Religion and science will never become one, as they use different methods

[Shaolen]

I posted a video of jimmy akin explaining that Easter isn’t pagan. A friend had made a comment that said:

“Science have found the god particle called the higgs boson .I am waiting for science and religion to become one then sitting in a pew will be on the history channel lol!!”

A fellow catholic said in response:

“There is no “god particle”, there is a “goddamn particle”. Religion and science will never become one, as they use different methods.”

The skeptic friend then responded:

“Thats funny loll!! I just assume when membership drops 80% because everyone knows science proves goddamn particles religion will adjust it self in some fashion.just look at the new pope for example about gays time proves it all lol”

I then said:

"I’ll have to call you out on this one. The pope hasn’t taught anything different on homosexuals than his predecessors

The catholic friend then said:

“The particles have nothing to do with religion. Neither prove nor disprove.”

Skeptic:

“I am just saying science can prove the world is not flat particles exist and proves stuff in regard to facts one day science will prove the chemicals in the brain that is responsible for faith.genetic screening is already happening to weed out things.mabee one day science will weedout what causes faith lol.in moden terms science can prove a abit.but for bot its up to the person to belive it or not”

Catholic:

“Even if there are “chemicals for faith”, that cannot disprove faith and spirituality. Everything has both material and spiritual existence. BTW, the Christianity never taught the world is flat. The Genesis implied it was, but the theologians as early as in the Roman times debated over it. It is not the substantial message of our faith.”

Skeptic:

“Just like reading a law book everything it up for is up interpretation. Either of the individuel or a paticular relion science may not have all the answers yet but once things are proven to be correct they become fact are just like math 2+4=6.i am not knocking faith but simply pointing our science in time will prove things and religion will simply be alittle different as we learn new things”

Catholic:

“Well, 2+4=6 is something people always knew, since they found the names for numbers 2, 4 and 6. It is not like a theorem to be proved. wink emoticon “Proof” is a relative concept.”

Skeptic:

“It was already 6.but it took someone thousands of years ago to invent modern day math.theory is the basic thing of science.thats how people start to be proved or disaproved.theorys are the best part of science.its basically the starting point for everything we know now”

Catholic:

“Mathematic theorems and physical theories are different. The mathematic ones are deducted from axioms (which are inborn ideas, basically) and proved to 100%. Physical theories are formulated via inductive reasoning from multiple observations, they are never proved to 100%, but they are idealizations of the real picture, made by our mind. In order to create a theory from observations, one has to make an assumption that there is a law by which this particular phenomenon is governed. This assumption is of religious origin - that God “enacted” the laws by which the world lives. But many modern people, even scholars, forgot about it…”

Skeptic:

“Chain reaction partical or god or what ever created the universe which created earth which made way for man which gave way to humen ideas theorys ideas for gods devils or science what ever you want to call it.what i am saying is that there is some element that caused it to begin with in the first place!! Things in your head chemicals ect made your brain function for thoughts just like your food is fuel for your body then its up to the care taker to eat what they may.its science thoughts faith everything has to come from some chain reaction somewhere in that relates to something. Its unless it just magic.”

What is your take on this? How would you explain this further to him and how to respond to his most recent comment?

 

[anthony022071]

The thing to remember is that the natural sciences are naturalistic in perspective. This perspective is called methodological naturalism and it is false. The sciences are committed to naturalism, rather than rationality and logic. Methodological naturalism leads scientists, in some fields of research, to attribute powers to nature that it cannot possibly have. This is the case with theories of the origins of matter, the universe, species, life, human thought and morality. With the naturalistic perspective, nature appears to be self-creating and self-sufficient.

 

[YoshiKat]

You’re friend seems to have fallen into the fallacy of “Scientism”. This fallacy states that the only true knowledge is scientific knowledge. However you can’t prove that scientifically. The “Hearts and Minds” podcast on here recently discussed it, it might be worth your while.

