There is absolutely NO contradiction whatsoever between religious faith and science

[Yazata]

You[Dywyddyr]'re pretending that science has everything figured out. As long as there are significant fundamental questions that we don't have answers to, God remains a possibility, even if it's an unpalatable one.

I think that I agree with Dywyddyr about that. Science really is a sort of methodological atheism.

Science is a fundamentally naturalistic pursuit. When unknowns present themselves (and there are still an unknown and conceivably unlimited number of unknowns left) science seeks naturalistic explanations for them. Science explains events by linking them causally to other events and to observed behavoral regularities here in the natural universe that we inhabit.

Rav might have a better argument if he was talking about philosophy rather than science. Unlike science, philosophy isn't necessarily naturalistic. Philosophy often proposes exotic non-naturalistic theories for the kind of events that science would attempt to explain naturalistically. Examples of that might be the various kinds of philosophical idealism.

The problem with appealing to the actions of a god to explain unexplained natural events is that it almost always turns out to be a gratuitous deus-ex-machina. It obviously begs the question of whether or not gods even exist. And since gods can be imagined as having unlimited and perhaps even infinite power, they can be introduced in order to "explain" anything that needs explaining. Which leaves gods dangerously close to explaining nothing at all.

I'm reminded of an old cartoon that I saw in a scientific magazine decades ago. A group of people in white coats are looking at a chalkboard. It's filled with incomprehensible mathematics... broken by the words "then a miracle occurs"... then more mathematics resulting in the answer. One of the scientists says dryly, "That middle step needs a little more explanation".

A successful explanation reduces the unknown to the known. Introducing gods into an explanation is a retrogressive step that moves us in the opposite direction. Now we are confronted not only with the original question, we also have the mysterious and by its nature inexplicable god to explain. What are gods? Where did they come from? What accounts for them? How do they operate? Gods are supposed to be transcendent beings that intervene to "explain" natural events in "mysterious ways", leaving all of that inexplicable by its very nature.

So it would seem to me that introducing gods into an explanation isn't really explanatory at all. It's actually mystification in the guise of explanation. It's tantamount to just throwing up one's hands and surrendering any attempt to explain things, proclaiming instead... "then a miracle occurred".

 

[Dywyddyr]

One big difference - Revelation is fixed and unchanging, science is provisional.

Oh of course.
Would that be because science looks at facts? Because science does its best to check what it claims and changes to suit facts as they become apparent?
And revelation simply makes claims that cannot be shown to be true (or false*) and therefore doesn't have to change?

* Some people claim that revelation HAS been shown to be false. Of course this only happens if you're interested in verifiable facts.


I'll ask again: How do you know that what is "revealed" is truth?

 

[wynn]

are you sure you are not a bot? all your posts read like made by a bot.

Woohoo! :xctd:

 

[wynn]

The problem with appealing to the actions of a god to explain unexplained natural events is that it almost always turns out to be a gratuitous deus-ex-machina. It obviously begs the question of whether or not gods even exist. And since gods can be imagined as having unlimited and perhaps even infinite power, they can be introduced in order to "explain" anything that needs explaining. Which leaves gods dangerously close to explaining nothing at all.

I support the position that a "God did it explanation" is intended first and foremost as a normative ethical stance, not an explanation as those that naturalistic science provides.

The problem occurs when atheists, as well as theists, use a "God did it explanation" as if it were an explanation as those that naturalistic science provides.

And when such substitution takes place, we get -

Introducing gods into an explanation is a retrogressive step that moves us in the opposite direction. Now we are confronted not only with the original question, we also have the mysterious and by its nature inexplicable god to explain. What are gods? Where did they come from? What accounts for them? How do they operate? Gods are supposed to be transcendent beings that intervene to "explain" natural events in "mysterious ways", leaving all of that inexplicable by its very nature.

So it would seem to me that introducing gods into an explanation isn't really explanatory at all. It's actually mystification in the guise of explanation. It's tantamount to just throwing up one's hands and surrendering any attempt to explain things, proclaiming instead... "then a miracle occurred".

Given the definition of God, "God did it" always applies, though. For some practical uses, this is enough, for others, it is not.

