Science and Faith ARE Compatible

[jrad19]

What do you guys think?

 

 

[Bonky]

I guess it depends what you mean by "faith".  There are some folks who have told me that they won't accept any conclusion that goes counter to scripture.  That's not a scientific principle, but they don't care about that, they care about what scripture says as they believe it's inspired by God [and that their interpretation is spot on].  There are plenty of people who have modified their view of scripture based on evidence.  One example is a geologist by the name of Glenn Morton I think [last name not sure] who was a young earth creationist but after he spend some time in the field he said he couldn't hold onto that view anymore.   His philosophical framework appears to be compatible with opposing views based on evidence.

Edited May 10, 2018 by Bonky

[Hawkins]

God told me this. 

Humans don't know what faith is, and humans don't know what science is.

Basically, faith is the only way which humans have to rely on to reach a truth of any kind. (Surprised?)

Science is all about a very much specific kind of truth. Science is never equivalent to "all kinds of truth" as today's humans perceive. Science is exclusively about a phenomenon which is repeatable. Most truth however are not repeatable thus science is futile about them. An example, do you still remember what you yourself did today but a year ago? Most of us humans can't remember unless there was something truly special happened that day. We 7 billion humans on earth. We thus have 70 billion cases on a single day where humans are futile about what could have possibly happened!!!!!!!!!

 

In the end, humans don't even know what humans themselves are. Humans are basically futile both the past (such as what you yourself just did today but a year ago), and they are futile about the future. However humans can rely on one thing to reach these both ends, that is, past and future by employing the power of faith.

Faith is almost the only and exclusive way for humans to reach the past. Humans have to rely on putting faith in human accounts of testimonies (which are called history) to get to know what could possibly happened in the long past. Humans even have to employ faith to reach a scientific truth. We all know for a fact that black holes exist. Yet when I tried ask for evidence, 99.99% of them don't have the evidence before they "KNOW FOR A FACT" that black holes exist. Now makes you so sure that black holes exist while you don't have the evidence yourself? 

 

In a nutshell, humans don't know what they are doing!

 

Here's what God said:

Isaiah 6:9 (NIV2011)
He said, “Go and tell this people: “ ‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’

 

[Bonky]

10 minutes ago, Hawkins said:

God told me this. 

Humans don't know what faith is, and humans don't know what science is.

Basically, faith is the only way which humans have to rely on to reach a truth of any kind. (Surprised?)

Science is all about a very much specific kind of truth. Science is never equivalent to "all kinds of truth" as today's humans perceive. Science is exclusively about a phenomenon which is repeatable. Most truth however are not repeatable thus science is futile about them. An example, do you still remember what you yourself did today but a year ago? Most of us humans can't remember unless there was something truly special happened that day. We 7 billion humans on earth. We thus have 70 billion cases on a single day where humans are futile about what could have possibly happened!!!!!!!!!

 

In the end, humans don't even know what humans themselves are. Humans are basically futile both the past (such as what you yourself just did today but a year ago), and they are futile about the future. However humans can rely on one thing to reach these both ends, that is, past and future by employing the power of faith.

You started out ok but pulled a fast one at the end.  Your first point sounds acceptable to me...

1. Humans are so feeble in their attempt to navigate reality with any kind of certainty, faith is ultimately deployed for the gaps we are missing.

The 2nd not so much...

2. How has "faith" enabled humans to navigate territory that we couldn't navigate otherwise?  If 10 people employ "faith" but believe things that are ultimately incompatible, who's "faith" is right?  

Edited May 10, 2018 by Bonky

[siegi91]

On 4/18/2018 at 6:53 AM, jrad19 said:

What do you guys think?

 

 

No. Since science includes evolution, and that is clearly incompatible with Christianity, then science is not compatible with faith (in Christianity), unless we arbitrarily modify the definition of what science or Christianity mean. Additionally, the unitarity character of physical laws excludes things like free will and such, which provides definitive evidence of the intellectual disconnect between science and the belief in a supreme being like the Christian God, among others. And the cognitive dissonances that anyone trying to believe in both will necessarily experience. independently from which worldview is the truer one.

And that is not, in my opinion, a problem between conservative Christianity and liberal Christianity. Christianity, both flavors thereof, is incompatible with what is considered standard science today. Period.

To make an example, liberal Christians ridicule Adam and Eve, but they are also creationists (necessarily) and, therefore, as much at odd with modern science as believers in a young earth. From a scientific point of view, the idea of a first human couple is as plausible as the idea of a spiritual agent operating on the evolution of genomes since millions of years correcting the course of natural unguided selection.

