I think it’s a really important point that needs to be made.”

---

(Paul Davies / The Privileged Planet Q&A segment)

I completely understand your point Stile. But you are incorrect, and Davies is right.The problem is that we are not omnipotent. We cannot say for sure that the universe is ordered in the final schme of things.I agree that we have empirical evidence that confirms our logical observations. But the logical philosophies came first. It was then applied to natural science. Not everyone agreed that the universe was ordered in an intelligible way. Some still don't, and ultimately believe that chaos is the only absolute.In fact, there was much reistance to science even by the church because it might challenge the Pope's ecclesiastical proclamations of truth.Such is the case today, where new discoveries threaten and challenge the ecclesiastical proclamations of the materialists.If there is one thing God tears down, it is human dogma. It is the truth that rules supreme in the end, in spite of our philosophical blinders.The point I am making is that logic must be assumed to be supreme, even if we cannot ultimately prove it. We must have faith.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Rahvin:

quote:

---

God 1capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe

---

( God Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster )Rahvin:You not caring is a moral problem not an intellectual one. The definition of god is.You could have saved yourself this problem if you had read the arguments in the thesis. I provided the definition and the source.As I said in the arguments, the question of reality is one of it's/his nature and character.Is god an impersonal absolute material force, or a living being?You worship a nature god. I worship the god of nature. But we are both philosophizing about the ultimate and actual nature of reality.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Stile:Well then you do not believe in a material explanation for abiogenesis. You believe in material abiogenesis, but you have no empirical observation or experience.The theory goes like this... 'somehow, a self replicating cycle is established without any intelligent guidance'.You cannot say how, because it is unempirical. You believe simply because material explanations have been found for some things, and then posit inductively that all things have material explanations.Material explanations have been found for some things. Therefore material explanations exist for all things.The conclusion does not follow from the premise. And that is the problem with inductive reasoning.It may be true... but not without evidence. It is faith.Even so, I am encouraged that you know logic to be valid. Some people elsewhere on these boards cannot bring themselves to even have faith in it, let alone, 'know it'.

Stile:Only because we are not omniscient.Even so, I, like you, believe that what we experience is real, when we are rational about it, and back it up with the available evidence.That makes you a pretty reasonable fellow in my mind. And it may suprise you to know that such reasonableness is honored and encouraged Biblically. I can't give you the verses, because this is a science thread and some people think there's a difference.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Hey Rahvin, relax... I get pretty fired up myself at times. Just think about it. You have a good mind, so if there is a flaw in my argumentation, you will find it.I've struggled with these issues myself. If there is a flaw, I want to be the first to know because I want the truth... not some blind faith.

Moose, I can honestly say that I think bluegenes is on topic. We're discussing god and science here. Are they the same?Bluegenes is making the case that they are not.