Science can't destroy Religion

[tonyrey]

Hey… wait a minute! Isn’t evolution one of the ‘bannable’ subjects here? Because people get too worked up about it?

Yikes! Cheese it! I b gettin on the down low!

The discussion of the mechanics of evolution is banned but reference to its presuppositions, conclusions and** implications** is not; otherwise the discussion of materialism, determinism, free will, morality and many other subjects would also be banned!

 

[Crescentinus]

Properly reasoned science has no power to do so since it is a subset of truth.

Indeed. It is a branch in the tree of truth, like philosophy.

 

[JDaniel]

True science cannot destroy religion but scientism can and is attempting to do so.

Most attacks against faith by people claiming science as their weapon know nothing about theology. They have a vague notion of it based on what they stopped learning at age 12 and think they know it all.

Della:

No more perceptive words have ever been written! Excellent!

The various scientists who have attacked religion recently sound like uneducated children. I would never dare to talk about a subject about which I knew so little as they religion but since they think it’s a matter of opinion they think they are free to declare whatever ignorance they have. It’s ridiculous.

Also spot on. (I think that’s a meaningful compliment.)

Real science is the study of [the structural regularities of] natural phenomena, not speculation about things outside its boundaries. I only wish people would admit as much and leave theology to theologians.

Within the brackets is mine, although it didn’t add much to your thoughts. Thank you for an excellent post – a post that only a few would embarrassingly disagree with.


God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Hey… wait a minute! Isn’t evolution one of the ‘bannable’ subjects here? Because people get too worked up about it?

Yikes! Cheese it! I b gettin on the down low!

Nim:

I don’t think the powers-that-be mind too much, unless the discussion devolves into a grand lack of uncharitability. Thoughtful prose within Q and A only teaches. Thank you for your charitable contributions. BTW, Al Moritz is a big boy with a great mind, so he will not take offense.

God bless,
jd

 

[CopticChristian]

Yes, but not all reality is encompassed by scientific study, the study of the physical world.

Al,

May I ask or is it on your site from whence this information was prompted. I have a BS in Zoology and studied evolution till the cows came home. Do you have a science background, degree, or just an interest. It was lots to read and whenever I tak an in depth look at anything I like to know something about the author. Help me understand you please.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Al,

May I ask or is it on your site from whence this information was prompted. I have a BS in Zoology and studied evolution till the cows came home. Do you have a science background, degree, or just an interest. It was lots to read and whenever I tak an in depth look at anything I like to know something about the author. Help me understand you please.

I have a Ph.D. in biochemistry and work as a scientist in Biotech. I almost became an atheist upon discovering the high probability of an origin of life by natural causes after intense study of the primary scientific literature on the subject. Yet my fortunately acquired background in philosophy helped save me from the abyss (I notice that many atheists have a very sketchy background in philosophy, or dismiss the discipline altogether).

I now consider the fine-tuning of the laws of nature (which I knew next to nothing about at the time) as well as other considerations from cosmological science a strong argument for the existence of God, and so do I consider the Argument from Reason to deliver strong evidence for God’s existence as well.

I exhaustively discuss and defend the fine-tuning argument here:

home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htm

In its introductory section the article also contains a few references regarding the Argument from Reason.

 

[CopticChristian]

I have a Ph.D. in biochemistry and work as a scientist in Biotech. I almost became an atheist upon discovering the high probability of an origin of life by natural causes after intense study of the primary scientific literature on the subject. Yet my fortunately acquired background in philosophy helped save me from the abyss (I notice that many atheists have a very sketchy background in philosophy, or dismiss the discipline altogether).

I now consider the fine-tuning of the laws of nature (which I knew next to nothing about at the time) as well as other considerations from cosmological science a strong argument for the existence of God, and so do I consider the Argument from Reason to deliver strong evidence for God’s existence as well.

I exhaustively discuss and defend the fine-tuning argument here:

home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htm

In its introductory section the article also contains a few references regarding the Argument from Reason.