So, liberal and conservative Christianity have equal footing here, for what concerns scientific plausibility, and the idea of a liberal Christianity being more scientifically fit is, frankly, untenable. For me, it is obvious that such liberal believers want to have their cake and eat it too, which raises some doubts about their intellectual honesty. But that won't do, I am afraid. They really have to take sides, if they do not want to live with cognitive dissonances, and corrupt both science and the Bible.

However, that does not entail that science and faith (in other tenets different from Christianity) cannot be compatible.  For instance, deism does not seem to be in full contradiction with modern science.

 sieglinde

 

Edited May 13, 2018 by siegi91

[Tristen]

On 5/10/2018 at 9:59 PM, Bonky said:

I guess it depends what you mean by "faith".  There are some folks who have told me that they won't accept any conclusion that goes counter to scripture.  That's not a scientific principle, but they don't care about that, they care about what scripture says as they believe it's inspired by God [and that their interpretation is spot on].  There are plenty of people who have modified their view of scripture based on evidence.  One example is a geologist by the name of Glenn Morton I think [last name not sure] who was a young earth creationist but after he spend some time in the field he said he couldn't hold onto that view anymore.   His philosophical framework appears to be compatible with opposing views based on evidence.

Hey Bonky,

I don't have any problem with someone claiming “they won't accept any conclusion that goes counter to scripture” because conclusions incorporate a culmination of, not only objective elements (such as facts), but also subjective elements (e.g. premises, biases, presuppositions, interpretations etc.).

I would find it problematic if a Christian (or anyone) claimed they would not consider any fact. But raw facts can't speak either for or against scripture. Facts can only speak to the nature of their own extant existence. Implications either for or against scripture can only be attributed through interpretation – which is dependant on the subjective presuppositions of the interpreter. Failing to even consider a fact is contrary to both scientific, critical reasoning, as well as to scripture (which explicitly admonishes Christians to seek truth and “test all things”).

For the sake of making sense of our reality, we all generally agree that we can trust observation (the facts) – which is itself an unverifiable expression of faith. Furthermore, in many cases, we are not making the observations ourselves, but rather trusting in the reported of observations of other humans – which is another level of faith built into the process. Asan interesting side - a recent study found that only 11% of published. landmark, cancer research papers could be reproduced (http://www.nature.com/articles/483531a).

Faith is the only philosophical system making logical provision for certainty. Therefore, no one is ever logically obligated to “accept” a particular “conclusion”. Even facts are subject to some rational measure of scrutiny.

 

I don't think one example of someone changing from creationism to the secular view is any more meaningful than the many geologist (or scientists in other disciplines) who started out secular, but are now creationists. Innuendo about any of them not holding onto their former positions is less relevant than the arguments they use to support their new positions (or denounce their former positions).

[Bonky]

15 hours ago, Tristen said:

Hey Bonky,

I don't have any problem with someone claiming “they won't accept any conclusion that goes counter to scripture” because conclusions incorporate a culmination of, not only objective elements (such as facts), but also subjective elements (e.g. premises, biases, presuppositions, interpretations etc.).

Except the person saying this has concluded that their initial assessment or guidance in these matters is spot on and is infallible. 

15 hours ago, Tristen said:

I don't think one example of someone changing from creationism to the secular view is any more meaningful than the many geologist (or scientists in other disciplines) who started out secular, but are now creationists. Innuendo about any of them not holding onto their former positions is less relevant than the arguments they use to support their new positions (or denounce their former positions).

That wasn't the reason why I mentioned it.   As a matter of fact, Glenn Morton didn't leave Christianity.  He just stated that he could no longer accept young earth creationism based on his field work.  I was just meaning to provide a real life example of someone who went through a fairly major change in religious views/interpretations due to what they viewed solid evidence for an opposing view.  Some people would have kept their views in tact because they aren't open to such modifications in their theism.   

Edited May 20, 2018 by Bonky

[Tristen]

On 5/20/2018 at 8:57 PM, Bonky said:

Except the person saying this has concluded that their initial assessment or guidance in these matters is spot on and is infallible. 

That wasn't the reason why I mentioned it.   As a matter of fact, Glenn Morton didn't leave Christianity.  He just stated that he could no longer accept young earth creationism based on his field work.  I was just meaning to provide a real life example of someone who went through a fairly major change in religious views/interpretations due to what they viewed solid evidence for an opposing view.  Some people would have kept their views in tact because they aren't open to such modifications in their theism.   

