Addressing conflict between religion and science

  • Thread starter Thread starter cho_pilo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
After the flood (god said go forth and ect,subdue all unto they) does anyone really think,like when he asked adam where are you,that god did not understand what could or would be taken yet again from such a retorted maybe, request.

would not man subdue himself first.

who wants to get to space without coming back,but for us, or at least others there seems that the choice somehow is not there in materialistic ways.

The more you know, the harder life could be.
 
grannymh said:
If this is off topic, please ignore it.

Have started reading an article which uses the word “reason” as a means to reach truth. At least that is my first impression…

Does the use of reason to reach truth apply to religion and does it apply to science? Either one or the other? Both? Neither? This is way different than the cliché “truth cannot contradict truth” because I am referring to a means not the end product.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert
Click to expand...
I’d say both.
Science is a branch of philosophy which allows some questions as valid to scientific enquiry and other questions as invalid.
And rightly so.

It makes “Why does water boil at 100 degrees centigrade at sea level?”, a valid scientific question, and “What should I do in life to become content?”, a non-valid scientific question.

The latter is still a valid philosophic question, but not a scientific one.

Science deals with specific questions about the material world.
It seeks to find experiments which will find definite answers to those questions.
 
grannymh said:
If this is off topic, please ignore it.

Have started reading an article which uses the word “reason” as a means to reach truth. At least that is my first impression…

Does the use of reason to reach truth apply to religion and does it apply to science? Either one or the other? Both? Neither? This is way different than the cliché “truth cannot contradict truth” because I am referring to a means not the end product.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert
Click to expand...
Reason comes from the observational side. Revelation is told to us. The facts of Revelation are pertinent and can be reasoned as to the way we should live, act, think, etc… However, the 10 Commandments are commands.

Would you put reason in the faith circle?

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=639&pictureid=7720
 
buffalo said:
Reason comes from the observational side. Revelation is told to us. The facts of Revelation are pertinent and can be reasoned as to the way we should live, act, think, etc… However, the 10 Commandments are commands.

Would you put reason in the faith circle?

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=639&pictureid=7720
Click to expand...
“Reason” is used as a means to reach truth. Please note that I am not entirely sure what all is involved in “reason” :o I’m sure you know the saying that fools rush in where angels fear to tread. I am not the angel type.

Since truth is the object or goal of both science and religion, then I would add truth to the overlapping center where IDvolution is. This is because all the arrows lead to that point.

Because I am discovering that Catholicism stands alone on many Christian issues, I would say Revelation expressed in Catholic doctrines supported by tools of reason.

The faith circle could be “Faith which answers questions about the spiritual world.”

Science in the bottom circle would take the place of Reason in the circle directly above it. Cho Pilo in post 181 above had two great ending sentences. Suggestion is to broaden the meaning of science by saying something like-- science which answers questions about the material/physical world.

Where science was would then become the circle of the “natural physical/material world explored with tools of reason.”

Looking at those circles, since truth is in the center, can the overlap be bigger? IDvolution, or whatever you choose to call it, would be the end product of the means of reaching truth, which is reason. What I am driving at is that in order for truth not to contradict truth, the tools of reason need to be applied to both faith and science.

Or you could turn the arrows so that IDvolution, the search for truth, is what powers both faith and science or what brings science and faith together. Then God, the Creator might be a circle overlapping Revelation expressed in Catholic doctrines supported by tools of reason. And then God, the Creator could also be a circle overlapping the natural physical/ material world explored with tools of reason.

Right now my brain is going in circles…

Blessings,

.:hypno:
 
lynx said:
… God is a large claim, and i’m waiting for the proof.
Click to expand...
You keep saying that, but fail to see it. It seems to me that the claim for God is not any larger a claim than a claim for an alternate reality without God. Can you explain this without waving your hands and just saying it feels like that to you? Because I can just as easily say that a cosmology without God is a large claim, and I’m waiting for the proof.
 
grannymh said:
“Reason” is used as a means to reach truth. Please note that I am not entirely sure what all is involved in “reason” :o I’m sure you know the saying that fools rush in where angels fear to tread. I am not the angel type.

Since truth is the object or goal of both science and religion, then I would add truth to the overlapping center where IDvolution is. This is because all the arrows lead to that point.

Because I am discovering that Catholicism stands alone on many Christian issues, I would say Revelation expressed in Catholic doctrines supported by tools of reason.

The faith circle could be “Faith which answers questions about the spiritual world.”