I shall read your material and you should look into how these forerunners in science maintained their Religous sanity as I would imagine being surrounded by such a cloud of witnesses you are not alone…

Louis Pasteur
• Alexander Fleming
• Galileo
• Nicholas Copernicus
• Rene Descartes
• Marie Curie
• Gregor Mendel
• Sir Francis Bacon
• Johannes Kepler
• Blaise Pascal
• Isaac Newton
• Robert Boyle
• Michael Faraday
• Willliam Thomson Kelvin
• Max Planck
• Albert Einstein

 

[Al_Moritz]

I shall read your material and you should look into how these forerunners in science maintained their Religous sanity as I would imagine being surrounded by such a cloud of witnesses you are not alone…

Louis Pasteur
• Alexander Fleming
• Galileo
• Nicholas Copernicus
• Rene Descartes
• Marie Curie
• Gregor Mendel
• Sir Francis Bacon
• Johannes Kepler
• Blaise Pascal
• Isaac Newton
• Robert Boyle
• Michael Faraday
• Willliam Thomson Kelvin
• Max Planck
• Albert Einstein

I am familiar with these scientists and their religious beliefs.

I especially like the Francis Bacon quote, which is in accord with what I said in my previous post about atheists and philosophy:

“A little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion.”

 

[CopticChristian]

I am familiar with these scientists and their religious beliefs.

I especially like the Francis Bacon quote, which is in accord with what I said in my previous post about atheists and philosophy:

“A little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion.”

Amen…

 

[Nimzovik]

I have a Ph.D. in biochemistry and work as a scientist in Biotech. I almost became an atheist upon discovering the high probability of an origin of life by natural causes after intense study of the primary scientific literature on the subject. Yet my fortunately acquired background in philosophy helped save me from the abyss (I notice that many atheists have a very sketchy background in philosophy, or dismiss the discipline altogether).

I now consider the fine-tuning of the laws of nature (which I knew next to nothing about at the time) as well as other considerations from cosmological science a strong argument for the existence of God, and so do I consider the Argument from Reason to deliver strong evidence for God’s existence as well.

I exhaustively discuss and defend the fine-tuning argument here:

home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htm

In its introductory section the article also contains a few references regarding the Argument from Reason.

Thanks for the link!

 

[DeepBlueSea]

The inadequacy of neoDarwinism is indisputable!

Yup. It happens only in atheists’ head. But we must give them credit for their faith in believing poorly-constructed-non-sense-trying-to-pass-off-as-rigorous-science stuff like that. In fact, I think atheists are taking a greater leap of faith than believers. The only difference is they are leaping off a cliff.

And thanks for link.

I happened to study protein folding for a while and came across this think called the Levinthal’s Paradox. It says that for a polypeptide of 100 amino acids to fold into its proper configuration on its own, it would require a time longer than the age of the universe to arrive at its correct native conformation. There are about 150,000 proteins expressed in a single human cell. Well, you get the gist. Don’t even want to get started on mitochondrial DNA or the organizational structure of chromosome which defy all laws of physics and thermodynamics to come into that level of order and stability and flexibility.

Astrophysicists can marvel at the immensity of the universe. I humbly marvel at one single mammalian cell that till this day we are still scratching only the surface. At the end of the day, I just want to kneel down in front of the the blessed sacrament and unceasingly thank Him for bringing me into existence and raising my intellects up to the understanding of appreciation of His Goodness.

Allow me to rest my case with a quote from an excerpt from a great evolutionary biologist, Stephen Jay Gould:

In his book Rocks of Ages (1999), Gould put forward what he described as “a blessedly simple and entirely conventional resolution to…the supposed conflict between science and religion.” He defines the term magisterium as “a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution.” The non-overlapping magisteria principle therefore divides the magisterium of science to cover “the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry.”

Peace and Love from our Lord & Savior.

 

[DeepBlueSea]

I almost became an atheist upon discovering the high probability of an origin of life by natural causes after intense study of the primary scientific literature on the subject. Yet my fortunately acquired background in philosophy helped save me from the abyss (I notice that many atheists have a very sketchy background in philosophy, or dismiss the discipline altogether).

I turned from atheism to deism upon studying genomic.

Philosophy didn’t quite lead me to the truth. But it was a systematic way to start.

 

[atheistgirl]

I turned from atheism to deism upon studying genomic.