Note that the issue of contention is actually often that of interpersonal politics:
One person wishes to get the upper hand over the other, so they use more or less subtle threats, from "My big brother is going to get you" to "God does it and you have no say in it", in their many variations.
There could also be numerous other motivations.

As in any communication situation, it is paramount to establish what the intentions of the parties involved are if we are to have a satisfactory exchange.

When you pick up a theistic book that aims to explain the world, you have to bear in mind that the author may have had intentions with it that not everyone is able to relate to, and may therefore misunderstand the text.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yazata,

The problem with appealing to the actions of a god to explain unexplained natural events is that it almost always turns out to be a gratuitous deus-ex-machina.

An interesting analogy.
Can you elaborate, or clarify what you mean?

It obviously begs the question of whether or not gods even exist.

Obviously?
Why?

And since gods can be imagined as having unlimited and perhaps even infinite power, they can be introduced in order to "explain" anything that needs explaining. Which leaves gods dangerously close to explaining nothing at all.

Anything and everything can be imagined, no doubt a brilliant gift for the human being (as imagination cannot be found nowhere else in nature), the Piltdown Man is a great example.
But you will find that description of 'gods' are consistent in all scriptures, so there is no need to use imagination to learn of their power.

A successful explanation reduces the unknown to the known. Introducing gods into an explanation is a retrogressive step that moves us in the opposite direction.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Introducing gods into an explanation", or how
you equate it with theism in general. Explanations by science do not give ultimate answers. God is the ultimate answer, if you believe this is such.
So there needn't be a division between science and religious faith providing the two disciplines are executed properly.

Now we are confronted not only with the original question, we also have the mysterious and by its nature inexplicable god to explain. ]
What are gods? Where did they come from? What accounts for them? How do they operate? Gods are supposed to be transcendent beings that intervene to "explain" natural events in "mysterious ways", leaving all of that inexplicable by its very nature.

Read some religious scripture for answers.

So it would seem to me that introducing gods into an explanation isn't really explanatory at all.

It depends on the nature of the question.
From a scientific pov, understanding knowledge from the ground up, introducing gods does little to provide answers. But in the same breath science does not satisfy the need for experiencial knowledge, whereas religion can. A blend of both is food for the human.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Anything and everything can be imagined, no doubt a brilliant gift for the human being (as imagination cannot be found nowhere else in nature), the Piltdown Man is a great example.

"God" being another example.

Explanations by science do not give ultimate answers. God is the ultimate answer, if you believe this is such.
So there needn't be a division between science and religious faith providing the two disciplines are executed properly.

Wonderful.
On the one hand you claim there is no division and on the other you claim that god is the answer. If you believe.
Science requires no belief since it can demonstrate its claims. Religion can't.

From a scientific pov, understanding knowledge from the ground up, introducing gods does little to provide answers.

No, "god" does nothing to provide the answer. "God" as an answer is a null statement. As Yazata explained -

It's actually mystification in the guise of explanation. It's tantamount to just throwing up one's hands and surrendering any attempt to explain things, proclaiming instead... "then a miracle occurred".

But in the same breath science does not satisfy the need for experiencial knowledge, whereas religion can. A blend of both is food for the human.

What "experiential knowledge" does religion provide that you can't get just by living life and ignoring the extraneity?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

"God" being another example.

I did say "anything and everything".

Wonderful.
On the one hand you claim there is no division and on the other you claim that god is the answer. If you believe.
Science requires no belief since it can demonstrate its claims. Religion can't.

It like providing answers at the back of the quiz book.
We may be able to recite the answer, but have no knowledge.

No, "god" does nothing to provide the answer. "God" as an answer is a null statement. As Yazata explained -

How do you know?

What "experiential knowledge" does religion provide that you can't get just by living life and ignoring the extraneity?

Living life is about experience, and using that experience to understand your self, and your relation to this world, and what happens when you leave this world. All forms of knowledge (including religion) are for that purpose.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I did say "anything and everything".

Correct. Do you dispute that god is a product of the imagination?

It like providing answers at the back of the quiz book.
We may be able to recite the answer, but have no knowledge.

This is religion you're talking about? Of course.

How do you know?

Read what is written. God does not show up in the equations. God does not appear in the processes.
If you disagree please show where (you think) this is true.

