Being Christain And Liking Science

[Larry1700]

I’d like to add several disjointed thoughts:

First, I would encourage both of you, Stephen_Bain and deb1, to read Pope John Paul II’s encyclical enititled Faith and Reason. It has been a long time since I read it, but as I recall, it essentially says that both are necessary for our understanding, and both have their limitations.

Second, there are many well-respected scientists who believe in God. A great example is Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project, who has written The Language of God and Coming to Peace with Science

Third, science is based on testable and repeatable proofs. However, even scientists admit that there are many things they currently do not know or completely understand. Simply because something cannot be tested/scientifically proves does not automatically mean it does not exist.

Finally, in both the scientific and religious realms, there are things that are often based on a sort of faith that cannot be readily proven. I firmly believe that there is an American flag on the Moon, and that Sojourner is on Mars, even though I cannot prove it to myself beyond the shadow of a doubt. Pictures can be forged, etc. I trust those that have been to the Moon, and those that designed Sojourner. In the same way, I trust that the newspaper accounts of the events of Fatima, witnessed by many people, really happened, even though there is no way to prove it. I realize many people will choose not to believe the accounts of those witnesses, but there are also many today who choose not to believe the accounts of those who were involved with the missions to the Moon and to Mars.

 

[Spirithound]

I know that he is incorrect in his thinking but I am curious how to answer him. Here are his comments:

***same time says nothing about whether the two are compatible or one contradicts the other. This is a common logical fallacy.
It is quite possible for a human being to believe two contradictory things, this does not mean that the two are inherently compatible when examined closely.

The scientific method can be turned to any aspect of life, the universe and everything, it’s just that many choose not to apply it to those “faith” areas of life.

However, the scientific method accepts only that which can be observed. God, the soul and the afterlife cannot be observed. One may have hypotheses about these but they are fundamentally unscientific concepts as they are untestable and non-falsifiable.
The concept of faith is anathema to science as it requires the believer to make conclusions based on insufficient or non-existent evidence***.

Actually, he seems to be quite correct. People are capable of holding contradictory views, many people don’t apply the scientific method to religion, and God, the soul, and the afterlife, generally speaking, cannot be observed.
For all that, however, his post is inadequate. He does not show that religion and science are incompatible, he simply assumes this. He has failed to show that Monsieur Pasteur is guilty of not applying the scientific method to his religion, he assumes this. Most importantly, however, he has not shown that religion is illogical; he assumes this.

 

[Ne_OrangeKnight]

The fact that the scientific method has yielded such a wealth of information about how our universe seems to work, and continues to reveal more every day, is solid evidence for its validity.

It’s good evidence, sure, but it proves nothing. Just because an apple falls towards the ground today, and has always done so in the past (as far as we know), does not prove that it will continue to do so in the future. Science takes on faith that the universe is governed by rational laws, and that these laws remain constant from day to day. Can you prove that, in the future, gravity will always work as it does today?

Furthermore, science can never answer the question “Why?” Why is there creation? Why is there something instead of nothing? I firmly believe that science can tell us the “how.” We can know the physical processes by which the universe came together, and how new life begins, but science can’t tell us why it should be that way. That takes faith/philosophy/theology. It takes religion. Faith and science aren’t mutually exclusive; they’re just two entirely different domains.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

 

[Stephen_Bain]

Larry 1700:
I know there are many respected scientists who believe in god. It is quite possible for people to do both. However, I do not believe they apply the same standards of evidence to their faith as they do to their religion. They may, as Gould did, believe the two are “non-overlapping magisteria”, that they do not overlap at all, and therefore different standards can be applied.

Of course there are things scientists do not understand. Many of the models we use today will probably be modified or replaced in the future. Science is not about absolute truth, it is about modeling and quantifying the behaviour of the world around us as best we can. However, I think that the amount we do not know is reduced every year.

I definitely believe we went to the moon. This can actually be tested today by shining a laser up and seeing the reflection from an array of mirrors left there by the Apollo astronauts.
When it comes to looking at history you cannot really apply the scientific method. You have to evaluate the quality of primary and secondary sources and come to a point of view based upon this.

Spirithound:
If religion were to make no testable claims about the universe we live in then I would, indeed, be entirely unable to reject it on scientific grounds. However, religion often claims that god can have an effect on the universe. As soon as this is the case, we can design experiments to test this effect. Some studies have been done in the US about prayer, for example.

