There is absolutely NO contradiction whatsoever between religious faith and science

[SciWriter]

The curse and the scourge of the Idea of the god who never was has met its doom and died by its own hand of fabrication, for the causeless basis of simple stuff had to have been forever, as well as the Being not being able to be first and fundamental.

Science and philosophy relate the final benediction as the mourners climb the hill to the old Graveyard of the Gods, their eyes blinded by their tears.

Sad Yesteryear, Forever, and Everywhere, they all came—to weep for Nobody Nothing Nowhere, with Why and How, Then, Now, When, and What and Where, even Inward and Outward, with Potential—led but by Sorrow.

RIP

 

[Mind Over Matter]

Don't we need to have some idea of what kind of "religious faith" we are talking about?

There are species of religious mysticism in which the divine is conceived of in non-cognitive and non-discursive ways. These kinds of religiosity wouldn't be likely to generate very many conflicts with science, if only because religion is making few if any propositional truth-claims about natural reality.

On the other hand, we see religions putting forward elaborate cosmologies and cosmogonies, and then claiming literal truth for them. Or we see religions explaining that diseases are caused by demon possession. The kind of religious faith that makes detailed purportedly-factual and supposedly divinely-revealed claims about natural reality can produce major cognitive dissonance when those assertions are compared with what science has discovered about the same things.

I'm still having trouble figuring out what "Reality" it is we are not accepting on it's own terms.

We believe that the earth revolves around the sun.
We believe that diseases are Caused by germs and viruses etc.
We believe that we need to be good stewards of the Earth.
We believe that we should help our fellow man.
We believe that the physical sciences are extremely important to mans future
etc........

There seems to be a disconnect somewhere, because you seem to think that we aren't dealing properly with "reality" because we believe there is something "Intelligent" behind the physical universe and you believe there is NOT.
Yet in this, neither one of us can objectively prove their point.

Perhaps I'm missing something.

 

[Dywyddyr]

We believe that the earth revolves around the sun.

Objectively "proven".

We believe that diseases are Caused by germs and viruses etc.

Objectively "proven".

We believe that we need to be good stewards of the Earth.

Nothing to do with science. It's a moral issue.

We believe that we should help our fellow man.

As is this.

We believe that the physical sciences are extremely important to mans future

This certainly has objective supporting evidence.

There seems to be a disconnect somewhere

This is apparent from your comments above.

because you seem to think that we aren't dealing properly with "reality" because we believe there is something "Intelligent" behind the physical universe and you believe there is NOT.
Yet in this, neither one of us can objectively prove their point.

You miss the point again. An atheist's question is "If you can't prove (or even demonstrate) the validity of your claims why should we bother listening to it? And, if you can't prove it why do you bother it?"

Perhaps I'm missing something.

Previously shown.

 

[Jan Ardena]

An atheist's question is "If you can't prove (or even demonstrate) the validity of your claims why should we bother listening to it? And, if you can't prove it why do you bother it?"

A theists response is, what would you consider as proof?

jan.

 

[wynn]

Frustrated?
It's dialougue, and that primarily why I'm here.
Life goes on, so learn to enjoy them, even
if it evokes emotion.

Aww. Sooo equanimous!

 

[Jan Ardena]

Aww. Sooo equanimous!

Why do you say that?

jan.

 

[wynn]

Why do you say that?

I haven't thought about it this way as you do. Mostly, I experience theist/atheist interactions as something like

And preaching to even willing listeners as not much different either.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I haven't thought about it this way as you do. Mostly, I experience theist/atheist interactions as something like

And preaching to even willing listeners as not much different either.

So you see theists as the instigators?

jan.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

God said, "Let there bee..." and

BANG!!!
There it was.

 

[Yazata]

I'm still having trouble figuring out what "Reality" it is we are not accepting on it's own terms.

The only point that I addressed in the post you quoted was your assertion that "there is absolutely NO contradiction whatsoever between religious faith and science".

My response was that religious faith might contradict science, or it might not. That depends on the cognitive content of the religious faith. I wrote:

"The kind of religious faith that makes detailed purportedly-factual and supposedly divinely-revealed claims about natural reality can produce major cognitive dissonance when those assertions are compared with what science has discovered about the same things."

