Science vs. Faith

[rock_in_sin]

Looking for local to chat via email about science vs. faith.
New to the Iowa area.

[Enzp]

Perhaps you might enter a few thoughts on the matter to clarify your purpose.

This would give potential pen pals a idea of the intellectual level of discussion you seek and the frame of reference you wish to premise it upon.

For example, you either find the two as opposing forces, or you find them compatible.

You wish to either say something like "The Bible says so and so, so science is wrong." or "Science proves the Bible is wrong." and you get one sort of discussion. While if you present something along the lines of "I wonder what the societal implications of an emphasis on faith would be with regard to the science curricula at public versus private universities." you would find a completely different audience.

If your purpose is to clear up fuzziness in your own impressions about the "debate" you might want a different pen pal than if you simply want to find scientists to convert.

You mention you want an email pen pal, but you mention local and that you are new to an area. So if you are looking for new friends and this topic is just a way to break the ice and start someplace, that is one thing. If a lively intellectual discussion is all you want, then location doesn't matter.

Please note I am not assuming any of these things are what is in your mind, they are merely examples. Those thoughts come to my mind.

[isferno]

You skipped some info Eznp ;-)

His nick is "Rock in Sin"

[Mosheh Thezion]

email me... and im sure to give you a head ache...
but mind you... i dont see an arguement between science and faith....
of course.. it depends on your faith....

-MT

[Archer17]

The difference between science and faith comes down to one word .. proof. One aims for it, the other relies on the lack of it.

[farmerjumperdon]

One looks to evidence for proof, the other ignores the evidence - making a proof a moot point. I do not think fundamentalists even consider proof (as science sees it) as a reason to believe anything. It's not even in their vocabulary.

[Kristophe]

One looks to evidence for proof, the other ignores the evidence - making a proof a moot point. I do not think fundamentalists even consider proof (as science sees it) as a reason to believe anything. It's not even in their vocabulary.

It's true. If it's not in the Good Book -- which version they tend to be a little hazy on -- then it's "just a theory".

[farmerjumperdon]

An additional noteworthy point: For people of extreme faith, belief is proof. I find that downright psychotic and is why I have become intolerant of most religious advocates.

I was chatting with a friends wife and disclosed to her that because we can not KNOW whether or not God exists, that I respect the beliefs of people who do believe; I just do not. I explained my need for proof and that no one can KNOW without proof. She claimed she did KNOW for sure. I said "You mean you believe, not that you KNOW." She repeated that she KNOWS, and when I asked how, she replied that she just feels it inside. To me, confusing hope and desire with proof is at least a mild mental illness.

[Kristophe]

Though I could speak volumes, I won't. I will say, however, that faith is self-afirming. If you believe that God created all things beautiful, then all beauty you see you will consider to be evidence that God exists. Beauty cannot exist without God, and beauty is proof positive that God exists. So, people who have very deep faith in God see evidence of Him/Her everywhere. They don't need evidence, because as far as they're concerned, they have it.

I don't necessarily have a problem with this mindset. It's not mine, but if it makes someone happy, go right ahead. I do take issue with it, however, when they don't keep it to themselves. I consider spirituality to be a deeply personal thing. I don't even discuss mine, let alone promote it. I don't appreciate it at all when others try to shrill or force their beliefs on me.

[zebo-the-fat]

"God created all things beautiful, then all beauty you see you will consider to be evidence that God exists. Beauty cannot exist without God, and beauty is proof positive that God exists."


Did he not also create all that is ugly, nasty and cruel? By the same logic, a mass murderer is proof of god.

[farmerjumperdon]

I guess I'm mostly with you there Kristophe. What has made me so harshly critical (and I'm not trying to convert them, I just want their goofiness out there for all to see) is the threat of what they are trying to do to public school curriculums. They have succeeded in gaining a lot of sympathy just next door, in a neighboring school district. Until only a couple years ago, I didn't care at all, but now I've adopted the position that their right to believe what they want stops when they start imposing their beliefs in places like public schools, courts, laws, etc. I'm not a mean person, but I do want their foolish logic exposed for the long-term good of civilization.

