POTUS: The Practice of Faith Aided by Science

[Clio the Leo]

This morning speaking at the National Academy of Sciences, the President closed by stressing how science and faith need not be mutually exclusive and how we can use one to aid the other. Once again, he summoned up that original Obama tenet that, together, we are stronger than our individual parts and of the greatness we can achieve when we work WITH each other and not against.

He told the story about how the Apollo 8 astronauts saw the Earth from space for the first time....

(from my own transcription)

One of the astronauts, Bill Anders "would say that the moment would forever change him. To see our world, this pale blue sphere, without borders, without divisions, at once so tranquil and beautiful and alone. "We came all this way to discover the moon," he said, "and the most important thing was that we discovered the Earth."

Yes, scientific innovation offers a chance to achieve prosperity. It has offered us benefits that have improved our health and our lives, improvements we take too easily for granted, but it gives us something more. At root, science forces us to reckon with the truth as best as we can ascertain it and some truths fill us with awe. Others forces us to question long-held views. Science cant' answer every question, indeed, it seems at times the more we plumb the physical world, the more humble we must be. Science cannot supplant our ethics or our values, our principles or our faith. But science can inform those things and help put those values, these moral sentiments, that FAITH, can put those things to work to feed a child, to heal the sick, to be good stewards of this earth.

We are reminded that with each new discovery and the new power it brings, comes new responsibility. The fragility, the sheer specialness of human life requires us to move past our differences and to address our common problems, to endure and continue humanity's strivings for a better world. As President Kennedy said as he addressed the National Academy of Sciences more than forty-five years ago, "the challenge, in short, may be our salvation."

[msongs]

1. Obama is way more of a religion promoter than Bush ever was - Obama's religion that is -

get yer bibles out and read along with barack.

Msongs

[NYC_SKP]

6. I wouldn't say that. Bush pandered to a the Christian Fundamentalist faith.

He did this rather covertly, but promoted their agenda nonetheless.

President Obama is not shy about talking about his faith and the role faith plays in peoples lives.

Meanwhile, his legislation demonstrates that he bases his policies on science.

See lifting of stem-cell research ban for example.

:patriot:

[MoJoWorkin]

2. I wish more people would have heard those words....

to me, perhaps the most eloquent ending to one of his speeches to date--and there have been so many.

I could listen to him forever,as our President, but we only get 8 years.

[Deep13]

3. I genuinely appreciate Obama's promotion of science.

Nevertheless, it and religion are antagonists. Faith and critical thinking are not compatible as one invariably comes at the expense of the other. DesCarte in the early modern period created dualism put a wall around religious question and to exclude it from what are now considered scientific question. (Previous, religion insinuated itself into all manner of human inquiry.) Some 400 years later and that wall is crumbling as scientic answers continue to undermine religious dogma.

[Clio the Leo]

4. I think you may be looking at too large of a picture....

.... the President's point was not "is there a God and did he create the Earth and were there dinosaurs and was Sarah Palin trying to shoot at one of them." :)

But rather ... "As a person of faith, I am morally obligated to help my fellow man .... advances in science HELP me to do that .... science doesn't have to be the enemy."

[Deep13]

5. I know he is not supporting Biblical literalism.

That's not what I meant.

[Clio the Leo]

10. So I'll address something you said specifically...

"Faith and critical thinking are not compatible" ... I realize what you're saying, that often faith requires a belief based on something more than what science has proven or even what seems to be contrary to what science has proven, but, again, that's not the point the President was making.

For example, my mother, as a nurse, went to Panama to give medical aid to the Cuna ... it was her FAITH that sent her .... a belief that, as human beings, we are required by God to care for one another.

But it was through science, through critical thinking, that she carried out the work. The medicine she used to treat with, the techniques she used, were all created in a lab and tested by scientists. She KNEW that. No doubt she would not have administered those medicines or treated her patiences if she felt that her meds or techniques were not scientifically sound. To say that faith cannot exist along side of critical thinking implies she would have stood over her patient and prayed and then hopped back on a plane and come home.

Too often, both the left and the right, want to discount each other feeling that our fundamental beliefs cannot coexist.

The great thing about Barack Obama is that he knows that the truth is that things are often some of this and some of that and a bit of neither. Things dont often fit into the pigeon holes we're used to sticking them into. He KNOWS that faith and science are not mutually exclusive because he uses both of them together every day .... and so do I.

