I have oft made the claim that one can not have faith in a god and accept scientific findings simultaneously. This is a simple contradiction in a philosophical versus empirical view of "information gathering," for lack of a better term. On the one hand you have a perspective that vehemently seeks to disprove itself, and on the other you have a philosophy that ignores anything and everything that contradicts it. How is it possible that these two diametrically opposed perspectives exist in the same space?
Are faith and science diametrically opposed?
- Thread starter homercles337
- Start date
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
You have a point, but your claim is slightly fallacious. The refusal to require the scientific test on a Maker does not completely zero out a person's ability to accept scientific findings completely.
Some believers may also feel that we may one day be able to test for the presence or absence of a god, we just currently lack the technological expertise to do so. Agnosticism is the only scientifically safe route of belief, while athiesm and theism equally dispute the scientific method.
Some believers may also feel that we may one day be able to test for the presence or absence of a god, we just currently lack the technological expertise to do so. Agnosticism is the only scientifically safe route of belief, while athiesm and theism equally dispute the scientific method.
They are not diametrically opposed. If you read some biographies of scientists and mathematicians, you will find that a lot of them have a belief in a God of some sort. Not the bible thumping, take everything in it literally but more of a spiritual belief or "feeling" that something exists out there.
You're not from the South are you?
If you were down here you would hear "Don't give me any of that Man to Monkey nonsense".
This is what is taught in the schools.
im a republican live in the south, but have almost (ALMOST) no religious beliefs, Itake science over a book any day
and yeah the deep south is prime example of whats wrong wit hthe far right in my party, wayyyy to clouded
wait, did I just agree with you....its gonna be a wierd day
This is what i would call hypocrisy.
@yllus, good point in showing the logical shortcomings of faith-folk. By your reasoning, i should "believe" (even though this is a horrible word to use in empirical reasoning) in pink unicorns because we dont have the technology to "see" them yet? :roll:
Let's see - I believe in God and I also believe that the reserach being conducted at our local Fish Research Center - in part sponsered by borough resources and University of Alaska.
Assuming that the are diametrically opposed is a mistake.
Assuming that the are diametrically opposed is a mistake.
It is a day to remember. I worked last night till 4 am, found out at 5:20 am that my Grandmother passed away at 2 am and I am back at work now
But don't forget I am the Laziest one in America as said by P&N experts and my ex-wife.
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
I have to say, I feel rather let down by this reply of yours after your thoughtful original post.
No, you are quite wrong and apparently ignorant of one of the most basic theories the scientific method works upon. The idea, quite simply, is to have an absence of belief in either the positive or negative direction while evidence one way or the other is missing. Simply stated: What we haven't adequately tested, we cannot rule out.
I'm going to indulge this erroneous argument only once: We don't "believe" in pink unicorns because in the hundreds of years of human history, we've not ever encountered one or its remains. The scientific method says that after a certain amount of testing, we can conclude that there is no such thing as pink unicorns, unless possibly they're weather adapted to the arctic.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
First, a scientific belief in God is not hypocracy. In a universe where all is relative, there often arises the need to establish some type of constant in order to better understand it. Look at how Einstein used the speed of light as a constant when in fact the speed of light is not truly constant (as speed is calculated using time).
As for yllus, he is saying that, to be logical, you should not believe in anything. Meaning that you should neither believe in the existence of those "pink unicorns" nor believe in the non-existence of those "pink unicorns", until one or the other is established as fact. Make sense?
c is constant (as in E = mc^2) - time on the other hand is variable
as to the OT - faith in God only opposes science if you let it.
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
It is a day to remember. I worked last night till 4 am, found out at 5:20 am that my Grandmother passed away at 2 am and I am back at work now
But don't forget I am the Laziest one in America as said by P&N experts and my ex-wife.
Sorry to hear that dude.
There is such a thing as a reasonable faith in God. There exists no empirical proof for God, but there are many valid reasons to believe He exists. Contrary to what many naturalists believe, science is not the only way to discover truths.
Since you are making the claim that faith and science are directly opposed and incompatible, please present the scientific fact that contradicts the existence of God and you will have proven your point.
Since you are making the claim that faith and science are directly opposed and incompatible, please present the scientific fact that contradicts the existence of God and you will have proven your point.
Sorry about that response. It started out quite differently than it ended. I see your point (and Vic's), but disagree with your idea that im "ignorant of one of the most basic theories the scientific method works upon." Actually, youre ignorant to the scientific method. How does one conduct an experiment in the TOTAL absence of evidence? What do you manipulate? What do you conclude? What do you hypothesize? In my OP, care to tell me how you would formally hypothesize an experiment?
I went to school in the south and evolution was taught. Our teacher stopped short of saying that there is no God and the Bible is wrong because of science, but that's only because he was an intelligent person and actually knew what he was talking about.
A naturalist who overstates the factual evidence is no less ignorant than someone who dismisses the evidence entirely.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
c = speed of light = ~186,000 miles per second where seconds indicate a duration of time as the calculation of the rate of speed of any object is r = d/t.Originally posted by: Tommunist
c is constant (as in E = mc^2) - time on the other hand is variable
as to the OT - faith in God only opposes science if you let it.
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
What you quoted me saying is in response to this:
A wholly incorrect interpretation of what I said, and I hope you realize that.
