"Does the Empirical Nature of Science Contradict the Revalatory Nature of Faith?"

[stompy]

Im on the "god made the apes who then evolved into humans" side of the playing feild. A good place to be methinks.

I actually go a bit further than that... I believe that, whatever the higher being is, started the Big Bang, then left the Universe to continue as it is. As you said, "A good place to be methinks." Are you, by any chance, deist?

In regards to science and religion, frankly, the only people who cannot see the co-existence of the two are fundamentalists... (from both sides).

 

[Ezekel]

You should always change your beliefs to reflect newly discovered truths, if a religion cannot bear to evolve along with the rest of the culture it is nested within, I cannot see how it should be capable of surviving.

What truths are we talking about here that religions are not changing to meet? I believe that morals do not change, ever. What is truly good will always be so, same for truly evil. Science cannot disprove anything in the bible. There just isn't any scientific principle in it really. So there is no belief based in Christianity that science can or needs to change.

Now a church may believe something that is false, and they can change that, but the basic tenants of the Christian faith as laid down in the bible will not change. They do not need to do so.

 

[Labyrinth]

Crossed in the posting:

What's the difference between you and someone who believes that there is a benevolent paternal figure up there who wants us all to get along and make it easier for people to live together, when you get right down to it? Aren't you more like that person, than an atheist who believes that people shouldn't live together easily, and likes to throw people in Ovens for trying to help people get along?

The fact is that my morals are imposed by myself. My willpower, my choices and the like. Not by an external force or God who then punishes me when I get it wrong. There are also differences in the morals themselves. I don't think that people should be brought together by religion. Most religions put strict dividing lines between the 'Saved' and the 'sinner' which automatically cuts people out. That's not my way.

 

[Hawgh]

You should always change your beliefs to reflect newly discovered truths, if a religion cannot bear to evolve along with the rest of the culture it is nested within, I cannot see how it should be capable of surviving.

What truths are we talking about here that religions are not changing to meet? I believe that morals do not change, ever. What is truly good will always be so, same for truly evil. Science cannot disprove anything in the bible. There just isn't any scientific principle in it really. So there is no belief based in Christianity that science can or needs to change.

Now a church may believe something that is false, and they can change that, but the basic tenants of the Christian faith as laid down in the bible will not change. They do not need to do so.

Well, for starters, I'm not going to list an awful lot of examples of facts religion have had to come to terms with, however: such things as the correct value of Pi, the earth's relation to the sun and so forth.

But none of that matters if you're in the deal for the whole morality aspect of it, understanding the world and deciding how and why you should live, think and do in whatever fashion you do, doesn't necessarily overlap much.

Finally some nitpicking:

There is a problem with mentioning "the basic tenets of the christian faith" which branch of the faith would we be talking about? catholics? protestant? one of the more obscure little cults?

Also, the word is tenets. Tenant would be a person renting a room, or some such.

 

[Labyrinth]

What about people who don't believe that "external force or God" inflicts punishment?

What about someone who restricts the pool of gods that they will consider believing in according to the same criteria you use in your choices?

What about someone who believes there is benevolent paternal figure, but doesn't think it would make a difference when it comes to morality if there wasn't?

Then shouldn't you be substituting "most religions" for "religions" when you talk about the subject?

What about them?

That's their choice.

See above.

I don't claim to know about all religions, so I can't justify that.

 

[Booze Zombie]

This isn't one of the hardest things in the world to understand, is it?
Religion is about personal belief and perhaps even pretending that you're following a divine father figure who will punish us all if we don't follow along, or whatever you want to believe.

Science is meant to be about figuring stuff out, maybe advancing human kind along the way. To be an answer seeker or creator of things.

I would say that any Religion that refuses to "evolve" can not, peacefully, exist with science.

But then again, some of these Religions so rigidly word their "sacred book" that "evolving" would invalidate some, as some claim that their words are of their God, but editing those words would mean that their God was wrong, meaning it wasn't written by a God.

 

[Labyrinth]

Well, how do they differ in a meaningful way from you and your morals, which you said were "abstract constructions"?

The fact that they still believe there is a God, and the construction of their beliefs.

Sir, this is what I call exhibit a. The point. I wish to discuss whether religion and science can coexist, not the merits or failures of any particular scientific or religious method. I believe you may have missed this in previous circumstances.

 

[Zer_]

I don't give a shit what others believe as long as they don't try to tell me that gravity is some divine force of bat guano holding us to the earth. My exceptions are creationists and people who still believe the world is flat. These assholes deserve to goddamn die or at the very least be sent to jail for stupidity.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

Science and faith don't need to be enemies but they do need to be separate. When we get a provable repeatable experiment that can prove the existence of god then they might become enemies, as such results might be negatives. Till that point there should be no faith in science classes nor should there be any science in religious classes.

On one hand though I'm more worried about science becoming some sort of cult. That sort of blending of science and religion would be a very bad thing for science. Who knows, decades from now people might be killing each other cause they follow the divine profit Tesla and some poor fool happens to point out some of the flaws in one or more of Tesla's theories....

 

[Labyrinth]

How is that a meaningful difference if they wind up with the same morals you have, if all they do is insert a McGuffin in between "their willpower, their choices and the like" and the "abstract constructions" they settle upon?

I said. They are not the same morals.

I'm not talking about merits or failures. My point is that if it turns out that people who say about faith:

"Because of my scientific nature, I cannot reconcile such a thing with my need for evidence and reasonable support. In this a primary difference between Science and Religion is found."

turn out to also believe in "abstract constructions" that are indistinguishable in any meaningful sense from the "faith" of religious people on the same topic--in fact, that most meaningful of topics, morality--well, then I think we've gone a long way towards establishing that "religion and science can coexist"!

My morals are Opinions. I don't spout them as absolute truths as people would state a God.

 

[Ezekel]

You should always change your beliefs to reflect newly discovered truths, if a religion cannot bear to evolve along with the rest of the culture it is nested within, I cannot see how it should be capable of surviving.

What truths are we talking about here that religions are not changing to meet? I believe that morals do not change, ever. What is truly good will always be so, same for truly evil. Science cannot disprove anything in the bible. There just isn't any scientific principle in it really. So there is no belief based in Christianity that science can or needs to change.

Now a church may believe something that is false, and they can change that, but the basic tenants of the Christian faith as laid down in the bible will not change. They do not need to do so.

Well, for starters, I'm not going to list an awful lot of examples of facts religion have had to come to terms with, however: such things as the correct value of Pi, the earth's relation to the sun and so forth.

But none of that matters if you're in the deal for the whole morality aspect of it, understanding the world and deciding how and why you should live, think and do in whatever fashion you do, doesn't necessarily overlap much.

Finally some nitpicking:

There is a problem with mentioning "the basic tenets of the christian faith" which branch of the faith would we be talking about? catholics? protestant? one of the more obscure little cults?

Also, the word is tenets. Tenant would be a person renting a room, or some such.

When I say basic tenets of Christianity I mean that which is in the bible. Nothing more, nothing less. Nowhere in the bible is Pi mentioned, nor the earths relationship to the sun. There really isn't much, if any scientific knowledge in the bible.

I am non-denominational, though it would be closest to baptist.