However, if god is completely untestable in a scientific sense, then there is no place in science for him. You may believe what you like but he is not a scientific theory. To invoke him to explain, for example, the creation of the universe would require him to be the most logical explanation. Given the choice between a natural cause of the universe and an already existent sentient being, it is the natural cause that is most plausible.

On the point of logic. Religions are often internally quite logical. However, it is in the assumptions upon which this logic is based that the science would have issues. I do not believe that faith is a logical standpoint. I have also never seen a logical explanation for god’s existence.

Ne_OrangeKnight:
No, i cannot “prove” any of these things but then I don’t believe I said I, or science, could. I can only form my theory, test it, and then make assumptions as to what will happen next. I put no more stock in these than they deserve. I live my life as though gravity continues to work because it always has done. If it changed then I would be forced to adapt.

I believe that your “why” question is a non-question. Why should there be a “why”? Why must there be a plan that explains a motive? You’re just applying how people work to the universe as a whole. Just because everything we do has a why doesn’t mean everything the universe does has a why as well.
I see no need for a “why?” anywhere in nature.

 

[Ne_OrangeKnight]

I believe that your “why” question is a non-question. Why should there be a “why”? Why must there be a plan that explains a motive? You’re just applying how people work to the universe as a whole. Just because everything we do has a why doesn’t mean everything the universe does has a why as well.
I see no need for a “why?” anywhere in nature.

Well, if there’s no “why”, then it was all due to random chance that anything (and everything) exists. That the human eye that Darwin couldn’t account for, that the complex code of our DNA, etc., etc. were mere flukes of the universe and had no rationale behind their creation. To me, that seems illogical.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

 

[Stephen_Bain]

Ne Orangeknight, your last post is so full of errors and misrepresentations I don’t quite know where to begin.

“Random Chance”
Why can it not be that the universe ended up this way because that is the way it is. Otherwise we wouldn’t be here to observe it. Whether that is because the properties of the universe naturally tend that way or because there are many universes and ours is the one in which we live because it is suited for us, calling it random chance makes it sound like that would be a bad thing. I don’t see any problem with the universe developing in a purely naturalistic way. We may not fully understand it yet but we may do one day.

The Human Eye etc.
Once you get into the realm of biological evolution the phrase “random chance” graduates from misunderstanding to meaningless. Evolution is not a purely random process. Individual mutations may occur randomly, but the external pressures of environment, nutrition, competition and predators select the mutations that are best adapted. It is a beautifully simple concept and is far from random. In a way it is a form of unconscious, natural design.

-As an aside, invoking so called irreducably complex things like the eye and saying they couldn’t have evolved naturally is a common creationist tactic. As it happens the eye, along with most of the other examples brought up in this way, can be explained evolutionarily. Other common choices are the bacterial flagellar motor, the immune system and the blood clotting cascade.

“Mere flukes of the universe”
If this were true, what would be wrong with being a such a fluke? Why would it be illogical for this to be the case anyhow? Invoking the concept of a creator simply creates more trouble as his existence has to be explained in addition to that of the universe. And who created him?

 

[Larry1700]

Larry 1700:
I know there are many respected scientists who believe in god. It is quite possible for people to do both. However, I do not believe they apply the same standards of evidence to their faith as they do to their religion. They may, as Gould did, believe the two are “non-overlapping magisteria”, that they do not overlap at all, and therefore different standards can be applied.

This was one of the points made in Pope John Paul II’s encyclical,Faith and Reason.

Of course there are things scientists do not understand. Many of the models we use today will probably be modified or replaced in the future. Science is not about absolute truth, it is about modeling and quantifying the behaviour of the world around us as best we can. However, I think that the amount we do not know is reduced every year.

Another point discussed in the encyclical. In the scientific arena, we do our best to understand the world by using our available mental capacity and methods. In the theological arena, most things aren’t provable by using scientific means. However, this does not prove that those facts don’t exist; it merely proves that we don’t have the mental or technological capacity to prove them. Nevertheless, throughout history there have been many religious events and artifacts which have been empirically proven, either scientifically or via eyewitness accounts. The Shroud of Turin is one example using scientific methods. The apparitions at Fatima and Lourdes, and the many miracles involving Padre Pio are examples of eyewitness accounts.

I definitely believe we went to the moon. This can actually be tested today by shining a laser up and seeing the reflection from an array of mirrors left there by the Apollo astronauts. When it comes to looking at history you cannot really apply the scientific method. You have to evaluate the quality of primary and secondary sources and come to a point of view based upon this.

