Religion
Related: About this forumReconciling faith and science.
In my view, it is quite easy to reconcile faith and science. Both involve a search for answers. Answers to different questions, to be sure, but a search all the same.
This fragment from a longer article describes on such method of reconciliation:
A) His conception of the relationship of science and faith was rather circumspect, carefully delineating their roles as ways of knowing. Science for him was the methodology for understanding the physical cosmos; revealed religion taught truths important for salvation. He was quite content to observe that the findings of science were in no way discordant with scriptural revelation, and vice versa, but neither should overreach. If Lemaître has a lesson for the science-faith discourse today, that would probably be it.
https://www.americamagazine.org/content/all-things/faith-and-science-georges-lemaitre-11-questions-dr-karl-van-bibber
Many of us recognize this as the NOMA solution, the idea that the 2 fields are non-overlapping, each with its own methods.
I would also say, as my personal opinion, that each involves a search for truth, and in that search for truth, each can lead to the Creator.
I do not mean to imply that any, or all, or most scientists are inevitably led to an awareness of the Creator, but that the Creator, as the one who figuratively lit the spark of creation that was the Big Bang, inevitably values knowledge and any expression of the sentience that is referred to in the phrase from Genesis, 1:27, where it is said that the Creator "created mankind in the image and likeness".
So to my mind, seeking knowledge is growing closer to the Creator.
Ferrets are Cool
(21,110 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I too have faith that science can provide many answers about the nature of the physical universe.
And, having dropped many things while on ladders, some force invisible to the naked eye makes each thing that I drop fall downward.
(Speaking of the naked eye, what would a clothed eye look like?)
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Girard442
(6,086 posts)Otherwise, when it gets full of itself, it does. I decided on my way through life that that is not my problem.
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)If there is no creator, then aren't you being a little self-delusional? Perhaps you should be open to the question, Is there a creator?
I don't think there is one,because I have encountered no reliable evidence of one. I don't know there isn't one, because there is a lot yet to be discovered and parsed.
It's a very important nuance, the difference between "Think" and "Know" one is open and the other is closed.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And based on faith. But I do not claim it as the only choice.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)In religion, how do you know if you've found an answer? How do you know if you are "closer to the creator"?
Mariana
(14,861 posts)For example, The Creator "inevitably values knowledge and any expression of the sentience that is referred to in the phrase from Genesis, 1:27." Add that to the list of things that Gil knows about The Creator.
Although we have a change in one item on the list. Now, The Creator is "the one who figuratively lit the spark of creation that was the Big Bang". I'm not sure if a creator who figuratively lights a spark is figuratively a creator, or if it is actually supposed to exist. That isn't clear. Please mark that down as requiring further study.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Thus my use of the expression lit the spark is a figurative one.
Mariana
(14,861 posts)You can express yourself clearly, when you choose to do so.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And at times, certain readers can choose to misread, or legitimately misread.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)Faith.
Can't ask any more questions after that. He wins again.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Thus the need for faith.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)What ever you have faith in, is your opinion and therefore true for you, and requires no backing, brooks no argument and cannot be challenged by any requirement for evidence.
My opinion.
Magic words.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)marylandblue
(12,344 posts)I did not see it.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I wonder how he knows they are true, and that everyone else's claims are false?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)If you have an answer that works for you, you have your answer.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Thanks for confirming.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But thanks for confirming. Again.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Maybe someday you'll understand.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)I am always willing to confirm that you don't understand what you're talking about.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Many, many things.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Anytime!
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Because you clearly don't buy into it.
That's not a bad thing, by the way. I think anyone with a modicum of intellectual honesty would admit it was a shit idea, hinged completely upon trusting religion to stay behind a line it seemingly cannot help but cross.
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...is that they just recently realized that Science will forever push the line back.
They're already left with not much more than a gap, and they're beginning to see that it can be closed too.
They're fighting back to prevent the extinction of their theosophy.
Fortunately, theirs was a lost cause before they re-engaged, it is already over except for the tears.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)This faith that science will prevail.
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)Can you name ONE thing for which we used to have a scientific explanation, but have abandoned that for a religious one?
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)It's not what we don't know that determines the magisterium, but rather the nature of the question. If you're making a claim about the physical universewhether there's a sentient teapot orbiting Saturn, or whether everything we know was created by an invisible father figure obsessed with guilt trips and foreskinsthen your claim falls into the scientific magisterium, regardless of whether or not science has currently taken a stand on such issues.
Gould figured he could reconcile science and religion by relegating science to the physical universe and religion to questions of morality. The problem is religious types, like the esteemed author of the OP, took this to mean that scientists could only talk about what they know for certain while religionists have free reign over everything else.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)You contradict yourself so often it's difficult to tell whether you're doing it on purpose or just don't realize it. Glad I could help.
Brainstormy
(2,381 posts)edhopper
(33,639 posts)is to completely accept everything science answers and constantly updating ones faith to get in line with science.
To try and reconcile science with faith is a fools errand.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)are separate.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Science for him was the methodology for understanding the physical cosmos; revealed religion taught truths important for salvation.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)marylandblue
(12,344 posts)religion has no role at all?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Salvation and a moral code. Any other areas where religion might be useful?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)marylandblue
(12,344 posts)And furthermore, each believer, as well non-believer, decides for themselves when they have followed NOMA or not?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)marylandblue
(12,344 posts)So NOMA is really just a suggestion? And furthermore, each believer, as well non-believer, decides for themselves when they have followed NOMA or not?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)NOMA is a concept. Freedom is a concept. Equality is a concept.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Freedom is no better or worse than slavery? And any discussion about them is as subjective as comparing vanilla vs. chocolate ice cream?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I did not equate them or prioritize one over the other.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Atheism is a concept. Theism is a concept.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)You said that each believer decides what is useful for them. So if a believer finds NOMA useful, it's useful. If they find it not useful, it is not useful. Likewise for nonbelievers.