Why?

I’m very ‘‘uniformed’’ as you know, but still utterly fascinated with ‘‘life’’ and there isn’t a single amazing, mind boggling, fascinating, incredible fact of life at either the cellular or cosmic level that would even hint at a Deity for me

The leap of looking at the same and stating as fact this is all the work, not just of a Deity, but the very specific personal, all knowing, all powerful, all present God of Christianity is just utterly baffling to me.

I don’t suppose I shall ever understand it

But it’s very interesting none the less.

Sarah x

 

[Touchstone]

I turned from atheism to deism upon studying genomic.

???

Yow.

-TS

 

[DeepBlueSea]

I’m very ‘‘uniformed’’ as you know, but still utterly fascinated with ‘‘life’’ and there isn’t a single amazing, mind boggling, fascinating, incredible fact of life at either the cellular or cosmic level that would even hint at a Deity for me

The leap of looking at the same and stating as fact this is all the work, not just of a Deity, but the very specific personal, all knowing, all powerful, all present God of Christianity is just utterly baffling to me.

Well, uninformed opinion does not straight away mean a person is uninformed. May be the understanding got lost when head knowledge gets translated into words.

It took me a long time to reconcile a Spinoza’s God to YHWH in the old testament,to Christ, the history of belief systems, the evolution of our social economy and scientific understanding of human origin, what we did and where we are heading. The ambiguity had been a nagging thing that bothered me because the dots are there and I couldn’t connect the dots. It wasn’t a leap of faith for me. It was a step-by-step struggle and exhausting all resources available to me. Christ is the best explanation and Catholic church is the most preferred available option. Not that it is perfect but I take it as the most suitable option. No human endeavor is ever perfect. It works for me.

 

[Lochias]

Why?

I’m very ‘‘uniformed’’ as you know, but still utterly fascinated with ‘‘life’’ and there isn’t a single amazing, mind boggling, fascinating, incredible fact of life at either the cellular or cosmic level that would even hint at a Deity for me

The leap of looking at the same and stating as fact this is all the work, not just of a Deity, but the very specific personal, all knowing, all powerful, all present God of Christianity is just utterly baffling to me.

I don’t suppose I shall ever understand it

But it’s very interesting none the less.

Sarah x

I would respectfully counter that it takes far, far more blind faith to believe in the idea that all that we know came about by accident. Heck, the numbers themselves render the very idea as impossible, to say nothing of the fact that systems that started billions of years ago continue to function and adapt today. Looking at the design and operation of a nerve cell was enough for me. A billion little miracles occur within our synapses every day.

Just my two cents.

 

[CopticChristian]

Why?

I’m very ‘‘uniformed’’ as you know, but still utterly fascinated with ‘‘life’’ and there isn’t a single amazing, mind boggling, fascinating, incredible fact of life at either the cellular or cosmic level that would even hint at a Deity for me

The leap of looking at the same and stating as fact this is all the work, not just of a Deity, but the very specific personal, all knowing, all powerful, all present God of Christianity is just utterly baffling to me.

I don’t suppose I shall ever understand it

But it’s very interesting none the less.

Sarah x

Sounds like you see what I see…

 

[Viewscreen]

Science cannot “destroy” religion. But it can, I believe, demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that it is a moot point to take religion seriously anymore.

 

[Della]

Science cannot “destroy” religion. But it can, I believe, demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that it is a moot point to take religion seriously anymore.

Explain the horrors of sin. Explain why we feel at odds in the very world that supposedly gave us life. Why the driving need to improve ourselves? Why do we want to go somewhere else and wish that “someone out there” will come down and make everything right? Science cannot answer those things that pertain to man’s very essence. None has done so and none can because it is simply outside its purview.

 

[tonyrey]

Explain the horrors of sin. Explain why we feel at odds in the very world that supposedly gave us life. Why the driving need to improve ourselves? Why do we want to go somewhere else and wish that “someone out there” will come down and make everything right? Science cannot answer those things that pertain to man’s very essence. None has done so and none can because it is simply outside its purview.

Science can tell us absolutely nothing about “Why?” or “Ought?” with regard to morality.