[ASEI]

You automatically assume he's a fundamentalist. It's possible, but then again, he didn't provide much of an introduction or any info besides his name.

Has this debate become so polarized (and intellectually uniform?) that people react automatically to a combination of words or even a statement opening an issue for discussion, and assume the entire worldview of the debater?

[Matherly]

Thank you, ASEI.

"Faith and Reason are like the shoes on your feet. You get much further on your journey with both than with just one." There are those of us who can have faith (belief in the unprovable) and still function as rational human beings. By the time we pigeon hole everybody into two camps, the possibility for intelligent disscourse is over.

Oh, and Zebo-the-Fat, you'd probibly like this Money Python quote...
"All things Foul and Pestulent, all creates Short and Squat/ All thinks Vile and Virulent, the Lord God made the Lot." (sung to "All Things Bright and Beautiful")

[Kristophe]

You automatically assume he's a fundamentalist. It's possible, but then again, he didn't provide much of an introduction or any info besides his name.

I don't think anyone's assumed this at all. We just sorta, unintentionally, started the conversation rock_in_sin was looking for.

Did he not also create all that is ugly, nasty and cruel? By the same logic, a mass murderer is proof of god.

See, that's my logic. I'm not, nor have I ever been, a man of faith, though. I can't directly relate.

A little story. Ten years ago, in Halifax, a teenage girl was run over by a drunk driver. She was waiting at a bus stop when the car hit something, jumped off the road, and flew through the bus shelter, hitting the girl in the process. The car, now completely out of control, then slid across to the other side of the street and flipped over. The driver got a relatively forgiving sentence.

The parents, as one would expect, were heartbroken. They survived the ordeal by the grace of God. As an act of good faith, they invited the driver of the car to a memorial this past summer, so that they could forgive him in person. He showed up. The parents of the dead girl proclaimed, on national radio, that he did so, again, by the grace of God. God guided him there, God helped him to repent for his crime, and God made all of their lives whole again. God got all of the credit for the good things in life.

The driver of the car shouldered all of the blame. Just as it was God who made (as in forced by supernatural hand) this man feel sorry for his crimes, it was he who committed them. My understanding of the situation was that God makes the good things happen, while people make the bad.

The driver's mistake. God's love.

I found the idea that free will exists only when bad things happen to be a bit disturbing, to be honest. These people did not want to credit the young man who killed their daughter for his having cleaned up his life, but they were happy to blame him for having sullied it to begin with.

I'm not afraid of God. If there is a divine spirit watching over this world, then more power to it and to us. But the people who worship this spirit? They petrify me.

[Donnie B.]

According to the post in the Introduce Yourself thread, rock_in_sin is female and is not a religious fundamentalist.

I think some folks here may have misinterpreted the OP.

And in any case, this discussion is pretty risky territory, and probably would not have been tolerated on either of our ancestral BBs.

[Wolverine]

And in any case, this discussion is pretty risky territory, and probably would not have been tolerated on either of our ancestral BBs.

Indeed. All are advised to proceed with caution.

[/friendly neighborhood mod]

[William_Thompson]

Looking for local to chat via email about science vs. faith.
New to the Iowa area.

Science is a first degree truth.
Faith is a second degree truth.
that is it.
that is all.
they don't mix.

[Monique]

Science is a first degree truth.
Faith is a second degree truth.
that is it.
that is all.
they don't mix.
I do not think meant to mix. I am scientist and mathematician, also Buddhist. Fill separate rolls in my life.

[crosscountry]

hahahhha,


trolls are funny too!!!



since no one asked my opinion, I won't give it.


I think Rock_in_sin wanted a live person in her area with whom to discuss this over.

[Gillianren]

I am a person of faith. now, which faith has shifted some over the years, but in no small part because the largest tenet of my faith is "I could be wrong." I don't understand how the sewing machine makes an interlocking stitch; how can I understand God?

[BlackStar]

An additional noteworthy point: For people of extreme faith, belief is proof. I find that downright psychotic and is why I have become intolerant of most religious advocates ... To me, confusing hope and desire with proof is at least a mild mental illness.