Sounds like a suggestion to me, the way I might suggest you visit Tahiti. You might find Tahiti enjoyable. You might not. What else is there to say about it?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Some concepts are what we use to understand things.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Or if my god tells me it's ok, it's ok? I realize you may not like it, but my faith says it's ideal for me to have slaves and fulfills the creator's intent. My slaves may not like it either, but my faith also told me they aren't people, they are property, so it doesn't matter what they think anyway.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)marylandblue
(12,344 posts)I asked you if a concept works for me, is it okay for me, even if you or other people don't like it.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)The concept, or the philosophy, might represent your own views, so the philosophy applies to you but not necessarily to your behavior.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)But the concept works for me, and to paraphrase the Bible, "Concepts without works are dead."
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)marylandblue
(12,344 posts)I don't think I would mind it that much, so it's probably okay. As long as I wouldn't mind if I were a slave, it's okay for me to keep them, I think.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)You simply assert that they are, arbitrarily drop the line where it conveniences you do to so, and act like you don't need qualify your assertions because you've unilaterally decided where in the NOMA they rightfully belong.
This is part of the reason NOMA is a shitty idea. These are not two sides separated by a vast no man's land. They ride up against each other like angry fault lines.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Do science concern itself with morality?
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Scientists study things like what social conditions lead to violence. They also study religion and determine if religion (or a given type of religion) does what it says it does and whether that leads to better outcomes.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Did the scientists who developed napalm or nuclear weapons or weaponized anthrax think of the moral implications?
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Several of them tried to convince Truman not to use it. One of them gave atomic secrets to the Russians so there would be a balance of power. I don't know who developed napalm or weaponized anthrax so I don't what they thought about it.
And social science is still science.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)The answer is yes.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)TomSlick
(11,118 posts)I have no difficulty reconciling science and faith. Faith tells me who and why. Science tells me how and when.
As long as I keep the two authorities in the area in which they are competent, there is no conflict.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)marylandblue
(12,344 posts)TomSlick
(11,118 posts)For those with faith, the answer is clear. For those without faith, no explanation will satisfy.
My faith tells me that there is a Creator who is responsible for everything studied by science. My faith tells me that the act of creation and all that follows is result of the Creator's will.
Voltaire2
(13,213 posts)You insert old sparky into the realm of science claiming, without a shred of evidence, that sparky must have started the Big Bang.
MineralMan
(146,338 posts)NOMA no more...right from the get-go.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And faith, requiring only belief, is satisfied.
If, however, I wrote a science textbook explaining my opinion, that would be crossing over.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Focus on the words science textbook.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Beyond that, incoherence to everyone but yourself at best.
Seems to be par for the course when asked to rephrase something you wrote, you simply refuse.
Very telling that.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Here is the entire text:
59. I gave my religious belief, faith based opinion.
And faith, requiring only belief, is satisfied.
If, however, I wrote a science textbook explaining my opinion, that would be crossing over
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)It sounds even more incoherent.
I would try to rephrase your comment to reveal what it sounds like in the interest of providing communication feedback, but youd just ascibe some other half-fast motivation to it. So Im just content in the belief you have no real interest in substantive discussion.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Im convinced you simply wish to express an opinion without reasonably supporting it. Im further convinced you are capable of providing a near infinite number of excuses for not supporting it.
The lesson here is that had you asked what I was convinced of, I would have given you a direct answer.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Faith and science are separate fields.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Youve been asked about that glaring contradiction a number of times and you are no closer to explaining it. At some point one can safely assume you wont or cant.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But I accept that you have convinced yourself.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)For some those are significant obstacles. Others, not so much.
Voltaire2
(13,213 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)"I can say whatever I want - even directly contradicting myself - without having to explain a thing as long as I say it's backed by faith. Additionally, you need to shut up."
MineralMan
(146,338 posts)of others for some reason? Do you think others should not publish their opinions in this forum? You are publishing your opinion, but not in book form. The Internet is the new Samizdat, you know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samizdat
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Shouldn't we send him to the Gulag? Or is stoning a more appropriate punishment?
Mariana
(14,861 posts)to mean the opposite of what it says, when it's applied to him. Many Christians have plenty of practice doing exactly that with Bible passages that contain clear and direct instructions from Jesus to his followers. We frequently see it in this group.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)The question determines the magisterium. "From whence came the universe" is a scientific question. In providing your "religious belief, faith based opinion" to a scientific question you promptly violated NOMA right after you'd finished extolling it.
You "crossed over" miles back.
Voltaire2
(13,213 posts)and claimed that was only a theological statement.
Instead he inserted sparky directly into a physical event. His godlet starts the Big Bang. That violates NOMA.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)"Science, you stay over there in your box. Meanwhile, I get to decide where my religion steps in that box from time to time."
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Is, "God created the universe" a scientific or religious question, according to NOMA? I'm inclined to believe it would fall under magisterium of science because we're talking about something producing an effect on the physical cosmos.
Voltaire2
(13,213 posts)I meant he could have defended it is a purely theological claim.
But he didnt. He deliberately plopped sparky right smack into the physical universe.
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...between a "magisterium" based on reality and a "magisterium" based on fantasy.
Science doesn't have to reconcile whether Gandalf could have resisted the power of the One Ring and saved Middle Earth from Morgoth's minion.
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)Like reconciling 2+2=4 and 2+2=3. There is no need to reconcile the incorrect answer with the correct one, I fear