Sure, you can prove we went to the moon if you have a sufficiently powerful laser and sufficiently accurate pointing mechanisim. If you do, congratulations. I don’t, so I have to rely on the testimony of others.

 

[Stephen_Bain]

Investigations into the shroud of Turin have been inconclusive at best. Initial carbon dating placed it in the medieval period, although those results have since been disputed as not being representative of the cloth as a whole. Why then, has another dating not been permitted? It would be a simple way to clear up at least some of the controversy.

There are also a range of plausible naturalistic explanations for the image formation on the shroud. For example, byproducts of the early stages of decay could result in the formation of an image. Even if new dating were to show that the shroud came from Israel in the 1st century, it’s origin need not be miraculous. If it actually was the shroud in which Jesus was buried it would prove no more than that he was a man.

As far as the other miracles you describe, I’d have to read more about them to have a serious opinion. However, since they are based on eyewitness accounts, their evidence should probably be taken with a pinch of salt.

On the moon-laser front, there are peer-reviewed journal articles about the reflecting of the laser off the surface of the moon. As with the rest of reputable scientific publishing, you can trust it to a much greater degree than eyewitness accounts as it must pass peer-review and stand up to future investigation.

 

[hildegaard]

Hi Stephen:

(all emphasis in quotes mine)

…I don’t really consider the bases of the scientific method to be dogmatic. Science works upon the basis that the universe is rationally testable (methodological naturalism) because it has no choice. It is a methodology that does not demand the universe actually operate in this way.

Interesting statement. I think what I underlined is especially true in cosmology (which could be argued to be more philosophy than science). The reason I say this is because of a conversation we are having here. The main representative of “science” (hecd2 or Alec) really avoids discussing the assumptions and philosophical aspects of cosmology, and I believe is over-representing the objectivity of the models (i.e., big bang). It would be nice to have a more “open” scientist join the conversation . Take a look and see if you are interested. If you are, please read through the thread and be sure to follow the other linked threads.

Basically the point is not about absolute truth but about the models and the method.

In other words, the theory could be overturned by a new thoery in the future, but the theory still provides an empirically testable basis to make predictions. I.e., a new theory may actually have different explanations for a phenomenon, thus overturn a current theories explanations. The new theory of course would provide better predictions or more accurately satisfy empirical testing.

The most widely accepted theories would be nothing more than empty words if not for the accumulated data that both confirms their assumptions and tests their predictions.

This is an area where the linked discussion is going nowhere (at least with the main representative of “science”). The assumptions in cosmology are so substantial that they end up driving how we interpret our observations. If different assumptions were made, the interpretation of our [astronomincal] observations would be radically different. Top cosmologists admit that some of the main assumptions are not testable. This leaves philosophy to fill the void [in cosmology]. Obviously other fields of science which are fully testable in a laboratory, etc., require less philosophy, and can thus be more objective.

…I would say that being strictly scientific one cannot accept faith, it is clear that many do accept both to some level. I do wonder though if this is because many give faith the benefit of the doubt more than they would a theory they held within the sphere of science.

Steve

I think if a scientist does not accept science as a religion (scientism) and understands how the components of philosophy and assumptions (often driven by philosophy) interact in science, it is very possible to be a scientist and have faith.

 

[Ne_OrangeKnight]

“Mere flukes of the universe”
If this were true, what would be wrong with being a such a fluke? Why would it be illogical for this to be the case anyhow? Invoking the concept of a creator simply creates more trouble as his existence has to be explained in addition to that of the universe. And who created him?

How exactly does involving a Creator muddle things up? If it wasn’t created by someone, where did the universe came from? How did all of this matter and energy get here? The Big Bang, sure, but how and why, exactly, did that happen? If you believe it possible that no one created the universe universe and has always been around, why is it problematic to believe that God has always been around? To me, this makes more sense, because there’s just the same amount uncreated things, but this time we introduce a rational intelligence into the mix.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

 

[Larry1700]

Investigations into the shroud of Turin have been inconclusive at best.

I guess the O.J. jury might consider it “inconclusive,” but there is a profuse amount of evidence attesting to its validity. If you seek the truth about it, I recommend you do a little research on this subject.

I don’t recall the specifics anymore, but the evidence includes pollen grains from the Jerusalem area, weave pattern from that specific place/time, documentation (paintings) from before the diputated date provided by the carbon dating , etc., etc., etc.

 

[Stephen_Bain]

Hmm, looks like my email has been hiding forum emails as “spam”. Something it likes to do form time to time to keep me on my toes.