Absolutely!!! I'd go as far as calling it a schizophrenic condition, infecting 99% of the world's populations, and stemming from a deeply repressed fear of death. Our inevitable personal annihilation is terrifying to consider - so we bury it, pretend it's not there. Religion replaces it with false hopes, which we grab onto with hysterical desperation.

Having said that, I do think that one needs to confront this inner demon face-to-face in order to exorcise it. Intellectual honesty can go a long way towards true spiritual contentment. It's a turbulent journey, but it becomes manageable after a while... One learns to make peace with the disturbing & absurd incomprehensibilities the universe delivers to us.

Science, I feel, strives for honesty. Religion, on the other hand, is dishonest. The former bases itself on logic, the latter on blind faith (anti-logic). There's a big difference. They're mutually exclusive.

[crosscountry]

wow, this discussion is getting very good.


My history in the subject of Science vs. religion isn't as good as one would like, but things are clearing up for me.


First Religion has zero Tolerance for Astronomy. Astronomers revolt (but carefully). Then science makes more moves, religion (Christianity) makes Science "anti-God". Scientists get very upset

I for one am very upset






Edited for *s

[tbm]

Faith? Faith? I have LOTS of faith. In science, that is. I know that science is not a perfect discipline, but I still feel far more comfortable in the inquisitiveness that is science than in the close-circled arguments for things religious.

Regards, tbm

[Donnie B.]

I wonder if anyone has studied this idea:

Maybe those who are drawn to faith are pessimists. They look around them and see all the flaws in the human character, and decide that there must be something better (or all hope is lost). Ergo, there is -- there must be -- a good and just God (or gods) in charge of our ultimate fate.

Just a speculation... actually, I'm well aware that there are probably as many reasons for believing in a deity as there are deists.

[m13_higgs]

I just need a reason to believe one idea over another. Something so important as the nature and origin of the universe cannot be trusted to "ancient wisdom" or anything of that kind.

I don't enjoy being wrong in my fundamental beliefs, and that is why I love science. It self-corrects itself, and when it is wrong, it admits it and moves on to find what really is correct.

[isferno]

I'll add two things in this thread:

1) faith is science without knowlegde
2) who of you did background research on this topic?

[rock_in_sin]

I want to thank each of you that have responded to my posting. I am new to this kind of thing and this is a first for me.
First let me clear up the misconception about my gender. I am female, From the top of my head to the tips of my toes.
I understand that my posting was a little brief on info. As I said this is new to me.

To Enzp: Very Good point. I am open to alot of different views as long as none are only to cram an idea down someone else's throat. I am not very good at the astronomy part although I would like to learn more about it.

To Kristophe: I like to share my faith with others, but only to those that want to listen. And STRONGLY believe that it should NEVER, EVER be yeilded as a weapon or to make myself or any one else for that matter feel like I or they are better than any one else.

To: Zebo-the-fat: First, if you, (meaning those in general) believe in God you usually believe in Satin as well. And if you believe the Bible as the word of God you believe that it says that all things not of God are of Satin.
God created the person, but Satin influenced the person to become the murderer.

To Blackstar: I must disagree. Science and Faith are the two things that are truely compatible if viewed that both exist. In my belief system it was God that created all things. So it is from Him that science exists. When I get sick or injured and need to see a doctor, I believe that it is God that guides the hands of the doctor to heal me. It is through God that men/women become men or women of science. I rather enjoy the medical field.

To Crosscountry: I am sorry that you have never encountered any one of a spiritual faith that embraces Astronomy. Where my teachings are based astronomy plays a large role. Case in point; For those that believe, The birth of Christ. Around the world, believer and non-believer alike, believe that Christ was born on Dec. 25th. Sadly enough this is wrong. According to the Bible this is impossible. Why you ask?
The bible records that according to the placement of the stars at the time of his birth he was born in the month of September. Infact, September 11th. Also because of the weather, the seasons and the customs of the middle east it could not have been in Dec. The Bible records that there where shepards afield attending their flocks. In the middle east there would not have been any shepards in the fields at the end of Dec. Their flocks would have been gathered in by the middle of Nov. to get ready for winter.

