science and faith : Can't we all just get along?

[achilles12604]

I am reading a book by Dr. Darrel R Falk entitled, Coming to Peace with Science. In this book, Dr. Falk reiterates exactly what I was saying in a couple of other places on this forum, namely, that science and faith actually complement each other rather than destroy each other. They can be harmonized if the person can put aside there own preconceptions for a moment and look with unbiased eyes.

As he writes in his book, "Too many have come to believe one has to make a choice: either science is fundamentally flawed because it can not see the design rules, or the world of faith is imaginary because it sees that rules do not exist. . . Many are unable to find their way to a bridge not because of limitations constructed by a metaphor but because for them, there is no metaphor. Scripture states that God did his work in six days; days are 24 hours in length; thus it was all over within one week."

He believes the same way I do, that science and faith are not only compatible, but on a deeper level are paintings of the exact same thing. Science and faith are in essence two trails to one destination, not two totally different roads going in opposite directions.

Incidentally while reading through the second section I quoted, I realized something. Dr. Falk was using this section to describe some Christians fall into the trap of "The bible says it so it must have happened exactly this way." But when I was reading it it reminded me of a particular thought group on this forum. These non-theists do exactly the same thing, only against religion instead of for it. They say that because the Bible does not literally and exactly spell out every detail, it must be false and full of mistakes. Therefore it can not be inspired by God. It is the same process of thinking that leads fundamental young-earth creationists to illogically ignore all the evidence of science.

In any case, my question is this . . .

Are faith and science truly two different things? Must they be at odds as society portrays them, or are they easily reconciled into pointing the same direction but in different ways?

[QED]

The answer is still no. The can formulate theories, but testing is another matter, which was my exact point.

None of the quotes you posted properly address the key issue here... Smolin's theory is testable in principle . I hope you didn't take my mention of his work as proof of a particular theory. What we were discussing is whether or not, in principle, science is bounded by confinement to our own light-cone. This defines a horizon beyond which no direct information can reach us due to finite light speed. But the point that Smolin most emphasises (totally overlooked in your reviews) is our ability to make inferences from accessible observations. Smolin himself has put considerable effort into a defense of his particular inference. But what is not contested is the principle that a metaphysical theory that delivers physical observables can be established if the predictions are adequately met.

I hope this slightly subtle distinction is not lost in this debate. Smolin himself is a stickler testability. He has, for example, criticised the current developments in string theory due to the general lack of testability. His own theory of "Cosmic Natural Selection" was always bound to raise the hackles of some in the religious community. You seem to suggest that Smolin is an atheist... I have no idea myself. I can't recall reading anything that makes this clear. However, just to reiterate, it seems quite reasonable for me to accept that a scientific theory explaining observable features within our finite range of observation can be valid even if it proposes mechanisms outside that boundary. I would say that this is nothing new for science or religion.

I have started a new topic titled Can Multiverse theories be tested? where we can explore this further without going off-topic here.

[achilles12604]

Transubstantiation: This is only a problem if you start with the assumption that God does not exist. If God is even a possibility then this falls into the same catagory as spirits or other universes. It can not be tested by science one way or the other. Since science can not test it, it can not disprove it.

I'll just take one of the examples, since I don't want the thread to get distracted.

Why do you presume that science cannot study transubstantiation?

Get 5 volunteers to take the eucarist, then have their stomachs pumped. What is the content? Juice and crackers? Or human flesh and blood? Very simple, standard tests could verify this miracle that is supposed to be happening all the time.

Here's another experiment. Make the crackers with a hefty dose of pottasium cyanide. Give the eucarist to 5 volunteers. If transubstantiation is true, they will not die as the poison will be changed to flesh. Simple.

Here's another if you want a less lethal experiment (people get all ethical if you kill your subjects). Put the dye fuchsin in the juice (or wine). If transubstantiation is not true, then the urine of the volunteers will turn purple.

So, is transubstantiation true or not? Scientifically, the idea is an absurdity, but if true it would be easy to validate. What conclusion do you draw from that?

DanZ

This only holds true if you think that the juice actually turns to blood during communion. Have you ever heard of symbolism, or is everything supposed to be taken litterally?

[achilles12604]

Creation: Why is God creating all we have and see contrary to science? Just because we can explain (actually we still can't but we have good ideas), what occured doesn't mean that it wasn't planned does it?

It is only contrary to science in that there is no evidence that god created all we see - other than all we see.


What you are essentially saying is: We dont know ergo goddidit

OTOH - as there is no evidence of god it is illogical to claim that god created all we see.

On the contrary, you are placing words into my mouth. I actually said quite the opposite. What you described is the God of Gaps belief. I do not adhere to this at all. I fully accept that what we don't know about science we will one day learn. I also have no problem reconciling this with belief in God.