[Teaser]

12. I don't want faith and reason to coexist

I want faith to die.

[Clio the Leo]

14. lol, love it or hate it......

... faith is part of human reason.

And human reason will always exist ... as long as their are humans. ;)

[gblady]

16. personally....

I totally believe that science and faith coexist quite nicely.
They do within my being, that's for sure...
Where spirituality and science collide is the juicy part of life.

[damonm]

22. Good luck with that.

[Deep13]

24. Me too and eventually it will if we survive long enough.

Knowledge is a ratchet. Once someone knows how thinks work, that person can never go back to a magical explanation.

[damonm]

25. Must I quote the Clarke Axiom? n/t

[Deep13]

26. Just because sufficiently advanced technology looks like magic...

...doesn't mean it is.

[damonm]

28. True - I was agreeing with you.

[Deep13]

39. Ah. Sorry.

:hi:

[damonm]

43. No sweat -

we disagree on PLENTY of other stuff...;-)

[Terran]

36. Why? Faith isn't the problem.

Organized religion is the problem. It's a simple matter to have faith and still acknowledge the factual truth of every single thing science has ever discovered. They are not incompatible.

And just fyi, I'm not a conventionally religious person. At all.

[Clio the Leo]

44. And it's not even organized religion....

.... it's man's greed, vanity and the total disregard for the faith he claims to practice.

[renate]

46. thank you

So many people--not just here on DU--feel perfectly free, even proud, to insult the intelligence of others by saying that anybody who believes in a higher consciousness or power is an idiot who doesn't understand science. I've always loved science, I have undergraduate and graduate degrees in scientific fields, I read science books for fun, and sometimes while watching science programs on TV I am brought almost to tears by the beauty of the natural and physical sciences and the way everything fits together so magnificently (personally I don't think that God assembled it all that way, although I respect those who believe it was done deliberately as long as they don't try to keep my kids from learning about evolution).

But even though I love science (or maybe it's because I love it--what is it, exactly, that loves science? Not a bunch of neurons, IMHO, no matter how many of them there are), I happen to think that there's a reason we're here that goes beyond the simple construction of cells from a soup of amino acids and nucleic acids jazzed with radiation and assembled into globules with phospholipid bilayers--I'm not saying I know this, it's just my opinion, and it's as valid as any atheist's because I'm not denying a single scientific or demonstrable fact. I think it's great when people tongue-in-cheek praise the Flying Spaghetti Monster, even though they're rolling their eyes at my silly system of belief, because I completely respect their belief that there is no god. I think it'd be nice if people could agree to disagree politely as long as nobody is shoving their beliefs down anybody else's throat (as is done in some conservative school districts); I know that a lot of fundamentalists are extremely obnoxious about trying to force their opinions on others, to say the least, but plenty of atheists are just as, um, forceful with their opinions about how stupid we non-atheists are.

(Sorry, Terra, this started out as a tiny little thank you for saying that science and faith are not incompatible, and then I thought I'd just add a couple of words. :) )

[noiretextatique]

49. you need faith to get through each day

it takes a lot of faith to get on an airplane, or a subway or get behind the wheel of a car.

[Deep13]

18. Well, I can't argue about what motivated your mother...

...as I don't know her.

Still, even if religion faith motivates noble behavior, it says nothing about the veracity of that faith. Simply put, just because the idea of god motives good behavior does not mean that god is real.

Secondly, faith usually motivates bad behavior. Someone doing charity work may be religious or may not be while someone burning crosses, flying planes into buildings, burning witches, voting for Prop. 8 etc.etc. is nearly always motivated by religion. My own observation is that good deeds are the result of basic human decency even if religious people give god the credit for their effort and compassion.

Faith means accepting a proposed fact without evidence. Science requires proof for everything. You don't see a basic incompatibility there?

[Clio the Leo]

29. I'm afraid you misunderstand faith ...

... as it most certainly does NOT mean accepting something without evidence. Faith is a behavior ... it's something you do. Faith is an action verb .... it's not a noun. ;) (although it's commonly misused as such)

As for your notion that "faith usually motivates bad behavior" .... I'd argue that we give more attention to incidents that claim "faith" as a motivator for bad behavior because they are the exception. If someone blows up an abortion clinic, that is NOT faith as they're acing directly opposed to the Christianity they claim to support. If the King of Spain wants to hold tribunals to asses the piety of his subjects and then persecutes them for what he deems to be failure to behave correctly, again, that is NOT faith as, again, it goes directly against what the Bible teaches. (I'm citing Christianity as an example because I'm more familiar with it and, because, most of the ills of history have been enacted by those claiming to be Christian.)