No...I'm definitely one of the few people in this particular part of this forum that know what the scientific method entails. Vic and Amused are two others. I sort of run out of names to list at that point.
To start: The scientific method is about using a testing method that can be repeated by others (usually one's peers in the field of research).
If you test and find a complete lack of evidence for the existence of something, you may conclude that it does not exist. Likewise, if you find evidence that it does exist, you conclude similarly.
There is no such thing as an absence of evidence. In a properly executed experiment, if you found nothing - the evidence from your experiment is exactly that - the nothingness. That is a quantitative finding. You may be able to draw conclusions from that alone.
You don't manipulate evidence, or make conclusions solely on evidence. You manipulate the test controls and make conclusions based on evidence in relation to what and how you tested.
Second: A properly conducted experiment also means that your test is done across a logical spectrum. Just as you cannot test for the existence of camels in Arizona and conclude that camels do not exist on Earth, we can hardly today test for the presence of an omnipotent being in the galaxy based on the tiny corner of it that we know.
I am in fact an agnostic who would currently choose atheism over theism if forced to. I simply understand the logical constructs of science. Please join us in the battle against those who pervert the idea of science for their own ends.
Ah, maybe Floriduh hasn't gotten quite as bad as Backwoods Bama and Deliverance Georgia yet.
The "None of that Monkey to Man nonsense" was from the Education Secretary of Georgia herself and school system Northwest of Atlanta put a sticker on the Science books that Evolution is a myth.
dude, you live in craphole Louisiana!!! i mean im not a true Bama person but crap i have been allover Louisiana, and its way more jacked up then Bama
Originally posted by: Vic
c = speed of light = ~186,000 miles per second where seconds indicate a duration of time as the calculation of the rate of speed of any object is r = d/t.Originally posted by: Tommunist
c is constant (as in E = mc^2) - time on the other hand is variable
as to the OT - faith in God only opposes science if you let it.
explain why when you are moving towards a light source the speed of light is still the same then
in everyday life speed is calculated - but the speed of light is always the same - hence either d and/or t (as stated in your equation) having to be variable and not constant.I.....AM.....GOD!!!
RELIGION IS GOOD!!! SCIENCE IS GOOD!!! EVERYBODY PLEASE ACCEPT BOTH!!!
make check payable to:
The Holy Father
P.O. Box -666
Pearly Gates, Heaven John3:16
RELIGION IS GOOD!!! SCIENCE IS GOOD!!! EVERYBODY PLEASE ACCEPT BOTH!!!
make check payable to:
The Holy Father
P.O. Box -666
Pearly Gates, Heaven John3:16
dullard
Elite Member
- May 21, 2001
- 26,117
- 4,763
- 126
Faith and science are complementary as long as you don't take faith too literally. Beleiving every word in the bible was historical fact (especially the parables) is diametrically opposed to science. But most people of faith realize that the bible is not to be taken word for word (especially since there have been many translations and translation errors are known). If you fall into that group, then faith and science can work very well together.
[*]There are few things that are proven to be absolutely true with science. Those things you must accept and it must override any religious teachings.
[*]There are many things with tons of scientific evidence, but which aren't 100% indisputable. DNA identification is 99.99% accurate if done properly. But there is that 0.01% possibility. In this situation, science should probably override conflicting faith.
[*]The majority of issues have limited scientific knowledge. We may know from evidence that the the answer is A, B, C, or D. But which of those four is unknown and probably cannot be known. This is where faith can mix with science. Faith can tell you which of the four is more likely, and go with that choice until new evidence appears. If faith says option E, then science should override the faith. But usually that doesn't happen. If you have to choose one of the four, choose the one that compliments your faith. In an ideal world we could choose all four, but that is rarely the case.
[*]There are some issues where there is little to no scientific evidence. Science provides no guidance. If you have to follow a path, why not follow faith's path in this case?
Read the Bible's version of the creation of earth and animals. Then read science's evolution theory. It is remarkable how they match nearly perfectly. They complement each other very well in this case.
[*]There are few things that are proven to be absolutely true with science. Those things you must accept and it must override any religious teachings.
[*]There are many things with tons of scientific evidence, but which aren't 100% indisputable. DNA identification is 99.99% accurate if done properly. But there is that 0.01% possibility. In this situation, science should probably override conflicting faith.
[*]The majority of issues have limited scientific knowledge. We may know from evidence that the the answer is A, B, C, or D. But which of those four is unknown and probably cannot be known. This is where faith can mix with science. Faith can tell you which of the four is more likely, and go with that choice until new evidence appears. If faith says option E, then science should override the faith. But usually that doesn't happen. If you have to choose one of the four, choose the one that compliments your faith. In an ideal world we could choose all four, but that is rarely the case.
[*]There are some issues where there is little to no scientific evidence. Science provides no guidance. If you have to follow a path, why not follow faith's path in this case?
Read the Bible's version of the creation of earth and animals. Then read science's evolution theory. It is remarkable how they match nearly perfectly. They complement each other very well in this case.
ArmchairAthlete
Diamond Member
- Dec 3, 2002
- 3,763
- 0
- 0
I graduated from a public high school in the south in '04, evolution was taught and not creationism.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter