There is absolutely NO contradiction whatsoever between religious faith and science
- Thread starter Mind Over Matter
- Start date
So you have no education?
Here's a starter:
Legal law: Law[4] is a system of rules and guidelines, usually enforced through a set of institutions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law
Physical law (i.e. laws of the universe): a law is an analytic statement, usually with an empirically determined constant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science
One is a set of rules that is set by humans and describes how things ought to be done (and that can be broken) - a prescription. The other is statement of how things have been observed to be - a description only.
No, I'm trying to get Jan to actually show that his claims are truthful (i.e. factual). Or even that they have any basis in fact.
And it relates to the OP in the way I stated in my first post in this thread:
Therein lies the contradiction: religion has invented something and claims that we should follow certain rules and strictures supposedly laid down by this invention. Science, on the other, looks at what is and what can be demonstrated.
One operates from demonstrable, verifiable data, the other from faith.
I agree. And the saboteur is the dishonest poster Jan Ardena.Jan Ardena said:
Mind you, the thread title was dishonest also... As I pointed out.
both looking for rules from an outside source.
both trying to justify their own beliefs to the other.
both being guilty of what they claim of the other.
both playing the 'slam' (insult)card against the other.
both claim to be/have 'the' answer.
to me science is knowledge.
Religion (in its ideal form) is wisdom.
the two are not mutually exclusive.
Sure, redefine theism as "wisdom" and we can all agree.
Really?
What "outside source" do my "rules" come from?
On the contrary, all I'm doing with Jan is asking what basis in reality his claims have.
Show me where I have avoided answering a question please. Show me where I have resorted to insults or dismissal when given a question I refuse to answer.
On the contrary again: I don't claim to have the answer (as I have admitted more than once in this thread). But I am, and have been, (one more time), asking Jan (and Mind over Matter), what evidence do they have that their answer is the right one*.
All I want is for them to either justify their claims or admit that they are purely personal, unsubstantiated, belief, which just happens to "work" for them.
Yet, again, religion relies on faith - things that cannot be shown to be true.
* You, on the other, admit freely that it's belief, and haven't (that I've seen anywhere) claimed that you are indisputably correct. You are prepared to accept (and I think you've said it fairly often) that what you believe is what you believe, and that it works for you.
this is the question..the rest you just lumped yourself into my generic context.
in science the outside source is what is knowable ..
in religion it is what is not knowable..
we have had that argument..
science also begins with faith, but the list(of what they have faith in) excludes god,which for science translates to 'I don't know,it just is',
science starts with 'I don't know,what if'
the truth will attend to itself..
i accept my limitations.
(but that doesn't mean you are right..
)
So once again we're back to what I claim can be ascertained and verified, what you claim cannot.
Science does not begin with faith, nor does it rely on faith.
Your limitations are numerous and varied. Of course I'm right.the truth will attend to itself..
i accept my limitations.
(but that doesn't mean you are right..
That was just in case you considered by previous footnote to be complimentary.
why should the two be mutually exclusive?
i wont argue it doesnt rely on faith..i almost said that, but it aint true..
but i will argue science begins with faith..i will accept proven sciences do not start with faith, but the unproven ones do..(but lets argue my first comment..)
Not so much "mutually exclusive" (Did I claim that anywhere?) as, per the thread title, contradictory.
One requires evidence, the other says that, effectively, evidence doesn't matter and belief is all that counts.
Unproven sciences? Examples?
Science starts with questions. How much faith do you need to ask a question?
It was redefined that way a long time ago in a book called De Magna Domo Sapientiae. It is what lead to Martin Luther doing the do he did inspiring his writings, that lead to the 30 year wars, ending at the peace of Westphalia. The Protestants were the losers and that is why so many came to the new world. For religious freedom. So they could think what they want .
Aren't event streams fun
No body really believes . They want to believe. They want to so bad people can taste it. If people really believed Jesus they would take every thing they own and give it to the poor. Walk in Jesus shoes as the saying goes. Yeah Man that is what the Bible says. Some guy ask Jesus , How do I get in Heaven and that is what Jesus said. Give all your money to the poor , it wasn't until after that very statement did he say: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven . Good thing he didn't say women
why do you criticize so hard?
answer (subjective to approval);
to sharpen the swords of wanna-be scientist, to condition them to the fact that in the world of science it is common to point at something/someone and say 'that is wrong'..
faith comes in when you are unsure of who to listen to for the knowledge required for epistemic autonomy
p yeah me..found a way to utilize that term)..but in case i used it wrong..faith comes in when you are lacking in knowledge and need to ask someone else.
faith comes in when a scientist has an idea, but no proof (hence the term 'proof of concept')
faith comes in when you express an idea knowing that someone will say 'that is wrong' and you will have an answer for him..
faith comes in when one scientist says to the other ' i have a theory' (faith in context)
if scientist only stuck with what they know, how would science advance?
and most important of them all..
they have faith that they can answer lifes questions without a God in it.
i wouldn't mind doing a sabbatical and actually retracing the steps of jesus, it would be an adventure..
what if i am the poor???
only when accompanied by the ones they loved,
It's not criticism - it's questions!