OK, about the reasoning for a local. I have no problem with this subject matter on this site. I have enjoyed your responces to my posting and would love to discuss this with any of you that would like to as long as it's doesn't become a battle. I am not interested in converting or to aquire converts. I am open to knowledge and I know that I could always learn a thing or two.
As I said in my posting that I am new to my area and am looking for others around that would like to discuss this subject matter. I thought it would be away to get to know not just only the city but it's residents as well. Due to reasons that I won't get into here I don't get out much so my computer has become my link to the world around me. My posting was an ice breaker to see if any one was even interested in this subject. I guess that is why I made it so brief.

My city is Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

For those who must see to believe. I like to tell the story about a scene in the movie Santa Clause. The step-dad needs proof that Santa does in deed exist. The little boy asks him if he has ever seen a million dollars, step-dad says no, the boy remarks, "just because you've never seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist".
Think of all the things that you have never seen, felt or heard but you know they exist. How? Some one has told you, you have read it in a book or you have heard about it on the radio.

For those who believe, May God bless your day.
For those who don't or aren't sure, May your day be filled with joy and all the planets remain in their orbit.
rock_in_sin.

[Gillianren]

you mean Satan. one need not believe in "satin"; one can buy it by the yard. it empirically exists.

[worzel]

you mean Satan. I thought she meant Santa.

[Moose]

No, that's Stan. Stan Mahoney, the veteranarian.

[Maksutov]

Mmm, satin. It's to some people what angora was to Ed Wood, or velour to Zapp Brannigan. :shifty:

[Enzp]

I hope you find what you seek.

[Ara Pacis]

There is a line between being pro-science and being anti-religious. It is not a thin line.

There is a difference between observing that sometimes a person's belief is wrong and making the assumption that they must always be wrong. There is a difference between observing that an assumption may be unproven because the data is suspect and declaring that the lack of data precludes the assumption. Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence.

Pro-Science might say that the evidence for God may be lacking and therefore the existence of God is not proven and the status of the inquiry is inconclusive. Anti-Religionists might ignore the rules of evidence and analysis and declare that a lack of evidence necessarily concludes the negative of the assumption --there is no God.

Consider the hypothetical that you were presented with proof of God. What proof? Well for this exercise, you make the call --whatever empirical proof you require is demonstrated. Do you admit the existence of God or not?

[Krevel]

I, for one, don't think that religion and science are mutually exclusive. The Koran, for instance compels all Muslims to study Allah's creation. Ancient Muslims made great advancements in various scientific disciplines - notably, astronomy and mathematics. The Jesuit order of the Catholic religion also includes a number of scientists who have made great discoveries. Gregor Mendel, of genetics fame, was a priest (not sure of what order).

Some of you seem to think that the attitude of Evangelical Christians toward science is representative of all religious people. Don't fall into that trap.

There's a decidely anti-religion element on this board, and I just want to point out some some alternatives. Myself, I'm not a particularly religious person - more of a Taoist than anything. I don't mean to proselytize, but it does seem to me that the universe, from physics to chemistry, is arranged so as to create life. To study the sciences, to me, is to glimpse into the mind of the creator.

[worzel]

Let's not confuse anti-religion intellectually with anti-religion socially. I am absolutely anti-religion intellectually - I think religious beliefs are absurd superstitious relics that have no place in public schools or any intelligent debate. I am absolutely pro people having the right to believe what they want though, and express that belief in anyway they want so long as that doesn't impinge on other people's freedom.

[Maksutov]

Let's not confuse anti-religion intellectually with anti-religion socially. I am absolutely anti-religion intellectually - I think religious beliefs are absurd superstitious relics that have no place in public schools or any intelligent debate. I am absolutely pro people having the right to believe what they want though, and express that belief in anyway they want so long as that doesn't impinge on other people's freedom.Agreed.