Living life is about experience, and using that experience to understand your self, and your relation to this world, and what happens when you leave this world. All forms of knowledge (including religion) are for that purpose.

When we leave this world?
Religion is not a "form of knowledge" -it's a belief.
And you haven't shown that having religion is a required "experiential knowledge".

 

[yaracuy]

I think that I agree with Dywyddyr about that. Science really is a sort of methodological atheism.

Science is a fundamentally naturalistic pursuit. When unknowns present themselves (and there are still an unknown and conceivably unlimited number of unknowns left) science seeks naturalistic explanations for them. Science explains events by linking them causally to other events and to observed behavoral regularities here in the natural universe that we inhabit.



I like tour explanation

God created life ( living cell and its mechanism ) We have not a full understanding nor duplicating a living cell.
Until we get the full understanding on how a living cell function , we are just blabbering our mouth in regard to the existing of God.
In the mean while I enjoy exploring nature using scientific method and honor the Master who created life on this planet which I call God.

 

[Dywyddyr]

God created life ( living cell and its mechanism )

Supposition.
One with zero evidence.

In the mean while I enjoy exploring nature using scientific method and honor the Master who created life on this planet which I call God.

Some error there surely.
Which part of the scientific method has led you conclude that there is a god?
Or do you simply pay lip service to one or the other?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Correct. Do you dispute that god is a product of the imagination?

That question isnt' even related to my point.
Do you or I know the history of the origin of the mind, to answer such an out there question?
As far as I know God is known throughout history, and there isn't a point in time where we can say so and so invented the idea of God. So from that point of view I have to say yes, I dispute that claim.

This is religion you're talking about? Of course.

Anything.
We can recite answers without substance.

Read what is written. God does not show up in the equations. God does not appear in the processes.
If you disagree please show where (you think) this is true.

That is because we understand God through processes of philosophy and/or religion.
Science is about the workings of the car, not the mind that created it, or the reason for it.

When we leave this world?

Rhetorical, i take it?

Religion is not a "form of knowledge" -it's a belief.

It is a form of knowledge, and it's silly to believe otherwise.

And you haven't shown that having religion is a required "experiential knowledge".

My explanation is good enough;

Living life is about experience, and using that experience to understand your self, and your relation to this world, and what happens when you leave this world. All forms of knowledge (including religion) are for that purpose.


jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Which part of the scientific method has led you conclude that there is a god?
Or do you simply pay lip service to one or the other?

Which part of the scientific method leads you to believe a car was created?

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

That question isnt' even related to my point.

On the contrary. You gave an example imagination (Piltdown). I gave one. Do you dispute that god is a product of imagination?

As far as I know God is known throughout history, and there isn't a point in time where we can say so and so invented the idea of God. So from that point of view I have to say yes, I dispute that claim.

So you dispute simply on the grounds that you can't pinpoint who first thought of it?
So how do you account for those who haven't thought of it?

Anything.
We can recite answers without substance.

Of course we can. Especially if we subscribe to religion (belief) over science (learning). But THIS discussion is about science vs. religion.

That is because we understand God through processes of philosophy and/or religion.

Really?
And why are there so many interpretations (not one of which can be shown to have a basis in the real world)?

Science is about the workings of the car, not the mind that created it, or the reason for it.

So you prefer to have made up explanations for the latter instead of doing a scientific investigation?

Rhetorical, i take it?

Far from it. You claimed living life provides experience for us to understand "what happens when you leave this world".
Please provide some evidence for this claim.

It is a form of knowledge, and it's silly to believe otherwise.

On the contrary, it is belief. Merely that. No knowledge involved.

My explanation is good enough;
Living life is about experience, and using that experience to understand your self, and your relation to this world, and what happens when you leave this world. All forms of knowledge (including religion) are for that purpose.

I'm afraid your idea of "good enough" is false. Maybe you simply mean "it's good enough for you".
Or are you claiming that "religious experience" is necessary in order to claim a full life?
If so is experiencing, say, being an axe-murderer or a drug addict also necessary? If not why not? What makes "religious experience" any more "required" than any other experience that can be had?
Have I not experienced life sufficiently if I fail to be an Olympic skater? Or a dictator of a third-world country?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Dywyddyr,
Which part of the scientific method leads you to believe a car was created?
jan.