Science in the bottom circle would take the place of Reason in the circle directly above it. Cho Pilo in post 181 above had two great ending sentences. Suggestion is to broaden the meaning of science by saying something like-- science which answers questions about the material/physical world.

Where science was would then become the circle of the “natural physical/material world explored with tools of reason.”

Looking at those circles, since truth is in the center, can the overlap be bigger? IDvolution, or whatever you choose to call it, would be the end product of the means of reaching truth, which is reason. What I am driving at is that in order for truth not to contradict truth, the tools of reason need to be applied to both faith and science.

Or you could turn the arrows so that IDvolution, the search for truth, is what powers both faith and science or what brings science and faith together. Then God, the Creator might be a circle overlapping Revelation expressed in Catholic doctrines supported by tools of reason. And then God, the Creator could also be a circle overlapping the natural physical/ material world explored with tools of reason.

Right now my brain is going in circles…

Blessings,

.:hypno:
Click to expand...
Human reasoning is a way to reach truth. But what guides it? How can a human know they have reasoned truth?

Revelation tells us things. No reasoning involved just listening. For that reason I believe Revelation has to be kept in its own circle, otherwise we would be telling ourselves our own revelations. Once we hear Revelation, then faith (opening ones heart and mind to it) comes into play. That is the belief of faith.

Science, broadly stated is the pursuit of knowledge. The science circle focuses more narrowly on empirical science, that is observable, repeatable and predictable. OK, so we can repeat the experiment, now we have to apply reasoning skills to perfect the conclusion. I do not think they belong in the same circle.

I cannot restrict God to a circle because He informs us through Revelation as well as His creation. The God arrows come in from every direction.

Now my head is going in circles.

The information path is key.

Oh and yes, I do not know how big that area of interlap is, I just know there is some interlap. It might be much bigger.
 
buffalo said:
Human reasoning is a way to reach truth. But what guides it? How can a human know they have reasoned truth?
Click to expand...
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition says: “Man’s faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God.”
CCC 26-49
 
grannymh said:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition says: “Man’s faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God.”
CCC 26-49
Click to expand...
OK,but what about those mystic guys and gals who say they saw god and god isn’t a person?
 
aQman said:
OK,but what about those mystic guys and gals who say they saw god and god isn’t a person?
Click to expand...
Depends on whom you are talking about and when. My guess is that you are referring to people who lived after the apostolic age. In that case, their experiences would be considered “private” revelations and not binding. Usually, genuine mystics lead people to the teachings of the Catholic Church. If a “mystic” makes claims which seem to surpass or correct the Revelations of which Christ is the fulfillment, then these claims would not be accepted by the Catholic Church. I know that sounds confusing. The simple thing to do is to stick with the basic Catholic doctrine and listen to those who call people to God’s love and mercy.

Blessings,
granny

John 3: 16&17
 
buffalo said:
Human reasoning is a way to reach truth. But what guides it? How can a human know they have reasoned truth?

Revelation tells us things. No reasoning involved just listening. For that reason I believe Revelation has to be kept in its own circle, otherwise we would be telling ourselves our own revelations. Once we hear Revelation, then faith (opening ones heart and mind to it) comes into play. That is the belief of faith.

Science, broadly stated is the pursuit of knowledge. The science circle focuses more narrowly on empirical science, that is observable, repeatable and predictable. OK, so we can repeat the experiment, now we have to apply reasoning skills to perfect the conclusion. I do not think they belong in the same circle.

I cannot restrict God to a circle because He informs us through Revelation as well as His creation. The God arrows come in from every direction.

Now my head is going in circles.

The information path is key.

Oh and yes, I do not know how big that area of interlap is, I just know there is some interlap. It might be much bigger.
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying. Thanks.
 
grannymh said:
Depends on whom you are talking about and when. My guess is that you are referring to people who lived after the apostolic age. In that case, their experiences would be considered “private” revelations and not binding. Usually, genuine mystics lead people to the teachings of the Catholic Church. If a “mystic” makes claims which seem to surpass or correct the Revelations of which Christ is the fulfillment, then these claims would not be accepted by the Catholic Church. I know that sounds confusing. The simple thing to do is to stick with the basic Catholic doctrine and listen to those who call people to God’s love and mercy.