Here's a preview of what happens when we allow religious dogma into science classes. (http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/cms_content?page=287399&sp=60624&p=1018818)

Pay particular attention to the section called Christian logic. (http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=887500&netp_id=310773&event=SP60624%7C287399%7C60624%7C287399%7C60624&item_code=WW)

But if they want to believe in this within their own group, fine. But don't try to force it on me or my children, or make it part of the town's school curriculum, or the law.

[Ara Pacis]

Let's not confuse anti-religion intellectually with anti-religion socially. I am absolutely anti-religion intellectually - I think religious beliefs are absurd superstitious relics that have no place in public schools or any intelligent debate. I am absolutely pro people having the right to believe what they want though, and express that belief in anyway they want so long as that doesn't impinge on other people's freedom.
I'm not sure that you've made a distinction there. Could you elaborate more? It comes across as an attempt to justify anti-religionism.

[Matherly]

I have to agree with Ara Pacis there, Worzel. While it might not have been your intent, what I heard you say in your post was "I'm not anti-religious... they can believe in any dang fool thing they want". You language seemed to me to be a little provoking.

Oh, and I believe mendle was a Lutheran, not a Catholic (which is ironic, because the Lutherins are a pretty anti-evolution lot <shrug>)

[Gillianren]

only if Lutherans have monks, which given the history of Martin Luther is pretty unlikely. Mendel wasn't a priest; he was a monk. there are some pretty specific differences between the two, such as that every priest can say Mass, but not every monk can. (more differences available on request.)

look, it is perfectly possible to both be religious and hold a scientific mindset, as long as you don't let the one interfere with the other. I would rather have an engineer build me a bridge than someone relying on the will of the Goddess. I would rather have a licensed medical doctor treat me than someone relying on the will of the Goddess. this doesn't mean that I don't believe in Her; it means that a little study is more important in scientific endeavours than a lot of faith.

[zebo-the-fat]

Why did people prey to god to help the victims of the hurricane in New Orleans, when god caused it in the first place? :question:

[Moose]

There's a decidely anti-religion element on this board

Perhaps, but speaking from my perception, there's been a decidedly anti-me element in "your"* religion that has existed long before I was born, let alone old enough to develop an opinion one way or another.

It's a sword that cuts both ways, I'm afraid.

When religion becomes tolerant of my harmless little quirks, I will be content to tolerate religion.

(*Meant firmly in the generic, since no single religion/sect has treated me especially worse or better than any other, and I don't feel much like getting into specifics in any case.)

[Ara Pacis]

Perhaps, but speaking from my perception, there's been a decidedly anti-me element in "your"* religion that has existed long before I was born, let alone old enough to develop an opinion one way or another.

It's a sword that cuts both ways, I'm afraid.

When religion becomes tolerant of my harmless little quirks, I will be content to tolerate religion.

(*Meant firmly in the generic, since no single religion/sect has treated me especially worse or better than any other, and I don't feel much like getting into specifics in any case.)
Qui s'excuse, s'accuse.
(He who excuses himself, accuses himself.)

Or do you mean to imply something else? The distinction between allegory and referant is unclear.

[Moose]

Qui s'excuse, s'accuse.
(He who excuses himself, accuses himself.)

Or do you mean to imply something else? The distinction between allegory and referant is unclear.

I'm implying nothing I haven't stated explicitly. Nor am I speaking in allegory.

[Krevel]

Perhaps, but speaking from my perception, there's been a decidedly anti-me element in "your"* religion that has existed long before I was born, let alone old enough to develop an opinion one way or another.

It's a sword that cuts both ways, I'm afraid.

When religion becomes tolerant of my harmless little quirks, I will be content to tolerate religion.

(*Meant firmly in the generic, since no single religion/sect has treated me especially worse or better than any other, and I don't feel much like getting into specifics in any case.)

The quotes, in this case, should probably be around the word "religion" not "your", as my "religion" is more of a vaguely held notion of metaphysics. And since this is more of my personal philosophy than any established "religion", I can assure you that there is no "anti-you" element at all - let alone one that has existed long before you were born! (I'm not THAT old!) My philosophy is quite content with your "harmless little quirks", and so I appreciate your tolerance.

