Science VS. Faith

[The_Barbarian]

The reason science doesn’t concern itself with that is because there is a conflict. It’s not that science just doesn’t. It doesn’t because there is a conflict.

It doesn’t because it can’t. Because science works only on the natural world, it can neither confirm nor deny the supernatural. You want it to do something beyond its ability to deliver.

The conflict is obviously the result of religion making unscientific, untestable, unverifiable statements,

No. Those are the ones that aren’t a problem. Only when religion forgets what it’s about, and tries to make scientific claims do we see a problem.

But at that point, as in “the explanitory filter” of Dembski, it’s no longer religion; it’s pseudoscience. As Behe said, ID is science in the same sense that astrology is science.

 

[crowonsnow]

It doesn’t because it can’t. Because science works only on the natural world, it can neither confirm nor deny the supernatural. You want it to do something beyond its ability to deliver.

No. Those are the ones that aren’t a problem. Only when religion forgets what it’s about, and tries to make scientific claims do we see a problem.

But at that point, as in “the explanitory filter” of Dembski, it’s no longer religion; it’s pseudoscience. As Behe said, ID is science in the same sense that astrology is science.

I’ve always equated the supernatural with pseudoscience. How is the supernatural not a pseudoscientific invention? What’s to keep us from referring to the supernatural as the pseudonatural?

I don’t know when the word came into use. Some brief googling gives it to us verbatim from the Latin, meaning simply above nature. The very use of science implies there is nothing above nature. To be above nature would mean to be above scientific theory and law, which would in turn render all scientific inquiry and human endeavor ultimately meaningless, owing to the capricious nature of some supernatural overlord.

So the supernatural sounds to me like just a lot of words and nothing of substance, which would certainly put it in conflict with the methods of scientific inquiry.

Thanks for the response.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

crowonsnow

I’ve always equated the supernatural with pseudoscience. How is the supernatural not a pseudoscientific invention? What’s to keep us from referring to the supernatural as the pseudonatural?

The mistake here is to regard religion as a false science when it is not a science at all. Science is limited by the study of the laws of nature. But religion is the study of what is beyond nature … namely God and the spiritual realm.

You can only regard religion as irrational if you believe first that there is no God. You cannot say, strictly speaking, that the laws of science are the only laws possible, unless you believe first that God and the world of the spirit cannot possibly exist. But to assert the non-existence of God is to assert an axiom that is self-evident rather than proven (no one can prove that God does not exist). Yet there is nothing in the idea of God that is self-evidently false, because God gave us imagination as well as intellect as an avenue to truth. If the idea of God was self-evidently false, there would hardly be anyone who believes in God, which is patently false. Even many scientists have believed in God because they did not confuse the principles of science with the principles of religion.

The scientific community in modern times has become infected with scientism … the pompous notion that science, and science alone, is the way to knowledge.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

crowonsnow

I’ve always equated the supernatural with pseudoscience. How is the supernatural not a pseudoscientific invention? What’s to keep us from referring to the supernatural as the pseudonatural?

The mistake here is to regard religion as a false science when it is not a science at all. Science is limited by the study of the laws of nature. But religion is the study of what is beyond nature … namely God and the spiritual realm.

You can only regard religion as irrational if you believe first that there is no God. You cannot say, strictly speaking, that the laws of science are the only laws possible, unless you believe first that God and the world of the spirit cannot possibly exist. But to assert the non-existence of God is to assert an axiom that is self-evident rather than proven (no one can prove that God does not exist). Yet there is nothing in the idea of God that is self-evidently false, because God gave us imagination as well as intellect as an avenue to truth. If the idea of God was self-evidently false, there would hardly be anyone who believes in God, which is patently false. Even many scientists have believed in God because they did not confuse the principles of science with the principles of religion.

The scientific community in modern times has become infected with scientism … the pompous notion that science, and science alone, is the way to knowledge.

Yes, and science changes every day. It doesn’t even build on any truths, it just keeps adding new observations and conclusions. You hear one thing and then the opposite. I don’t put much stock in most of it. Its truths will keep changing, you can be sure of that.

 

[buffalo]

Yes, and science changes every day. It doesn’t even build on any truths, it just keeps adding new observations and conclusions. You hear one thing and then the opposite. I don’t put much stock in most of it. Its truths will keep changing, you can be sure of that.

The truth cannot change, therein lies the problem.

 

[twofrog]

i suggest you study can the master become the master or was bruce lee humble towards his masters theory holds still your not an elder till a certain age give respect where it is due

 

[Abbadon]

The truth cannot change, therein lies the problem.