“Except the person saying this has concluded that their initial assessment or guidance in these matters is spot on and is infallible”

Everyone thinks that what they believe is correct (otherwise they wouldn't believe it). The person saying “that they won't accept any conclusion that goes counter to scripture” is merely claiming confidence in their current beliefs – which I have no problem with.

However, I do have a problem with people who aren't prepared to give rational consideration to alternative arguments. When it comes to claims which are unverifiable, there is no risk to considering arguments. No one is ever logically obligated to change their mind. At worse, if we can't reconcile some claim, we always have the option of saying “I don't know” - without intellectually compromising our position. So even if we don't think we can be convinced, there is no risk in considering and understanding a different point of view.

I'd also suggest that the inflexibility you describe is common to all beliefs (including secular beliefs). I am often accused of being anti-science, or being scientifically ignorant, or ignoring facts, or somehow otherwise intellectually bereft - based, not on hearing my arguments, but by virtue of me being a creationist. Christians recognise that we have faith in an inerrant authority, but many secularists consider their position to be equally unequivocal.

 

“Glenn Morton didn't leave Christianity. He just stated that he could no longer accept young earth creationism based on his field work. I was just meaning to provide a real life example of someone who went through a fairly major change in religious views/interpretations due to what they viewed solid evidence for an opposing view.”

Right – And I didn't know creationism really existed until I was forced to consider it after converting to Christianity as a young adult. Given my secular upbringing, I was astonished to find that there were sincere creationists. So I had the same kind of paradigm-shifting experience – but arriving at a different conclusion to Morton. What's important is arguments – i.e. the reasons why Morton doesn't think the geological facts can be reconciled to Biblical creationism. The mere fact that someone changed their mind is less meaningful than the reasons behind the change.

 

“Some people would have kept their views in tact because they aren't open to such modifications in their theism”

I agree – though this particular affliction is in no way exclusive to “theism”.

[Bonky]

Deleted post.

Edited May 22, 2018 by Bonky

[Bonky]

11 hours ago, Tristen said:

“Except the person saying this has concluded that their initial assessment or guidance in these matters is spot on and is infallible”

Everyone thinks that what they believe is correct (otherwise they wouldn't believe it). The person saying “that they won't accept any conclusion that goes counter to scripture” is merely claiming confidence in their current beliefs – which I have no problem with.

Aren't we talking about something above and beyond confidence though?   It's not like any of this is settled, far from it.  We're talking about things that happened way in the past and much is relied on "eye witness" which you stated requires another level of faith.  Doesn't sound like something people should hold dogmatic views on but that's just me.

11 hours ago, Tristen said:

However, I do have a problem with people who aren't prepared to give rational consideration to alternative arguments. When it comes to claims which are unverifiable, there is no risk to considering arguments. No one is ever logically obligated to change their mind. At worse, if we can't reconcile some claim, we always have the option of saying “I don't know” - without intellectually compromising our position. So even if we don't think we can be convinced, there is no risk in considering and understanding a different point of view.

I agree.  I feel that I have grown a lot in this area since 12 years ago when I started getting involved in these discussions.  I used to be more dismissive of things but I realized that wasn't wise.

11 hours ago, Tristen said:

I'd also suggest that the inflexibility you describe is common to all beliefs (including secular beliefs). I am often accused of being anti-science, or being scientifically ignorant, or ignoring facts, or somehow otherwise intellectually bereft - based, not on hearing my arguments, but by virtue of me being a creationist. Christians recognise that we have faith in an inerrant authority, but many secularists consider their position to be equally unequivocal.

I agree here too.   Keep in mind now, I have often [and I mean often] heard from Christians that being a non believer must mean "I'm willfully ignorant", "too prideful", and that when this is all over I deserve to be tortured forever.  It goes both ways.

11 hours ago, Tristen said:

“Glenn Morton didn't leave Christianity. He just stated that he could no longer accept young earth creationism based on his field work. I was just meaning to provide a real life example of someone who went through a fairly major change in religious views/interpretations due to what they viewed solid evidence for an opposing view.”

Right – And I didn't know creationism really existed until I was forced to consider it after converting to Christianity as a young adult. Given my secular upbringing, I was astonished to find that there were sincere creationists. So I had the same kind of paradigm-shifting experience – but arriving at a different conclusion to Morton. What's important is arguments – i.e. the reasons why Morton doesn't think the geological facts can be reconciled to Biblical creationism. The mere fact that someone changed their mind is less meaningful than the reasons behind the change.

 

I haven't read his conversion article in years but if you search "Why I Left Young-Earth Creationism" by Glenn Morton he writes about it there.

Edited May 22, 2018 by Bonky