Blessings,
granny

John 3: 16&17
Click to expand...
What if the folks I’m talking about are before and after ce33 and are saying the same thing, well, about god’s love and I guess mercy, both sides of that date? Are the guys after Jesus no longer genuine? I don’t get it.
 
aQman said:
What if the folks I’m talking about are before and after ce33 and are saying the same thing, well, about god’s love and I guess mercy, both sides of that date? Are the guys after Jesus no longer genuine? I don’t get it.
Click to expand...
Some people after Jesus are really genuine. Some people are not. You know, it is hard to talk in generalities and it is even harder to evaluate what is in people’s hearts. It is a big world so I try to stick with the Catholic Church. I like its approach. The Catholic Church follows in the footsteps of Jesus. Yes, I know that followers of Jesus are not always the greatest. Some are downright bad. But that doesn’t change the goodness of Jesus in His Church. Jesus is the Good Shepherd. He calls His sheep. And He looks for those who are lost.

Blessings,
granny

“Amen, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”
Jesus bleeding on the cross*, Luke 23: 33-43*
 
grannymh said:
Some people after Jesus are really genuine. Some people are not. You know, it is hard to talk in generalities and it is even harder to evaluate what is in people’s hearts. It is a big world so I try to stick with the Catholic Church. I like its approach. The Catholic Church follows in the footsteps of Jesus. Yes, I know that followers of Jesus are not always the greatest. Some are downright bad. But that doesn’t change the goodness of Jesus in His Church. Jesus is the Good Shepherd. He calls His sheep. And He looks for those who are lost.

Blessings,
granny

“Amen, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”
Jesus bleeding on the cross*, Luke 23: 33-43*
Click to expand...
OK, I get that. I just read a lot and see some things that make me sit up, you know? I read catholic saints, too. Good stuff. Thanks.
 
grannymh said:
If this is off topic, please ignore it.

Have started reading an article which uses the word “reason” as a means to reach truth. At least that is my first impression…

Does the use of reason to reach truth apply to religion and does it apply to science? Either one or the other? Both? Neither? This is way different than the cliché “truth cannot contradict truth” because I am referring to a means not the end product.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert
Click to expand...
Granny,
“Reason” applies to all aspects of human inquiry, science, philosophy, religion, politics, and everyday human life.

It works according to Greylorn’s three empirically discovered rules of human reasoning:

  1. *]The First Reason is ca-ca.

    *]The Second Reason, likewise.

    *]So is the Third Reason, but with persistence in addressing the same question, an answer which is reflective of reality may be discovered.

    Possibly no greater mind than Aristotle has undertaken to apply reason to an understanding of reality, and insofar as we’ve been able to verify, he got it all wrong.

    The only thing that’s ever worked for coming up with workable ideas is:

    1. *]Come up with an idea. Doesn’t matter if it came out of a dream, or out of a hat along with the rabbit.

      *]Wrap enough “reason” around the idea to get people interested in checking it out. That’s about all that reason is good for.

      *]Check it out with experiments. Honest, repeatable experiments.

      *]If the idea checks out, adopt it and live by it. Otherwise, trash it.

      Incidentally, IMO there exists an understanding of the nature, origin, and intent of God which checks out scientifically, according to the above standards. Else I’d not have proposed them.
 
Incidentally, IMO there exists an understanding of the nature, origin, and intent of God which checks out scientifically, according to the above standards. Else I’d not have proposed them.
Click to expand...
You sound like a buddhist, dude.
 
greylorn said:
Granny,
“Reason” applies to all aspects of human inquiry, science, philosophy, religion, politics, and everyday human life.
Click to expand...
👍

I consider reason a means and not necessarily a “thing.” The tools of reason help us to understand science, philosophy, existence, religion, politics, sometimes children, certainly everyday human life and especially human nature which unites the material and spiritual worlds.

The tools of reason include but are not limited to observation, analysis, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought. I like to include gut instinct or woman’s intuition.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.
 
grannymh said:
👍

I consider reason a means and not necessarily a “thing.” The tools of reason help us to understand science, philosophy, existence, religion, politics, sometimes children, certainly everyday human life and especially human nature which unites the material and spiritual worlds.

The tools of reason include but are not limited to observation, analysis, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought. I like to include gut instinct or woman’s intuition.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.
Click to expand...
You will be pleased to know that the largest sheath of nerve bundles outside the brain is in the gut, the second brain if you will.🙂
 
buffalo said:
You will be pleased to know that the largest sheath of nerve bundles outside the brain is in the gut, the second brain if you will.🙂
Click to expand...
If I will— what, exactly? I’ve long wondered at the meaning of that pointless phrase.

Last I heard, the “gut” produces a compound which humans do not regard in particularly high esteem, except as fertilizer. The output of the ordinary human brain is too commonly analogous. IMO most of us humans would be better off regarding our thoughts and our selves at that lower level of esteem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top