There is no "faith vs. science"

[gray wolf]

I don't know, Thomas.  I think NOMA proposes keeping minds open in scientific endeavors, not subject to a set of beliefs to which all evidence and data must be subject.  It campaigns against a God of the Gaps approach as well.  On the flip side, it discourages scientists from making authoritative pronouncements about theology, a discipline in which most scientists are amateurs.

[thomas t]

I think NOMA proposes keeping minds open in scientific endeavors, not subject to a set of beliefs to which all evidence and data must be subject.  

 

Good morning gw

 

but science and theology do overlap, it's just a matter of fact. Read Genesis' first chapters and it's all about science. Keeping minds open is always good, though...

My approach is that biblical texts are true whatsoever. Nevertheless it sets only a very wide frame in which evidence fits in nicely, in my opinion. Hence, evidence and data should play a role, I think. 

 

It campaigns against a God of the Gaps approach as well.  

nice

 

 On the flip side, it discourages scientists from making authoritative pronouncements about theology, [...].

halleluja.

 

Thomas

[Guest]

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.

 

 

Amen~!

 

Praying~!

 

~

 

Even The Hardened

 

For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Matthew 24:27

 

Will See

 

And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

 

And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:

 

For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand? Revelation 6:14-17

 

~

 

Want To Rejoice?

 

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

 

Believe And Be Blessed Beloved

 

Love, Joe

[hayatsaves]

good point faith and science can co-exist 

[Addai]

to the original OP (blessedPeter)

 

I agree with pretty much everything you said.

 

Much of the Science vs. Religion paradigm we have comes from the debunked "Conflict Thesis" which still lives on as a popular myth and trope.   That theory ignores much of history (where medieval monks etc. worked as early scientists, the medieval Church acted as a brain trust etc.)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis

 

 

 

I also would recommend the old classic "Science and Human Values".

 

http://www.amazon.com/Science-Human-Values-Jacob-Bronowski/dp/0571241905

Edited October 2, 2013 by Addai

[thomas t]

 

Much of the Science vs. Religion paradigm we have comes from the debunked "Conflict Thesis" which still lives on as a popular myth and trope.  

 

 

Good day,

Is it a myth that the Theory of Evolution pretty much kicks God out of the process?

Or is it rather bare fact? I think it is the latter.

 

 

 

 

I also would recommend the old classic "Science and Human Values".

 

http://www.amazon.com/Science-Human-Values-Jacob-Bronowski/dp/0571241905

according to this site, Bronowski writes

science can create the values we lack by looking into the human personality, exploring what makes humans unique and their societies human rather than animal packs.

What are values without God?

 

 

Welcome to Worthy

 

wishes

 

Thomas

[Addai]

Hi Thomas, good to hear from ya and even that your posting from Germany.  (I've got some recent Germanic heritage in my family)  I agree with your sentiments but disagree with some of the details and conclusions.

 

 

On the Conflict thesis, that detail is important because some atheists do follow it literally at times or at least it seems to be a theme in certain atheist works (i.e. Pillars of the Earth, TV show).   I've seen variations of this poster on atheist web sites which seems to literally imply the Conflict Thesis.

 

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread829321/pg1

 

And of course if a person really studies history and science they know that this isn't a fair depiction of history.   As the axiom of statistical analysis goes  "Correlation does not equal causation".   In this case the correlation is more about the barbarian invasions of the Christian west and Islam taking over the intellectual centers of Alexandria and those in Syria &Turkey (theological schools of Edessa, Nisbis etc.)

 

 

 

In terms of the Bronski book I don't think that quote is a fair representation, because most of what I recall about it runs opposite of it.   Much of the book speaks to the subjective way experiements are constructed. And how research tends to be a self confirming process (The only questions that get answered are the ones posed by the researcher).   As a undergraduate when I first read it, it was enlightening because there is an image in our culture of science being this pure process that lets you "find the truth" and he pretty much shoots holes in such romantic notions.

Edited October 2, 2013 by Addai

[alphaparticle]

to the original OP (blessedPeter)

 

I agree with pretty much everything you said.

 

Much of the Science vs. Religion paradigm we have comes from the debunked "Conflict Thesis" which still lives on as a popular myth and trope.   That theory ignores much of history (where medieval monks etc. worked as early scientists, the medieval Church acted as a brain trust etc.)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis

 

 

 

I also would recommend the old classic "Science and Human Values".

 

http://www.amazon.com/Science-Human-Values-Jacob-Bronowski/dp/0571241905

Where there is truth to the 'faith vs science' understanding is in the numbers though. The number of believers among scientists (say PhDs) who, say, believe in a literal resurrection of Jesus etc.,are very few as compared to the wider population. In fact, the difference is quite startling. Further there is something of an anti religious bias in the scientific community. Why hat is true though is another question.

[Addai]

 

 

Where there is truth to the 'faith vs science' understanding is in the numbers though. The number of believers among scientists (say PhDs) who, say, believe in a literal resurrection of Jesus etc.,are very few as compared to the wider population. In fact, the difference is quite startling. Further there is something of an anti religious bias in the scientific community. Why hat is true though is another question.

 

True enough.    But I would point out that does substantially change the conversation in the area of discussion and debate.   If were talking just about numbers then I could bring up logical fallacies like argumentum ad populum.

Which some folks think only theists use....

 

 

And also as you alluded to their is the nature of universities themselves.  On the issue of politics univesities have been far from neutral on politics (had a thread months ago on the following link).  And I would naturally have to assume that sort of thing carries over to other areas since people usually are not too compartmentalized and those issues tend to go together.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/1/liberal-majority-on-campus-yes-were-biased/

 

 

So anyway I'm not impressed by the demographics.  When journalists, and academics take that side then many people will side with them simply because it looks like the reasonable side based on appearance.

Edited October 2, 2013 by Addai

[alphaparticle]

 

 

 

Where there is truth to the 'faith vs science' understanding is in the numbers though. The number of believers among scientists (say PhDs) who, say, believe in a literal resurrection of Jesus etc.,are very few as compared to the wider population. In fact, the difference is quite startling. Further there is something of an anti religious bias in the scientific community. Why hat is true though is another question.

 

True enough.    But I would point out that does substantially change the conversation in the area of discussion and debate.   If were talking just about numbers then I could bring up logical fallacies like argumentum ad populum.

Which some folks think only theists use....

 

 

And also as you alluded to their is the nature of universities themselves.  On the issue of politics univesities have been far from neutral on politics (had a thread months ago on the following link).  And I would naturally have to assume that sort of thing carries over to other areas since people usually are not compartmentalized in their behavior and personality.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/1/liberal-majority-on-campus-yes-were-biased/

 

 

So anyway I'm not impressed by the demographics.  When journalists, and academics take that side then many people will side with them simply because it looks like the reasonable side based on appearance.

 

 

Argument ad populum how so? I am pointing out the fact that in practice there is some 'faith vs science' actually being practiced. It would only be an ad populum fallacy if I tried to appeal to the large majority of scientists not being believers as evidence that believing is wrong, or something along those lines. But it is entirely appropriate to bring it up if my point is to discuss how in practice there is a bias against religious belief in scientific circles (and potentially vice versa also, but obviously I would need to explore another statistic for that). I don't know what 'being impressed' or not by the demographics has to do with the point I made.