Sure, faith is prayer....


But it is also forgiveness and humility and a desire to live peacefully with our fellow man.


Sure, people do good to one another all the time without God being their motivator ...... the President said his mother was one of the "most spiritual people" he'd ever known and she did not subscribe to any one formal religion.

But to say that acts of human kindness exist independent of faith as a motivator, discounts the actions of millions of people who do so on a daily basis.

[damonm]

33. When it comes to

faith-based bad behavior, let's not forget 9/11 - driven by a perverted version of Islam.

But overall, I tend to agree with you.

[Clio the Leo]

35. Key word there is "perverted."

... as suicide and murder go against the basic tenents of Islam.

Ironically, OK City bomber Tim McVeigh once said, "science is MY religion."

It just goes to prove that their are extremists in ANY set of beliefs ... none of whom represent the greater whole.

[Deep13]

37. If one believes that an embryo has a soul...

...and that a soul is what defines a person, then anti-abortion is the only ethical point of view. Under that assumption, an early abortion is no different than murder. Under that point of view, one has the duty to do anything possible to protect embryos or fetuses from becoming murder victims. Their logic is solid and so is their theology: You shall do no murder. It is their beliefs that are wrong.

Sorry, but I don't buy the smug interpretation of liberal believers who say that conservative believers are someone corrupting Christianity. I frankly think they are on more solid theological footing than you are. The Bible says to kill unbelievers, foreigners and especially apostates. So the picture of Christianity you are painting is not the Christianity most people follow or have followed for the past 2000 years. And didn't Christianity invent the idea of eternal torment after death for disagreeing with the proposition that JC died for our supposed sins? Did it also not suggest that murdering an innocent person somehow makes us all somehow guiltless? Christianity makes suffering a virtue and for that reason, I can never respect it even though I once believed in it.

And I know full well what faith is and it is based on the acceptance of certain proposed facts. I does actually mean belief without real evidence.

I do not doubt that most believers are good, decent people. I also do not doubt that would have been the case regardless of religion. Of course, again, that has no bearing on whether or not there is a god. And yes, there would be evil without belief in god. Nevertheless, the most consistent source of evil in the world-on both large and small scale-is the justification religion gives us for our hate and violence.

[Clio the Leo]

42. Some scripture would be handy....

... to cite what you're referencing when you say, "The Bible says to kill unbelievers, foreigners and especially apostates."

Conversely, Romans 12 is a passage that I try to live my life by. It seems to be one that the President follows as well. Again, I have NO idea where in the New Testament you can find "The Bible says to kill unbelievers." because if I've somehow missed it.


"Did it also not suggest that murdering an innocent person somehow makes us all somehow guiltless?"

Huh? Again, do you have a scripture for that?

And I have no idea what point you're trying to make with your first paragraph. Nor do I understand what it has to do with my original premise that the President this morning encouraged the notion of using advances in science to aid the believer as she practices her faith. ;)

[ArbustoBuster]

47. Some scripture

Some scripture would be handy to cite what you're referencing when you say, "The Bible says to kill unbelievers, foreigners and especially apostates."

Unbelievers:
Exodus 22:20
"He who sacrifices to any god, other than to the LORD alone, shall be utterly destroyed."
(This one is in a section marked "Sundry Laws". It's not a prophecy. It's a law to be followed.)

Foreigners:
There are a dozen places in the Bible where God sends out his people as an army to slaughter everyone in a particular region. God apparently likes war. No wonder Dubya likes Him.

Especially Apostates:
Deuteronomy 13:6-9
"If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying: Let us go and worship other gods (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other, or gods of other religions), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people."

Deuteronomy 13:13-19
"Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock."

[Clio the Leo]

48. Exodus and Deuteronomy have no bearing on Christianity....

Christians are not subject to the old law as described in Exodus and Deuteronomy (and Leviticus.) Galatians 3 and Hebrews 9 make that abundantly clear (and I can give you more scripture if you like.)