Different (and incorrect) use of the word "faith". The "faith" in these cases are trust, and usually based on prior experience - you normally ask someone who has already shown themselves to be knowledgeable, etc. Religious faith is a different kettle of fish.faith comes in when you are unsure of who to listen to for the knowledge required for epistemic autonomy
faith comes in when you are lacking in knowledge and need to ask someone else.
faith comes in when you express an idea knowing that someone will say 'that is wrong' and you will have an answer for him..
Check here.
I don't see, at all, how "faith" enters into these.
Yeah, a scientist has an idea and no "proof"... why do you think he performs experiments? To see if his idea holds merit. (And, in point of fact, a large proportion of experiments are done deliberately to find fault with the idea/ theory).
Likewise if someone approaches me and says "I have a theory" what do I need faith for? "Show me" I can say., "let's check it out".
Um, they ask questions. Of nature.
Not quite: if god showed up anywhere in the answers that get asked then they'd accept it.
IMHO - The problems and/or differences are:
1. Some people have a hard time differentiating between science and the speculations of some scientists.
and 2. When a skeptical/scientific person speculates, the next step is "how can we test these speculations?" From my observations, those of faith never get to the second step.
1. Some people have a hard time differentiating between science and the speculations of some scientists.
and 2. When a skeptical/scientific person speculates, the next step is "how can we test these speculations?" From my observations, those of faith never get to the second step.
And it's because we don't understand why some don't critique/question it further in light of what we understand about how nature works. The idea is foreign to us... well, I can't speak for everyone. It's foreign to me.
sorry, you missed my context..
but you don't 'know'..
won't argue religion has its own terminology..but the basic concept is the same, trust in an unknown..
this is what distinguishes science from religion.
and qualifies for my statement about 'accept vs test' (what is vs what if)
lol..mythbuster flashbacks..
still holds to accept vs test
back to proof of god..
i will bet that 10 scientist can come forward and show ' i have found god here' and one will come along and debate effectively (you don't have to be right to debate effectively) enough to be heard, and the ten scientists would get ignored and censured.
(rate this; plausible,possible,)
Yeah, I sort of realised that after I'd hit the "reply" button. My excuse is that it's 4 am here and I'm overdue for bed.
Don't know that they will give a correct answer? No, you don't. But a track record speaks volumes.
Only "sort of". I think Spidergoat made an excellent post on the various meanings of faith and how they applied in everyday life. Let's put it this way: you have "faith" that someone will give a correct answer. Fine. call it faith. How shattered would you be if that answer proved to be incorrect? You always hold the possibility that a fellow human can be wrong: not so with your faith in god. Faith in humans (and scientific results) is provisional.
Not sure what you're getting at. If you mean that there is faith placed in the result of the test, then yes: but once again that "faith" is entirely provisional.
Unfortunately for that argument in science you have to have evidence to support your contentions. There's no debate in the sense you mean it since anyone, at anytime can present evidence that ruins your argument - if you insist on "debating" science when you're wrong you'll get shot down in short order. In fact we have two excellent examples in progress at the moment: here and here.
That's me for the night: I'll catch up with any replies tomorrow. :wave:
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
When a Christian asks you to believe in God and preaches the Gospel etc to you, they are offering you a hope in Eternal Life.
The questions for you are are these.
1. What is it you are offering to us when you ask us NOT to believe?
2. What advantage(s) does belief in NO God offer?
3. Why is Rejection of God better than Acceptance of God?
4. Why is Hopelessness (No afterlife) better than Hopefulness (glorious afterlife)?
Let it be know right now that I am no philosopher, nor am I a theologian.
I am a simple believer in God, because it makes no sense to me NOT to believe in God.
I am a Christian because Christianity, built upon Love, makes more sense than any other faith that I have looked at.
I recognize that there are numerous examples of people of faith acting badly, even horrifically, yet I cannot see that as some sort of proof against Gods existence.
So tell me - What does the "faith of Atheism" offer that is not found in a "faith of theism".
Most forms of belief in God, particularly Judeo/Christian belief, whether right or wrong, offers the Hope of salvation and an eternal life of happiness. What can Atheism offer me except the grave?