 

[Gorgias]

Skeptic:

“I am just saying science can prove the world is not flat particles exist and proves stuff in regard to facts one day science will prove the chemicals in the brain that is responsible for faith.genetic screening is already happening to weed out things.mabee one day science will weedout what causes faith lol.in moden terms science can prove a abit.but for bot its up to the person to belive it or not”

Why… what a lovely statement of faith! Perhaps your skeptic friend might one day realize that he doesn’t trust in science, so much as believes in it!

What is your take on this?

My ‘take’ is that you should consider ceasing to think that Facebook is a productive place to have theological discussions.

 

[aclausen]

The thing to remember is that the natural sciences are naturalistic in perspective. This perspective is called methodological naturalism and it is false. The sciences are committed to naturalism, rather than rationality and logic. Methodological naturalism leads scientists, in some fields of research, to attribute powers to nature that it cannot possibly have. This is the case with theories of the origins of matter, the universe, species, life, human thought and morality. With the naturalistic perspective, nature appears to be self-creating and self-sufficient.

Methodological naturalism is false? Wow?

Five hundred years of innovation and expanded knowledge, based on a false method… imagine that.

Your justification appears to be little more than an appeal to ignorance and a fair bit of circular reasoning. Because you don’t believe nature is capable of some things, a claim I doubt you can actually back up in any empirical way, therefore methodological naturalism must be wrong!

 

[edwest2]

Methodological naturalism is false? Wow?

Five hundred years of innovation and expanded knowledge, based on a false method… imagine that.

Your justification appears to be little more than an appeal to ignorance and a fair bit of circular reasoning. Because you don’t believe nature is capable of some things, a claim I doubt you can actually back up in any empirical way, therefore methodological naturalism must be wrong!

Attributing to nature certain powers and abilities that go beyond the realm of science to explain. Innovation is an imprecise term. Inventing the light bulb is indeed invention. Any other devices that can do similar work, while using different materials, such as neon lights, are innovations.

Expanded knowledge is meaningless without practical results and reproducible experiments or direct observation.

Certain purely naturalistic claims include things that cannot be demonstrated by science, and that science is the only source of knowledge. On a Catholic message board, anyone should realize that science is incomplete.

Ed

 

[aclausen]

Attributing to nature certain powers and abilities that go beyond the realm of science to explain. Innovation is an imprecise term. Inventing the light bulb is indeed invention. Any other devices that can do similar work, while using different materials, such as neon lights, are innovations.

Expanded knowledge is meaningless without practical results and reproducible experiments or direct observation.

Certain purely naturalistic claims include things that cannot be demonstrated by science, and that science is the only source of knowledge. On a Catholic message board, anyone should realize that science is incomplete.

Ed

It should suggest something is wrong with your argument that you need to essentially denigrate what science had discovered to win your argument. I’d say we’ve done a wee bit more than make light bulbs, no?

And as to what science ascribes to nature, that’s out of necessity. Care to provide me with a means of falsifying any assertion that culminates in “God did it”?

Any and all possible observations are compatible with “God did it”. Since the claim explains everything, it explains nothing.

 

[anthony022071]

Methodological naturalism is false? Wow?

Five hundred years of innovation and expanded knowledge, based on a false method… imagine that.

Your justification appears to be little more than an appeal to ignorance and a fair bit of circular reasoning. Because you don’t believe nature is capable of some things, a claim I doubt you can actually back up in any empirical way, therefore methodological naturalism must be wrong!

Methodological naturalism is the naturalistic view of nature applied to scientific work. And naturalism is a false view, whether it is held outside of scientific work or within it. Supernatural causation exists in nature, because God creates all natural things and he moves them and orders them and gives life to whatever lives. He does this by his own power. Nature does not have creative power of its own. God did not make the natural world self-sufficient and self-creative. He did not make nature capable of sustaining itself and creating living species according to laws of nature or natural mechanisms. That is a deistic way of thinking about nature, not the teaching of the Church or of scripture.

The scientific innovations in technology and medicine do not justify scientific theories of the origins of things. The origin of matter, the universe, natural order, species, life, thought, morality has to do with God’s power and with spirit. Nature does not have the power to create itself or to give order and life to itself. It cannot do things that are greater then itself. The power to create is greater then the things that are created. Order and life are greater than the things that have them. They are transcendent and immanent power over nature.