Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Balancing Faith and Science
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1 of 137 (221719)
07-04-2005 6:19 PM


I realize that you have a policy of not allowing someone to copy something from another location and then use it to start a thread. I'm wondering if it is possible to make an exception in this case.
This conversation with Francis Collins goes right to the heart of everything that is at the center of discussion on this forum. He is a Director of the Human Genome Project,with a PHD in Physical Chemistry, and MD and a background in QM. He also is a Christian and the following is an interview in Christianity Today.
As a non-literalist Christian with no background in the sciences I find this interview compelling. I'm interested to hear the response of those with a scientific background to the ideas of Francis Collins.
Here is the link. The link also provides other links that relate to Collins
The Genome Doctor | Christianity Today
Here is the article
Lengthy article removed. --Admin
This message has been edited by Admin, 07-05-2005 07:17 AM

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 137 (221720)
07-04-2005 6:26 PM


Remove the article, provide only the link.
Add a paragraph or two summarizing what you'd like to discuss concerning the article.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by GDR, posted 07-04-2005 7:02 PM Admin has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 3 of 137 (221725)
07-04-2005 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
07-04-2005 6:26 PM


Balancing Faith and Science
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.
In addition other threads have asked for evidence of those who have come to their faith through reason. Although this interview only touches on that lightly would this would appear to be an example of someone who came to the Christian faith through reason.
It is to the detriment of all, that science and religion aren't always working in harmony. As you can see from the following bit of the interview this is a man who thinks that religion and science should complement each other.
excerpt from interview writes:
Where do science and religion meet?
I think of God as the greatest scientist. We human scientists have an opportunity to understand the elegance and wisdom of God's creation in a way that is truly exhilarating. When a scientist discovers something that no human knew before, but God didthat is both an occasion for scientific excitement and, for a believer, also an occasion for worship. It makes me sad that we have slipped into a polarized stance between science and religion that implies that a thinking human being could not believe in the value of both. There is no rational basis for that polarization. I find it completely comfortable to be both a rigorous scientist, who demands to see the data before accepting anybody's conclusions about the natural world, and also a believer whose life is profoundly influenced by the relationship I have with God. Science is our most powerful tool for studying the natural world, but science doesn't necessarily help us so much in trying to understand God; that's where faith comes in.
This conversation with Francis Collins goes right to the heart of everything that is at the center of discussion on this forum. He is a Director of the Human Genome Project, with a PHD in Physical Chemistry, and MD and a background in QM. He also is a Christian and the link is to an interview in Christianity Today.
As a non-literalist Christian with no background in the sciences I find this interview compelling. I'm interested to hear the response of those with a scientific background to the ideas of Francis Collins.
Here is the link. The link also provides other links that relate to Collins.
The Genome Doctor | Christianity Today

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 07-04-2005 6:26 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 07-05-2005 7:28 AM GDR has not replied
 Message 7 by coffee_addict, posted 07-05-2005 4:49 PM GDR has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 4 of 137 (221856)
07-05-2005 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by GDR
07-04-2005 7:02 PM


Re: Balancing Faith and Science
Before releasing this thread I'd just like to complement GDR for following the simple change request to a 'T'. Getting a thread released should always be this easy.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by GDR, posted 07-04-2005 7:02 PM GDR has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 5 of 137 (221857)
07-05-2005 7:29 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 6 of 137 (221925)
07-05-2005 3:43 PM