Hildegarde:
If I have the time I’ll follow the link to discussion thread. I seem to be reading, writing and posting on an increasing number of blogs/forums right now so I’ll put it in the queue!

I would agree that, at present, cosmology/astronomy is a good example of a field with greater assumptions than those branches of science that are “closer to home” as it were. However, there are also some startling positive tests of predictions made by cosmology. The discovery of the cosmic microwave background confirmed one of the major predictions of the big bang theory, that the universe was once all at the same hot temperature and that it has subsequently cooled as it expands.

Cosmology, is an area that is comparatively young in terms of serious data-gathering. However, the continued building of new observatories (both in space and on the earth) is increasing this all the time. The theories behind cosmology will certainly be modified and improved in the future and, as in many areas before, the gaps filled by philosophy can be replaced with science.

Ne_OrangeKnight:
When it comes to invoking a creator as the cause of the universe, the main assumption in doing so is that all of the emergent complexity we see could not just have happened “by chance”. Thus, the intelligent, omnipotent designer is introduced. But if this argument is used, who created the creator? What would give the creator the right to be the only thing that doesn’t, in fact, need a creator.
If, however, the universe is naturally caused, self-causing or whatever you theorise, there is no need for special cases. There is no need to invoke a higher power for which there is no scientific evidence, and certainly no need to endow him with a personality, desires and so forth.

Larry1700:
I have read a little about the shroud and all I see is a lot of controversy with many scientists on one side and a few scientists and a lot of priests on the other. The faithful dispute certain pieces of evidence such as the carbon dating but, for some reason, further testing is not taking place.
There are several plausible theories as to the formation of the image on the shroud, be it painted, scorched or caused by the decomposition of a corpse.
Evidence pertaining to pollen grains, weaving patterns and dust particles is inconclusive at best and seriously doubtful at worst.

Finally, even if the person we know as Jesus was, in fact buried in the shroud, there would be no scientific reason to ascribe supenatural properties to either him or the cloth.

 

[Larry1700]

Larry1700:
I have read a little about the shroud and all I see is a lot of controversy with many scientists on one side and a few scientists and a lot of priests on the other. The faithful dispute certain pieces of evidence such as the carbon dating but, for some reason, further testing is not taking place.
There are several plausible theories as to the formation of the image on the shroud, be it painted, scorched or caused by the decomposition of a corpse.
Evidence pertaining to pollen grains, weaving patterns and dust particles is inconclusive at best and seriously doubtful at worst.

Interesting. Well, since I don’t know where you’re getting your info, and since I don’t remember specifically where I got mine, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I kind of feel like we’d be doing the global warming argument, where I would list scientists who say it’s not human-induced, and you would counter with scientists who say it is. Unfortunately, time does not permit me to read all the books/articles I’d like to, but I will keep an open mind on the shroud. I just know that the evidence I’ve heard up to now sounds pretty darned credible.

Finally, even if the person we know as Jesus was, in fact buried in the shroud, there would be no scientific reason to ascribe supenatural properties to either him or the cloth.

If I understand what you’re saying correctly, my response is as follows.

First, while faith is more pure and noble if it needs no supporting evidence, I think most of us find that our faith is bolstered when proof is provided for this or that belief. It’s like faith that you’ve raised your child right. You trust (to some extent) that you’re child wouldn’t lie, but your trust is strengthened when you find out that they were in a position in which a lie would have gotten them out of trouble, and they had the moral fortitude to tell the truth. Therefore, while I don’t absolutely need the Shroud to conifirm my faith in Jesus’ death and resurrection, it does help when the proofs are provided.

Second, I’m sure you feel that we Christians have a bias in the way we view the Shroud evidence, and that it clouds our perception. That is probably true to an extent, but I for one (and I’m sure many more as well) try not to let my desire for the Shroud to be 100% proven keep me from listening to the evidence objectively. I hope most of the scientists on the other side do the same. However, I’m not sure that anyone can keep biases completely under control, but since I have a somewhat scientific background I like to believe I do pretty well at it.

 

[neuro_nurse]

Basic scientific research, as well as applied research, is a significant expression of man’s dominion over creation. Science and technology are precious resources when placed at the service of man and promote his integral development for the benefit of all. By themselves however they cannot disclose the meaning of existence and of human progress. Science and technology are ordered to man, from whom they take their origin and development; hence they find in the person and in his moral values both evidence of their purpose and awareness of their limits. 2293

 

[neuro_nurse]

Here’s the paragraph I was looking for:

Faith and science: “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.” “Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.” Catechism,159