My point was simply that there are many and various religious outlooks, not all of them are incompatible with a scientific viewpoint. Don't try to paint all religions with the same brush because of your experience with one religion in particular. ("You" in this case, is the generic "you", not you, "Moose".)

Edited to add:Just to clear this up: Gregor Mendel was an Augustinian monk - a now defunct Catholic order. Martin Luther was also an Augustinian, BTW.

[BlackStar]

Perhaps we should stop & define "religion" here. Some of you seem to be equating "religion" with a belief in "God" or whatever.

I thought "religion" was about insisting on a "mediator" between you & "God" - ie Jesus, Mohammed, etc etc. And, declaring these "superhumans" to be endowed with magical qualities, performing "miracles" etc.

That, to me, is sinister.

Belief in a "God" or "Gods" is fine, it's a personal thing and has nothing to do with "churches" or "religions".

[Moose]

The quotes, in this case, should probably be around the word "religion" not "your", as my "religion" is more of a vaguely held notion of metaphysics. And since this is more of my personal philosophy than any established "religion", I can assure you that there is no "anti-you" element at all - let alone one that has existed long before you were born! (I'm not THAT old!) My philosophy is quite content with your "harmless little quirks", and so I appreciate your tolerance.

Krevel, I'm afraid you were so busy editing my post to build up your straw man, you not only missed the point of my post by a country mile, I think you've managed to kill the neighbor's dog. I can say that I do admire your creativity, however misplaced.

Perhaps it would clarify things if I were to explain that the following:

(*Meant firmly in the generic, since no single religion/sect has treated me especially worse or better than any other, and I don't feel much like getting into specifics in any case.)

... means that you, Krevel, should not to construe that I was in any way accusing you personally of making my life much more difficult than need be. I was not aiming that reply at you personally, but at organized religion in general.

My original post is accurate exactly the way I wrote it. I suggest you re-read it with that firmly in mind and leave your editing crayon on your desk.

[Reina]

To Crosscountry: I am sorry that you have never encountered any one of a spiritual faith that embraces Astronomy. Where my teachings are based astronomy plays a large role. Case in point; For those that believe, The birth of Christ. Around the world, believer and non-believer alike, believe that Christ was born on Dec. 25th. Sadly enough this is wrong. According to the Bible this is impossible. Why you ask?
The bible records that according to the placement of the stars at the time of his birth he was born in the month of September. Infact, September 11th. Also because of the weather, the seasons and the customs of the middle east it could not have been in Dec. The Bible records that there where shepards afield attending their flocks. In the middle east there would not have been any shepards in the fields at the end of Dec. Their flocks would have been gathered in by the middle of Nov. to get ready for winter.


Actually as far as I know, most scholars place jesus' birth in the spring.

[Planetwatcher]

I've always wondered about the so-called athiests. They claim to not believe in God. But just in so stating they are acknowledging the God they say doesn't exist. So how can they not believe in God, when they admitt his existance in saying he doesn't exist.

And talk about proof. People in America who embrace science also believe that George Washington was our first President, but can anyone prove it?

In the absence of the proof, then George Washington the father of the USA must not have existed. Which makes the Revalutionary War a fable, and our Constitution a fake.
Perhaps the entire USA is a figment of our mass imagination.

See what happens when you start placing absolutes on proof?
But we don't see the people who asked for the proof to begin with offering any real solutions. They just ask for more proof.

Science is NOT about proof. Proof belongs in a court of law.
Science is about hypothosying what may be, based on our knowledge of what is.

But we are each entitled to our own opinion, which has to do with freedom of will. Another conceipt which can not be proved. Will we ever learn?

[Wolverine]

Ladies and gents:

I posted a plea earlier on in this discussion for participants to proceed cautiously, as specific rules were not in place at that time.

As of today, they have been posted (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32864) -- please review them.

I'm closing this thread for the time being to a) urge participants to remain calm, and b) allow for administrative review. It may or may not be reopened.

Please be patient.