Again, find me New Testament scripture that back up the claim that the other poster was trying to make that Christianity provides justification for man's inhumanity to man.

I'll save you some time..... there isn't any. ;)

[ArbustoBuster]

50. Um...no.

You have a lot lot lot of Christians out there who rely on the Old Testament for their beliefs. Maybe your particular sect of Christianity doesn't, but you're tacking against a very strong headwind if you say the Old Testament has no bearing on Christianity. I'll see your quotes in the Letters of the Apostles and raise with the Ten Commandments. Unless that's been ripped out of Christianity, your entire statement just fell apart. And I can point to dozens of lawsuits that say that there are lots of Christians who hold the Commandments as vital parts of their religious belief. I can also point to lots of Christians who focus their homophobia on parts of the Old Testament.

Before the defense comes up that Christians who use the Old Testament as part of their faith aren't Real Christians...that's the "No True Scotsman" fallacy and is logically invalid...

[empyreanisles]

7. They are not at odds. God wants us to discover our world.

I believe that God created the universe and the laws that bind it. The possibility that he is always observing things is open to debate. He may have just been a creator that did his business and moved on. But either way, we DO exist and have right to learn everything we can about the world we live in.

[Deep13]

8. I notice you phrase it in terms of what god wants.

Accepting the existence of god is necessarily an act of faith based one nothing more than the limitations of our primate brains. The very fact that you have to decide what god wants before deciding to accept free inquiry is a significant limitation on that inquiry. What if you had concluded god wants us to remain ignorant, as many have concluded? I'm pretty convinced there is no god. Even if there were, however, what he wants would not be a factor.

[Teaser]

11. *nods* what a "god" would want is meaningless

assuming the existence of such an implausible being creates absolutely no responsibility at all to it.

[empyreanisles]

15. OK. But can you explain how we got here? How does the universe exist?

It must have been created by SOMETHING. Some force greater than us. I think you can be settled with that fact and still seek to answer the *knowable* through science.

[Deep13]

19. A priori argument from first cause.

There are many forces greater than us that are not gods: gravity, the expansion of the universe, etc. None of them have any intentionality. The mere fact that there is a universe only proves that there is a universe, nothing more. A god makes the question of origin less plausible, not more so because it begs the question of who or what created god. It is only the primate brain that assigns purpose to everything as a way of understanding the ordinary world.

We don't know what is knowable and what is not. So far a lot of thinks once thought to be unknowable or even somehow improper for inquiry are now know to have purely naturalistic explanations. No one can know what tools will be available to science in a century or in 500 years. We must also resit the temptation of filling in the blanks with implausible, supernatural explanations. Even if it turns out that the origin of the universe is forever beyond the understanding of humanity, it does not mean that the right answer is god. God does not win by default. A proposed explanation does not start at 50-50. It starts at zero.

[damonm]

20. With respect, I must disagree...

I have seen a remarkable synthesis of the two in the book The God Theory, by Dr. Bernard Haisch. Dr Haisch is an Astrophysicist who finds Science and Religion both lacking UNLESS melded.

[Deep13]

21. Well, so far science has made tremendous progress... *edit*

...in the past 400 years, usually in the face of powerful opposition by the churches. So far religion has explanaed nothing.

So this book, it does not rely on a priori arguments or what can be called the wishful thinking argument (i.e. people have a need of god for meaning or whatever)?

P.S. I read some of the critics who posted on Amazon. It seems that a priori and "wishful thinking" are exactly what the author relies on. One should approach such arguments with the following understandings. I submit that existence is a precondition for god, not the other way around. And no matter how unlikely the conditions are in our neck of the universe or in the universe as a whole, they must necessarily be that way for us to wonder about them. It should never be surprising for intelligent beings to think the universe is attuned to make their existence possible. If it were different, we would not be here wondering. That is the anthropic principal which essentially is one of perspective. Life will always see the universe as being friendly to it since that friendliness is a precondition for its survival.

1. Just because people want or need something to be true, does not mean it is.

2. Not knowing the answer does not mean god is the right answer. God does not win by default.

[damonm]

23. Check the link, and find out for yourself...

The editorial review should do for an executive summary.

[damonm]

32. Your arguments

can easily go the other way, as well.

1. neither does it mean it isn't.

and 2 doesn't mean God ISN'T the right answer.