Just because the engineer did a good job constucting the building and we now have figured out his blueprints, does not mean that he didn't design and build the building does it?

[bernee51]

This only holds true if you think that the juice actually turns to blood during communion. Have you ever heard of symbolism, or is everything supposed to be taken litterally?

So where does the symbolism stop and the 'real' Jesus begin. Personally I find the whole story much more compelling as symbolism than as 'fact'.

[bernee51]

I fully accept that what we don't know about science we will one day learn. I also have no problem reconciling this with belief in God.

And if science should come up with an unassailable explanation for the origins of the universe, where will it leave your god?

Just because the engineer did a good job constucting the building and we now have figured out his blueprints, does not mean that he didn't design and build the building does it?

This sounds so much like the watchmaker....

[QED]

I fully accept that what we don't know about science we will one day learn. I also have no problem reconciling this with belief in God.

And if science should come up with an unassailable explanation for the origins of the universe, where will it leave your god?

It could just as easily leave us with a God utterly disinterested in humans as well. Very often we hear theistic arguments that are stripped down to the bare essentials, concentrating their efforts on establishing the principle of a first cause -- an intelligent designer of all things (bar itself). But science can still shed light on "God's methodologies" (if that's what nature turns out to be) and science constantly seems to find out little details that lead us away from the traditional biblical interpretations. Why would I point this out? Because it seems to me to be the only sensible way of understanding the World and all the tragedies played out within it. Unless of course God turns out to have something quite different in mind to the traditional assumptions. This, of course, is just as nonsensical to the atheistic mind... but how can the theologian be sure of God's true motive?

Just because the engineer did a good job constructing the building and we now have figured out his blueprints, does not mean that he didn't design and build the building does it?

But what if it becomes clear that the blueprint is for the emergence of an arbitrary design generator? This is exactly what biological natural selection is (after all, we are discussing how scientific discoveries rest alongside religion right?). Natural selection is only capable of extracting contingent possibilities from the state-space of all possible designs. It cannot have any aim other than to constantly tailor complex collections of atoms into configurations that are proficient at reproducing and competing for resources. Take a snapshot at any time in the last half-a-billion years and the picture will look quite different to all other times. Is anyone in any serious doubt that this will also be true of the next billion years?

[bernee51]

It could just as easily leave us with a God utterly disinterested in humans as well.

Such an entity would hardly be worth the epithet.

[achilles12604]

This only holds true if you think that the juice actually turns to blood during communion. Have you ever heard of symbolism, or is everything supposed to be taken litterally?

So where does the symbolism stop and the 'real' Jesus begin. Personally I find the whole story much more compelling as symbolism than as 'fact'.

Juliod and I wern't discussing the story . . . we were discussing being able to take someone today who was taking communion and testing what was in their stomach to see if it was blood or still wine.

When it comes to symbolism . . . I can't believe I am spelling this out. . . Jesus died for our sins. His body was broken. This is what taking of communion symbolizes. It is symbolic of us accepting the gift of Jesus blood and his broken body for the forgivness of our sins. So as far as communion goes, it is entirely symbolic.

[achilles12604]

I fully accept that what we don't know about science we will one day learn. I also have no problem reconciling this with belief in God.

And if science should come up with an unassailable explanation for the origins of the universe, where will it leave your god?

Right there setting the whole thing in motion. An example:

A mouse in a cage. We are like this since we do not have the ability to leave our cage (the universe). Now the mouse does not know how the cage got there, it simply knows that it is there. Even if the mouse did fugure out that first the glass was sand, then it was melted, then formed into its cage, it would not negate the fact that we (God in this case) formed its surroundings and made it livable for the mouse. The how is not nearly as important as the why. Also the process of making the glass cage is not one that a mouse would ever be able to duplicate even if it knew how it was done. God has a place no matter what we learn.

Just because the engineer did a good job constucting the building and we now have figured out his blueprints, does not mean that he didn't design and build the building does it?

This sounds so much like the watchmaker....

Only if it stops there. The watchmaker idea implies that this was the end of the contact with humans. I see many places where god made contact with us trying to get us to understand. But that is for another thread.

[Goat]

[

Juliod and I wern't discussing the story . . . we were discussing being able to take someone today who was taking communion and testing what was in their stomach to see if it was blood or still wine.

When it comes to symbolism . . . I can't believe I am spelling this out. . . Jesus died for our sins. His body was broken. This is what taking of communion symbolizes. It is symbolic of us accepting the gift of Jesus blood and his broken body for the forgivness of our sins. So as far as communion goes, it is entirely symbolic.

Not according to the Catholics. I see your point, and will agree with it, but the
Catholics are taught that really happens