Interview on PBS
I have been reading more on Francis Collins. I've added this interview to the thread as he outlines more clearly in this interview his reasoned approach to the Christian faith.
Here is a portion
Collins on PBS writes:
Now, I was still pretty sure that faith traditions were all superstition and something that would not apply to me, and something that I wouldn't be interested in. But I did feel compelled to find out a bit more about what it was that I had rejected. So with an intention of shooting this all down, I went to speak to a Methodist minister in Chapel Hill, which is where I was at the time. I sat in his office and made all sorts of accusations, and probably said blasphemous things about the faith that he stood for, but sincerely asked him to help me find out what it was all about. And he was very tolerant and patient and listened and suggested that, for starters, it might be good if I read a little bit more about what these faiths stood for. And perhaps the Bible would be a good place to start. I wasn't so interested in that at that point. But he also said, "You know, your story reminds me a little bit of somebody else who has written about his experience that Oxford scholar, C.S. Lewis."
I had no idea, really, who Lewis was. The idea that he was a scholar, though, that appealed to my intellectual pride. Maybe somebody with that kind of a title would be able to write something that I could understand and appreciate.
So this wonderful minister gave me his own copy of Mere Christianity, Lewis's slim tome that outlines the arguments leading to his conclusion that God is not only a possibility, but a plausibility. That the rational man would be more likely, upon studying the facts, to conclude that choosing to believe is the appropriate choice, as opposed to choosing not to believe.
That was a concept I was really unprepared to hear. Until then, I don't think anyone had ever suggested to me that faith was a conclusion that one could arrive at on the basis of rational thought. I, and I suspect, many other scientists who've never really looked at the evidence, had kind of assumed that faith was something that you arrived at, either because it was drummed into your head when you were a little kid or by some emotional experience, or some sort of cultural pressure. The idea that you would arrive at faith because it made sense, because it was rational, because it was the most appropriate choice when presented with the data, that was a new concept. And yet, reading through the pages of Lewis's book, I came to that conclusion over the course of several very painful weeks.
Here is the link to the whole interview
The Question of God . Other Voices . Francis Collins | PBS

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 7 of 137 (221941)
07-05-2005 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by GDR
07-04-2005 7:02 PM


For Moose's sake: Science and religion can't complement each other!
Francis Collins writes:
It makes me sad that we have slipped into a polarized stance between science and religion that implies that a thinking human being could not believe in the value of both.
While it may be true that ordinary people tend to think in such black and white term, that you have to accept one or the other, the quote does not accurately describe the actual case of the matter.
Quite simply put, there is only ONE math language. Ideally speaking, there is only ONE science language. There are MANY religions.
My question is if you manage to find that happy medium between religion and science in which you incorporate both in your findings, which of the following do you say?
A) Praise be to God!
B) Praise be to Allah!
C) Praise be to Buddha!
D) Praise be to Me!
E) Praise be to ___________!
GDR writes:
It is to the detriment of all, that science and religion aren't always working in harmony. As you can see from the following bit of the interview this is a man who thinks that religion and science should complement each other.
I can't say that I know a lot about Collins or the interview, but I definitely know that it is impossible for science and religion to complement each other without one yielding to the other one.
Remember Galileo? Remember Copernicus? Remember the 800 years period when science was plasphemy (AKA Dark Ages)?
Even in modern times we face the danger of science giving way to religion. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any creo-vs-evo debate.
Here is a scenario. What if through emperical evidence science is able to prove without doubt that there was never a Jesus? Should christianity change its doctrine or should the scientists be burned alive?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by GDR, posted 07-04-2005 7:02 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by GDR, posted 07-05-2005 5:31 PM coffee_addict has replied
 Message 73 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-07-2005 4:24 PM coffee_addict has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 8 of 137 (221953)
07-05-2005 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by coffee_addict
07-05-2005 4:49 PM


Science and Faith in Harmony
GAW-Snow writes:
While it may be true that ordinary people tend to think in such black and white term, that you have to accept one or the other, the quote does not accurately describe the actual case of the matter.
Collins is agreeing with your point. He says that you don't have to accept one or the other but many don't accept that. This forum is an example.
GAW-Snow writes:
Quite simply put, there is only ONE math language. Ideally speaking, there is only ONE science language. There are MANY religions.
C'mon now. Are you saying that all scientists agree on all aspects of science. There is probably as many disagreements in the science community as there are in the religious community.
GAW-Snow writes:
I can't say that I know a lot about Collins or the interview, but I definitely know that it is impossible for science and religion to complement each other without one yielding to the other one.
You might have wanted to read the interview then before responding. I have no problem with science, and neither does Collins who has a post graduate degree in QM and a PHD in physical sciences. I don't agree that I have to bend my faith at all to accept the findings of scientists.
GAW-Snow writes:
Remember Galileo? Remember Copernicus? Remember the 800 years period when science was plasphemy (AKA Dark Ages)?
In the end the church finally capitulated to reason didn't it? I have read of scientists who didn't accept the "Big Bang Theory" because it required a beginning from nothing, which implied a creator. Some literalists don't accept evolution but most of us don't have a problem with it. From my perspective science is the study of God's creation and I'm not one that is about to tell either the scientific community or God, (please don't confuse the two ), how this world came into being.
GAW-Snow writes:
Even in modern times we face the danger of science giving way to religion. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any creo-vs-evo debate.
I don't agree that it should be characterized as a debate. It should be, and often is a discussion. Both sides have a great deal to add to the discussion, but they are very different disciplines.
GAW-Snow writes:
Here is a scenario. What if through emperical evidence science is able to prove without doubt that there was never a Jesus? Should christianity change its doctrine or should the scientists be burned alive?
Proving the non-existence of someone isn't scientific but I guess I'd have to go with the burning alive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by coffee_addict, posted 07-05-2005 4:49 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by coffee_addict, posted 07-05-2005 5:54 PM GDR has replied
 Message 12 by dsv, posted 07-05-2005 9:58 PM GDR has not replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 9 of 137 (221959)
07-05-2005 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by GDR
07-05-2005 5:31 PM