Examples of religious beliefs about nature that conflict with science's understanding include young earth creationism, the existence of unchanging biological "kinds", the bible's universal flood, diseases caused by demons and faith healing's efficiency in curing them, and similar ideas.

There's no expectation that every individual who has religious faith must believe such things.

I think that your original topic was a worthy one. But the signal-to-noise ratio has subsequently fallen so low that posting anything intelligent or thoughtful to this thread at this late point would be spitting into the wind. I've clarified what my position is on your original thread topic and that's really all that I intend to say.

 

[wynn]

So you see theists as the instigators?

I have not made up my mind on who started the fray. But often, it sure looks like a dogfight to me.

 

[spidergoat]

An atheist's question is "If you can't prove (or even demonstrate) the validity of your claims why should we bother listening to it? And, if you can't prove it why do you bother it?"

A theists response is, what would you consider as proof?

jan.

A specific prophecy that came true, such as predicting the exact date and location of a major earthquake, or predicting the winner of the 2040 presidential election in the US...

Knowing something that could not have been known at the time, such as the chemical composition of Mars, or the structure of DNA...

Demonstrated faith healing with a large sample population and control group...

A demonstrated miracle, like the spontaneous creation of a 4 foot diameter diamond...

The appearance of God in an unambiguous way....

An uncontaminated Amazon tribe that worshipped Jesus...

 

[Jan Ardena]

A specific prophecy that came true, such as predicting the exact date and location of a major earthquake, or predicting the winner of the 2040 presidential election in the US...

Knowing something that could not have been known at the time, such as the chemical composition of Mars, or the structure of DNA...

Demonstrated faith healing with a large sample population and control group...

A demonstrated miracle, like the spontaneous creation of a 4 foot diameter diamond...

The appearance of God in an unambiguous way....

An uncontaminated Amazon tribe that worshipped Jesus...

I take it that upon such an event happening you would not instantlyut believe God exists, but would do so after exhausting all other possible explanations?

jan.

 

[wynn]

A specific prophecy that came true, such as predicting the exact date and location of a major earthquake, or predicting the winner of the 2040 presidential election in the US...

Knowing something that could not have been known at the time, such as the chemical composition of Mars, or the structure of DNA...

Demonstrated faith healing with a large sample population and control group...

A demonstrated miracle, like the spontaneous creation of a 4 foot diameter diamond...

The appearance of God in an unambiguous way....

An uncontaminated Amazon tribe that worshipped Jesus...

Interestingly, none of that would even begin to convince me that God exists. Besides, from the perspective of humans, God's existence is a matter of keeping to a particular definition of God.

I suppose what I really want, as far as God is concerned, is that my feeling of unrequited love would dissipate; that it all wouldn't feel like loving or trying to love someone who doesn't and won't love me back.

 

[spidergoat]

I take it that upon such an event happening you would not instantlyut believe God exists, but would do so after exhausting all other possible explanations?

jan.

Of course, except for the unambiguous appearance of God. God would know many, many ways to confirm his existence, but for some reason he chooses not to. I still might choose not to worship him.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Of course, except for the unambiguous appearance of God. God would know many, many ways to confirm his existence, but for some reason he chooses not to. I still might choose not to worship him.

At what point would you accept that science cannot provide the answers, and accept that God did it?

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

When no other model fits the data.

 

[Jan Ardena]

When no other model fits the data.

So you don't consider anything in that list evidence, as you would not be convinced.

So again, what do consider evidence of God?

jan.

 

[wynn]

At what point would you accept that science cannot provide the answers, and accept that God did it?

I suppose this would be at the point when my happiness would be more important to me than my position in society ...

So again, what do consider evidence of God?

My having a strong desire, a desire I would not question, and that desire would be to be truly happy.
As it is, I am rather complacent with being "normally miserable".

 

[NMSquirrel]

When no other model fits the data.

what if..
god is not a new particle? (physical)
god has already been seen in science? (hiding in plain sight)
god is not where science is looking? (or can examine)