I shake and lower my head in solemn remorse.

Science seeks the truth, it seeks the answers to the questions of the universe. As we accumulate more and more data we discover what the truth really is, or at least get closer to it. And the assumptions we had made before may be slightly wrong or completely wrong.

The best example of this is the atomic model. Now we can’t see an atom. But through other processes we cant determine certain things about it and observe possibilities of what it may be. Know one pretends to know exactly what the answer is, but we have our best guess at it. A guess that is based on all the evidence we have before us today.

 

[Abbadon]

crowonsnow

I’ve always equated the supernatural with pseudoscience. How is the supernatural not a pseudoscientific invention? What’s to keep us from referring to the supernatural as the pseudonatural?

The mistake here is to regard religion as a false science when it is not a science at all. Science is limited by the study of the laws of nature. But religion is the study of what is beyond nature … namely God and the spiritual realm.

You can only regard religion as irrational if you believe first that there is no God. You cannot say, strictly speaking, that the laws of science are the only laws possible, unless you believe first that God and the world of the spirit cannot possibly exist. But to assert the non-existence of God is to assert an axiom that is self-evident rather than proven (no one can prove that God does not exist). Yet there is nothing in the idea of God that is self-evidently false, because God gave us imagination as well as intellect as an avenue to truth. If the idea of God was self-evidently false, there would hardly be anyone who believes in God, which is patently false. Even many scientists have believed in God because they did not confuse the principles of science with the principles of religion.

The scientific community in modern times has become infected with scientism … the pompous notion that science, and science alone, is the way to knowledge.

We live in a material world, to speak of immaterial things is to speak of nothing. - someone awesome once said that…

religion (all religions not just your own), make assertions without any real evidence. They make claims to things that they could not possibly know.

For me other than through evidence and observation I do not know of another way to knowledge, well not real knowledge anyway.

Science is non-fiction, Religion is fiction.

 

[buffalo]

I shake and lower my head in solemn remorse.

Science seeks the truth, it seeks the answers to the questions of the universe. As we accumulate more and more data we discover what the truth really is, or at least get closer to it. And the assumptions we had made before may be slightly wrong or completely wrong.

The best example of this is the atomic model. Now we can’t see an atom. But through other processes we cant determine certain things about it and observe possibilities of what it may be. Know one pretends to know exactly what the answer is, but we have our best guess at it. A guess that is based on all the evidence we have before us today.

Science seeks the truth with filtered glasses, by its own definition.

It cannot find the complete truth.

 

[wildleafblower]

Yes, and science changes every day. It doesn’t even build on any truths, it just keeps adding new observations and conclusions. You hear one thing and then the opposite. I don’t put much stock in most of it. Its truths will keep changing, you can be sure of that.

Christine77 this may be of help to you:

Science and Human Needs
Bruce Alberts
President
National Academy of Sciences
137th Annual Meeting
Washington, D.C.
May 1, 2000

[snip]
Science and Democracy

Scientists, as practitioners, teach important values. These include honesty, an eagerness for new ideas, the sharing of knowledge for public benefit, and a respect for evidence that requires verification by others. These “behaviors of science” make science a catalyst for democracy. Science and democracy promote similar freedoms. Science and democracy accommodate, and are strengthened by, dissent. Science’s requirement of proof resembles democracy’s system of justice. Democracy is buttressed by science’s values. And science is nurtured by democracy’s principles.

Consider the words of the Israeli statesman, Shimon Peres: He said, “Science and lies cannot coexist. You don’t have a scientific lie, and you cannot lie scientifically. Science is basically the search of truth — known, unknown, discovered, undiscovered — and a system that does not permit the search for truth cannot be a scientific system. Then again, science must operate in freedom. You cannot have free research in a society that doesn’t enjoy freedom . . . . So in a strange way, science carries with it a color of transparency, of openness, which is the beginning of democracy…”
[snip]
nasonline.org/site/DocServer/2000address.pdf?docID=982
http://www.nasonline.org/site/DocServer/2000address.pdf?docID=982

And from THE FOUR-HUNDREDTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 1603-2003, The Commemorative Session of 9 November 2003, ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II TO THE MEMBERS OF THE PONTIFICAL, ACADEMY OF SCIENCES:
“Our gatherings have also enabled me to clarify important aspects of the Church’s doctrine and life relating to scientific research. We are united in our common desire to correct misunderstandings and even more to allow ourselves to be enlightened by the one Truth which governs the world and guides the lives of all men and women. I am more and more convinced that scientific truth, which is itself a participation in divine Truth, can help philosophy and theology to understand ever more fully the human person and God’s Revelation about man, a Revelation that is completed and perfected in Jesus Christ. For this important mutual enrichment in the search for the truth and the benefit of mankind, I am, with the whole Church, profoundly grateful.”