Re: Science and Faith in Harmony
GDR writes:
C'mon now. Are you saying that all scientists agree on all aspects of science. There is probably as many disagreements in the science community as there are in the religious community.
No, but "goddunit" is never an option.
In the end the church finally capitulated to reason didn't it?
Ya, in the early 1990's. And even then, they still maintained that they were at the time.
You can't just go around burning people and then say sorry 500 years later.
I have read of scientists who didn't accept the "Big Bang Theory" because it required a beginning from nothing, which implied a creator.
They did not accept the BBT at the time not because it implied a creator but because the theory was at its infancy at the time so there weren't overwhelming evidence to support it.
Just so you know, the steady state theory (which implied that there was never a creator) never gain any popularity. If scientists were that unobjective, wouldn't you think that they would have rallied in support of the steady state?
Some literalists don't accept evolution but most of us don't have a problem with it.
Oh, so you are ignoring the genesis account all together? Remember what I said about the relationship between science and religion and that one must yield to the other? This is a perfect example of one (religion) yielding to the other (science).
From my perspective science is the study of God's creation and I'm not one that is about to tell either the scientific community or God, (please don't confuse the two ), how this world came into being.
I like Ra, Apophis, Anubis, and the other Egyptian gods better. Perhaps science should be the study of what's under Ra's influence?
Both sides have a great deal to add to the discussion, but they are very different disciplines.
Name 10 discoveries that religion has contributed that has helped humanity. Actually, just name 1.
Personally, I don't see what religion can contribute to further bettering humanity as a whole.
If anything, every scientific leap forward or social progress for the better have always been resisted, or even halted, by religion.
Proving the non-existence of someone isn't scientific but I guess I'd have to go with the burning alive.
How about this, to be fair, what if there is emperical evidence that Jesus was gay, or that he was a prostitute, or that he was a murderer, or that he was anything but what christianity would define as a good person?
He was, after all, fishing for men.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by GDR, posted 07-05-2005 5:31 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by GDR, posted 07-05-2005 7:32 PM coffee_addict has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 10 of 137 (221993)
07-05-2005 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by coffee_addict
07-05-2005 5:54 PM


Re: Science and Faith in Harmony
GAW-Snow writes:
No, but "goddunit" is never an option.
That is true for empirical testing in the realm of the physical. It certainly should be the case for the study of philosophy and religion.
GAW-Snow writes:
You can't just go around burning people and then say sorry 500 years later.
The church is made up of fallible people. Don’t confuse the church with God or his desires for how we should live our lives. There has undoubtedly been horrific things done supposedly in the name of God.
GAW-Snow writes:
They did not accept the BBT at the time not because it implied a creator but because the theory was at its infancy at the time so there weren't overwhelming evidence to support it.
Just so you know, the steady state theory (which implied that there was never a creator) never gain any popularity. If scientists were that unobjective, wouldn't you think that they would have rallied in support of the steady state?
I have read books on science that did definitely state that there were those in science that were troubled by the Big Bang because of the theological implications. I wasn’t saying it was a majority and there is very little opposition to it now.
I’m just suggesting that it is a similar situation to the fact that a minority of Christians have trouble with science because it doesn’t agree with a literal reading of the Bible.
GAW-Snow writes:
Oh, so you are ignoring the genesis account all together? Remember what I said about the relationship between science and religion and that one must yield to the other? This is a perfect example of one (religion) yielding to the other (science).
I believe that the Genesis account and science are only in disagreement if one insists on limiting oneself by reading Genesis literally. If the Bible is read, as I believe it should be, which is metaphorically, there is no contradiction between science and the creation story in Genesis.
GAW-Snow writes:
I like Ra, Apophis, Anubis, and the other Egyptian gods better. Perhaps science should be the study of what's under Ra's influence?
I have never suggested that science should be a part of determining which religious path you choose. I believe that there only is one truth and there are certainly those who will argue that I have chosen the wrong path.
GAW-Snow writes:
Name 10 discoveries that religion has contributed that has helped humanity. Actually, just name 1.
Personally, I don't see what religion can contribute to further bettering humanity as a whole.
If anything, every scientific leap forward or social progress for the better have always been resisted, or even halted, by religion.
You will disagree, but I believe that from God we have in us the concept of right and wrong, altruism, generosity, love etc and that we have also been given free will so that we can accept or reject those attributes. Christianity and other religions suggest that we should choose the positive attributes and reject the negatives.
GAW-Snow writes:
How about this, to be fair, what if there is emperical evidence that Jesus was gay, or that he was a prostitute, or that he was a murderer, or that he was anything but what christianity would define as a good person?
If there was empirical evidence that Jesus was God incarnate would you accept it? Both your question and mine are meaningless because we both know that there won’t be empirical evidence for either one.
I am not suggesting at all that it isn’t necessary to make a leap of faith to become a Christian but I do contend, and so does Francis Collins, that the leap is a rational one.
By the way. Pretty much this whole discussion is off topic as it is supposed to be about the views of Francis Collins, not mine, although his views do reflect my own. The big difference is, he has a background in science that no doubt far exceeds anyone on this forum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by coffee_addict, posted 07-05-2005 5:54 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by tsig, posted 07-05-2005 8:10 PM GDR has replied
 Message 41 by coffee_addict, posted 07-06-2005 1:23 PM GDR has replied

