There is no "faith vs. science"

[blessedpeter]

Science can never prove anything contrary to the Faith. The real question we need to answer is what exactly is "The Faith"? There are two ways to know about God. One is through natural reason (cf. Romans 1), and the other is through divine Revelation. What can be known through natural reason is the area of study for scientists who study creation to discover its secrets. What is known by divine Revelation is the area of study for theologians who apply the gifts of reason and logic to what God has directly revealed about Himself to bring forth new insights concerning both our Creator and His creation. That is why the two disciplines, science and theology, can never contradict each other. If there is a contradiction, it is either because the science is wrong or the theology is wrong. That problem usually arises when either the theologian takes it upon himself to become the scientist, or the scientist takes it upon himself to become the theologian. Very rarely does the theologian become the scientist, but more and more today we are seeing the scientist become the theologian. For examples of this, look at the talks given by such men as Krauss, Dawkins, and Hawking. These men may be entitled to their opinions about the Creator and creation (I personally would contest that) but not in the classroom. If creationism has no place in the science class, neither does the continuous spewing of anti-creationism belong in the science class. For a great insight into what has slowly taken place in Christendom over the last century, I highly recommend reading Phillip Johnson's "Reason In The Balance". To sum it up, we have now gotten to the point where only those who hold to philosophical naturalism are considered "sane" by the courts. A terrible mess of pottage we are in, but I am sure with much prayer and fasting we will find our way out again.

[alphaparticle]

Science can never prove anything contrary to the Faith. The real question we need to answer is what exactly is "The Faith"? There are two ways to know about God. One is through natural reason (cf. Romans 1), and the other is through divine Revelation. What can be known through natural reason is the area of study for scientists who study creation to discover its secrets. What is known by divine Revelation is the area of study for theologians who apply the gifts of reason and logic to what God has directly revealed about Himself to bring forth new insights concerning both our Creator and His creation. That is why the two disciplines, science and theology, can never contradict each other. If there is a contradiction, it is either because the science is wrong or the theology is wrong. That problem usually arises when either the theologian takes it upon himself to become the scientist, or the scientist takes it upon himself to become the theologian. Very rarely does the theologian become the scientist, but more and more today we are seeing the scientist become the theologian. For examples of this, look at the talks given by such men as Krauss, Dawkins, and Hawking. These men may be entitled to their opinions about the Creator and creation (I personally would contest that) but not in the classroom. If creationism has no place in the science class, neither does the continuous spewing of anti-creationism belong in the science class. For a great insight into what has slowly taken place in Christendom over the last century, I highly recommend reading Phillip Johnson's "Reason In The Balance". To sum it up, we have now gotten to the point where only those who hold to philosophical naturalism are considered "sane" by the courts. A terrible mess of pottage we are in, but I am sure with much prayer and fasting we will find our way out again.

 

I agree with you on the whole, but we see plenty of 'theologians' becoming the scientists when they make empirical claims about things like the age of the earth. When you have conservative Christians asserting that the earth and universe is 10k years old, you have a clear scientific claim and one that scientists aren't going to be able to accept (and in this  case, not because naturalism is the preferred metaphysic in scientific circles, though i agree with you that is also the case). I think there are unmerited claims being made on both sides, creating an unnecessary sense of tension and battle.

[blessedpeter]

I agree with you, Alph. I also note that is impossible to state our Faith without making some scientific claims. The Resurrection, for example, is a very scientific claim. So is the Ascension. These we should never give an inch on. Science cannot say anything one way or the other about miracles. The creation of the first life form, what scientists call our universal common ancestor, is also by definition a miraculous event. Science should not be saying anything one way or the other on that one either. They can postulate it as part of their theory or hypothesis, but there they really have to let it go. When I read "scientific" papers and every second sentence contains "we believe" and "we think" then I am actually reading the thesis of some religious person, not a scientist.

[gray wolf]

Stephen Jay Gould had it right when he proposed the concept of nonoverlapping magisterial.  What is the duty of the scientist and that of the believer (often one and the same) is to look for and consider evidence.  I differ on the idea that the Resurrection and Ascension are grounded by science.  They may be legally proposed, but certainly no science can support them, since we cannot test the events (and wouldn't want to!).

[Guest]

.... had it right when he proposed the concept of nonoverlapping magisterial.  What is the duty of the scientist and that of the believer (often one and the same) is to look for and consider evidence.  I differ on the idea that the Resurrection and Ascension are grounded by science.  They may be legally proposed, but certainly no science can support them, since we cannot test the events (and wouldn't want to!).

 

~

 

Sprinkling The Words Of The Puffed Up Godless On Worthy

 

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Acts 17:11

 

Will Not Impress The Wise

 

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:11

 

And The Humble

 

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. Matthew 2:1-2

 

You See

 

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Matthew 1:23

 

~

 

Believe

 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

 

And Be Blessed Beloved

 

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:

The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

 

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27

 

Love, Your Brother Joe

[thomas t]

I believe that UCA, the theory that all animals including man have one ancestor only, is wrong. Genesis, I believe is right, as it is the Word of God.

So I think that science classes in which the ToE is taught do harm to the faith of the pupils. It is at least in this way that there is a "science vs. faith".

 

The loss of faith in schools is a problem, as I see it.

 

Let's pray and have it solved.

 

Thomas

[OneLight]

Stephen Jay Gould had it right when he proposed the concept of nonoverlapping magisterial.  What is the duty of the scientist and that of the believer (often one and the same) is to look for and consider evidence.  I differ on the idea that the Resurrection and Ascension are grounded by science.  They may be legally proposed, but certainly no science can support them, since we cannot test the events (and wouldn't want to!).

 

Science cannot measure faith in God.  If they could, there would be no question God exists.

[RobbyPants]

Stephen Jay Gould had it right when he proposed the concept of nonoverlapping magisterial.  What is the duty of the scientist and that of the believer (often one and the same) is to look for and consider evidence.  I differ on the idea that the Resurrection and Ascension are grounded by science.  They may be legally proposed, but certainly no science can support them, since we cannot test the events (and wouldn't want to!).

 

Science cannot measure faith in God.  If they could, there would be no question God exists.

This is true. I think it's a lot of why Stephen Jay Gould coined NOMA.

[gray wolf]

Yes, Faith is how we discover God.  We can consider evidence and conclude, oh yes there must be a God, whereas a nonbeliever scientist would disagree.  But as it is written, without faith, it is impossible to please Him.  That seems to be what He really wants.  Too bad for Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins. . .. .

[thomas t]

Yes, Faith is how we discover God.  We can consider evidence and conclude, oh yes there must be a God, whereas a nonbeliever scientist would disagree.  But as it is written, without faith, it is impossible to please Him. 

 

I'd rather agree with Joe. Non Overlapping Magesteria, as I see it, aims to either limit the Bible to faith or limit science to any field in which the Bible has nothing to offer. I think, it is meant to be the first..

 

Welcome to Worthy