Quite simple: the entire process can be reproduced, observed and independently verified. It can be evaluated, checked, graphed, measured, weighed... Need I go on?
(In fact I myself have been involved in the process).

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

On the contrary. You gave an example imagination (Piltdown). I gave one. Do you dispute that god is a product of imagination?

Yes.

So you dispute simply on the grounds that you can't pinpoint who first thought of it?
So how do you account for those who haven't thought of it?

Are there folks who haven't heard of God?

Of course we can. Especially if we subscribe to religion (belief) over science (learning). But THIS discussion is about science vs. religion.

It doesn't matter what you subscibe to, it can happen.
I learn from both subjects.

Really?
And why are there so many interpretations (not one of which can be shown to have a basis in the real world)?

Not sure what you're getting at. It all sounds very personal.

So you prefer to have made up explanations for the latter instead of doing a scientific investigation?

Why do you load your questions?

Far from it. You claimed living life provides experience for us to understand "what happens when you leave this world".
Please provide some evidence for this claim.

Are you telling me that folks to wonder what happens at the time of death?

On the contrary, it is belief. Merely that. No knowledge involved.

Way to go with the scientific method.

I'm afraid your idea of "good enough" is false. Maybe you simply mean "it's good enough for you".
Or are you claiming that "religious experience" is necessary in order to claim a full life?
If so is experiencing, say, being an axe-murderer or a drug addict also necessary? If not why not? What makes "religious experience" any more "required" than any other experience that can be had?
Have I not experienced life sufficiently if I fail to be an Olympic skater? Or a dictator of a third-world country?

I'm saying religion is a natural part of the human being.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Quite simple: the entire process can be reproduced, observed and independently verified. It can be evaluated, checked, graphed, measured, weighed... Need I go on?
(In fact I myself have been involved in the process).

Great!
But what is the scientific component that makes the creation of the car, a fact?

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Are there folks who haven't heard of God?

"Haven't heard of" is not the same as "haven't thought of".
We ARE discussing whether or not god arose in the imagination.

It doesn't matter what you subscibe to, it can happen.

I said that.

I learn from both subjects.

No. You learn from science you reinforce your belief from religion.

Not sure what you're getting at. It all sounds very personal.

You claimed that "we understand God through processes of philosophy and/or religion" I'm asking if we truly do understand god through these thing then why is there no definitive answer?

Why do you load your questions?

Why do you not answer honestly?

Are you telling me that folks to wonder what happens at the time of death?

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking here, you appear to have omitted a word or two. Sure, people wonder what happens at death. But your claim was, and I quote, understand your self, and your relation to this world, and what happens when you leave this world.
One more time: Please provide some evidence for this claim.

Way to go with the scientific method.

In other words you can't dispute the point so you resort to snide comments, sorry, meaningless snide comments.

I'm saying religion is a natural part of the human being.

Really?
As is axe-murdering, third-world dictatorship, drug addiction...
Do you actually have a point?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Great!
But what is the scientific component that makes the creation of the car, a fact?

Did you not read the post?
Evidently.
It is verifiable.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

"Haven't heard of" is not the same as "haven't thought of".
We ARE discussing whether or not god arose in the imagination.

No, you asked me a question, i answered, now you must respond.

No. You learn from science you reinforce your belief from religion.

No, i learn from both.

You claimed that "we understand God through processes of philosophy and/or religion" I'm asking if we truly do understand god through these thing then why is there no definitive answer?

Who say's there isn't?

Why do you not answer honestly?

I do.
Can you answer my questin now?

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking here, you appear to have omitted a word or two. Sure, people wonder what happens at death. But your claim was, and I quote, understand your self, and your relation to this world, and what happens when you leave this world.
One more time: Please provide some evidence for this claim.

What do you mean by provide evidence?
Can you provide evidence of your belief that God doesn't exist?

In other words you can't dispute the point so you resort to snide comments, sorry, meaningless snide comments.

Trying to dispute others personal opinions is a futile operation.

Really?As is axe-murdering, third-world dictatorship, drug addiction...

Do you really think this?


jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Did you not read the post?
Evidently.
It is verifiable.

I read the post, but it wasn't clear to me.
Can you answer my question?

jan.