Face it, atheists who argue with certitude that God doesn't exist are every bit as faith-based as the religionists who argue with equal certitude that She does. It can't be proven either way, so either belief requires faith.
In this sense, the agnostic has more intellectual honesty.

[Deep13]

38. No. The existence of god is fundamentally a scientific question.

A lack of evidence leaves you at zero, not at a 50-50 chance of "anything is possible." Not everything is possible. No evidence results in a default position of nonexistence subject to any future evidence that is discovered. I wrote an OP in the R/T forum a few months ago with the same title as I put in the subject line and goes in to some detail. The bottom line is that the observational evidence generally and of evolution in particular creates a conclusive circumstantial case against existence. Just because someone's primate brain has caused him or her to impose purpose on everything, does not mean that explanation can win by default. I am taking evidence that excludes any divine intervention in the universe and the default position of nonexistence to conclude that there is no god. That is the honest position. Agnosticism is a point of view that suggests an indecision between sound arguments. That is not where we are.

[damonm]

41. As you wish.

No amount of pseudo-intellectual posturing changes the fact that you have accepted ON FAITH the nonexistence of God. The evidence you cite proves NOTHING - far less than a "conclusive circumstantial case".
To you, it was conclusive because it backed what you have chosen to believe.

But I won't convince you of that any more than you will ever be able to convince me that atheism is anything other than faith. So we're done here.

[spoony]

27. You are entitled to your opinion.

Many of us do not see impossible antagonism there. Centuries of enormous scientific discoveries helmed by religious people apparently didn't, either.

[Deep13]

40. Well, fine, one thing about those religious discoverers, though.

1. They did not know as much as we know now.

2. Had most of these folks claimed a lack of belief, they would have been tortured to death and their papers burned. So pointing to religious free thinkers like DesCartes, Kepler, Newton or Galileo when they had no other option is not entirely honest. What is more is that before the 20th century, among the only people with the time and literate background to do scientific research were churchmen. Given that fact we should not be surprised that a very few of them because accomplished investigators. Today, belief among scientists is increasingly rare and the best of them are almost entirely atheistic.

[BlooInBloo]

51. Yup.

[Teaser]

9. I can't wait for the day when a president can drop any mention of faith at all.

But I'll probably have to wait till I'm 150 or so before that happens.

[Clio the Leo]

13. And you realize that President Obama doesn't speak of faith..

... for political reasons, right? ;)

Nor did he make a point of addressing faith at the National Academy of Sciences because he knew it would be the best forum to court values voters. (ha)

If you want a President who's an Atheist, go out there and help get one elected .... if he's a good Democrat and I agree with most of his platform, I'll vote for him too.

As it is, one of the reasons I voted for Barack was because I felt his approach to life better embraced the Christianity that we both practice. More so than any President I'd seen in my lifetime. He wasn't up there just talking about his faith, he was living it.

And yet, here am I all geeked out about a speech he just gave promoting science ... a speech he was, no doubt, even more geeked to deliver.

Irony.

[AspenRose]

30. Just so I'm clear....

This is what I'm seeing on this thread.

Right-wing christofascist ideologues who shun science = bad

Liberal person of faith who embraces science = also bad

???


:crazy:

[Clio the Leo]

31. lol yep....

.... and we think the right has the monopoly on ideologues. ;)

[damonm]

34. And the screwy thing is...

That the Atheist is every bit as faith-based as those of us who believe, though you'll never get them to admit that...

[Peacetrain]

17. Why should he? He is a Christian and person of faith..that is who he is

Besides, faith issues and science issues are not in anyway related.

That is why the right wing looney tunes who want to put creationism in as a science have no faith. Why would you want to put issues of faith to the scientific method. I often wonder if they ever stopped and thought about that. Probably not, but that is what they are asking for. They are looking for their faith values to be disproved. go figure

Here is a chestnut for you though..

Faith stories are those of a people trying to explain the world around them. In Genesis, you have two creation stories... One in the Garden, ( reflects a Sumerian concept) and one that recreates the Evolution concept. Emptiness, darkness, light, water, simple beings, to the human.. If you stop and think about that for a moment ), at how complicated a concept that was and it became part of a faith tradition. Makes you stop and think.

[and-justice-for-all]

45. Science cant answer every question. & religion can not answer ANY