Science is non-fiction, Religion is fiction.

Abbadon, read what I presented to CHRISTINE77 and take into account the following statement by Academy President Bruce Alberts on Kansas State Science Curriculum
August 20, 1999:

“Evolution is not only universally accepted by scientists; it has also been accepted by the leaders of most of the world’s major religions.”
nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=NEWS_statement_president_08201999_BA_Kansas_curriculum
http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageS...ement_president_08201999_BA_Kansas_curriculum

I was inspired and compelled by the Holy Spirit of God to return to this topic.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Abbadon

We live in a material world, to speak of immaterial things is to speak of nothing. - someone awesome once said that…

And who would that awesome person be?

It certainly wasn’t the awesome Isaac Newton, whose stash of writings on Old and New Testament prophecies greatly exceeds the total of his output on scientific writings.

Newton believed the Testaments contained codes to prophesying the future, and he used his scientific genius to break those codes … including his prediction that the state of Israel would be resurrected in the late 1940s … which it was!!!

So did Newton “speak of nothing”?

Now you have to answer this convincingly or forever hold your peace!

 

[Geremia]

Are faith and science contrary to one another?

St. Thomas Aquinas said in his Summa Theologica (Prima Pars Question 1 Article 5) that

Other sciences [such as the natural sciences] are called the handmaidens of this one [sacred science or theology].

Therefore, faith and science are not contradictory, and science helps faith.

Also, more recently, Pope Pius IX said that Catholicism is incompatible with modern civilization, and Pope Pius X said that Catholicism is compatible with true science; thus one concludes that modern civilization is not compatible with true science but true science and Catholicism are compatible.

A contemporary Benedictine priest and philosopher of science, Fr. Stanley Jaki, has argued in The Savior of Science that science could have only originated in a Christian society, a fascinating hypothesis.

 

[Geremia]

Doesn’t christianity not allow for extraterrestial life? That’s another possible conflict.

Catholicism allows for extraterrestrial life. Read this interview from L’Osservatore Romano by an astronomer of the Vatican Observatory, Fr. Funes.

 

[Geremia]

Chritine… In the bible does it say image of god or likeness of god? I honestly can’t remember the passage.

And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth.

Genesis 1:26

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

I believe faith and science go hand in hand.

God is not some magician who created us out of nowhere in a week. I believe there is more to Him than that. He is an artist, a writer, who took time in creating such things as atoms and cells, miracles and imagination, nature and nurture.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

 

[Ignatius]

Are faith and science contrary to one another?

Albert Einstein said the Faith and Science are complimentary. Faith enlightens science and science without faith is sterile.

 

[crowonsnow]

Yes, and science changes every day. It doesn’t even build on any truths, it just keeps adding new observations and conclusions. You hear one thing and then the opposite. I don’t put much stock in most of it. Its truths will keep changing, you can be sure of that.

Do you use antibiotics? Do you receive modern medical care? Do you use computers? Do you eat hybridized food? Does you house have plumbing and is the water treated to control bacteria? Have you ever received an immunization? Do you use trains, planes and automobiles? Do you watch television? Do you use a telephone? Do you listen to weather forecasts?

I’m guessing “yes” to all the above. You clearly put a LOT of stock in science.

 

[crowonsnow]

The truth cannot change, therein lies the problem.

You are confusing truth with dogma. It is dogma that does not change.

Curious people tend to see the similarities between people and beliefs. Creed and dogma driven people seem mainly to pick up on the differences.

At least that’s been my experience.

 

[buffalo]

I believe faith and science go hand in hand.

God is not some magician who created us out of nowhere in a week. I believe there is more to Him than that. He is an artist, a writer, who took time in creating such things as atoms and cells, miracles and imagination, nature and nurture.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

Can God stretch or compress time?

 

[buffalo]

Do you use antibiotics? Do you receive modern medical care? Do you use computers? Do you eat hybridized food? Does you house have plumbing and is the water treated to control bacteria? Have you ever received an immunization? Do you use trains, planes and automobiles? Do you watch television? Do you use a telephone? Do you listen to weather forecasts?

I’m guessing “yes” to all the above. You clearly put a LOT of stock in science.

Empirical science, yes.