tsig
Member (Idle past 2909 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 11 of 137 (222003)
07-05-2005 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by GDR
07-05-2005 7:32 PM


leaping into the abyss
I am not suggesting at all that it isn’t necessary to make a leap of faith to become a Christian but I do contend, and so does Francis Collins, that the leap is a rational one.
Faith is not rational by definition. Evidence of things not seen and all that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by GDR, posted 07-05-2005 7:32 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by GDR, posted 07-06-2005 1:26 AM tsig has not replied
 Message 26 by robinrohan, posted 07-06-2005 8:45 AM tsig has replied

dsv
Member (Idle past 4724 days)
Posts: 220
From: Secret Underground Hideout
Joined: 08-17-2004


Message 12 of 137 (222015)
07-05-2005 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by GDR
07-05-2005 5:31 PM


Re: Science and Faith in Harmony
C'mon now. Are you saying that all scientists agree on all aspects of science. There is probably as many disagreements in the science community as there are in the religious community.
He means they all agree on the scientific method. That is "one science."
Religion and the scientific method do not work. That doesn't mean one can't be both spiritual and scientific in different areas of life, but I don't think you can be both scientific and spiritual about one specific element.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by GDR, posted 07-05-2005 5:31 PM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 07-05-2005 10:11 PM dsv has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 13 of 137 (222019)
07-05-2005 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by dsv
07-05-2005 9:58 PM


Science and Faith ARE in Harmony
But religion says nothing about Science. The only real possible connect for those of us that are Theistic Evolutionists is that Science helps teach us more about how GOD did things.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by dsv, posted 07-05-2005 9:58 PM dsv has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by dsv, posted 07-05-2005 10:39 PM jar has replied

dsv
Member (Idle past 4724 days)
Posts: 220
From: Secret Underground Hideout
Joined: 08-17-2004


Message 14 of 137 (222023)
07-05-2005 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by jar
07-05-2005 10:11 PM


Re: Science and Faith ARE in Harmony
I agree. I appologize actually, my post was unclear. I used the term "spiritual" because it was the term being used in the thread. I was specifically refering to organized religion.
I believe there are clear conflicts in subscribing to organized religion and the scientific method. The only way to resolve this, I feel, would be to pick and choose what parts of a religion you believe to be true or simply take the religion at the value of teachings, lessons and uplifting community not necessarily as real fact.
Sure, Stephen Hawking believes in God, but would you call him a Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, etc?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 07-05-2005 10:11 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 07-05-2005 10:42 PM dsv has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 15 of 137 (222024)
07-05-2005 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by dsv
07-05-2005 10:39 PM


Re: Science and Faith ARE in Harmony
I believe there are clear conflicts in subscribing to organized religion and the scientific method.
Why? Most of the organized religions don't see any problem?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by dsv, posted 07-05-2005 10:39 PM dsv has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by dsv, posted 07-05-2005 11:00 PM jar has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024