We Need Two Kinds of Truth: Why I Don't Want Science or Religion to Win
by
Surveys I have seen indicate about 40% of scientists believe in a God to whom one may pray in expectation of an answer. That’s not a god who went off after creating a universe and did something else. That’s a god who is interested in human beings. Forty percent would adhere to that statement.
The numbers are smaller when you ask members of the National Academy of Sciences and there’s various reasons people have proposed why so-called, ‘elite’ scientists have an even lower proportion of believers. But it’s not as devastatingly absent from the scientific community as people might assume based on the fact that the pronouncements that they hear coming from scientists are usually more in the skeptical or even the atheistic perspective.
I think whether or not scientists are believers should not have a whole lot to do with how they conduct science. The fact that I am a believer, as far as I am aware of, has had very little influence on my scientific work. And I think that’s important to keep that distinction. If I am asking a scientific question, it’s the tools of science I should be using and not assuming something supernatural happened in the test tube at that moment and that would explain my data point.
So I do think people of faith and people who don’t have faith are capable of thoughtful ethical decision-making. So any notion that we are becoming less ethical as scientists because of a diminution I think has to be actually countered by arguments to say that a sense of ethical behavior is not distributed to just the people who are in fact interested in spiritual matters.
I think it would diminish the hostilities, which are bad for our culture if more scientists were, in fact, willing to stand up and say that faith and science need not to be in conflict because right now that’s a minority view that doesn’t get heard very much and it’s apparent to some people that we are having more of a cultural war - a war that seems to imply that some worldview needs to win and some world view needs to lose.
I would not want to look forward to a culture where science lost and religious faith became the dominating force for truth. I would not want to live in a culture where faith lost and science, with all of its reductionism and its materialism became the sole source of truth.
I think we need both kinds of truth. I think we need both kinds of world views to the extent that scientists can help with that realization of a dual ways of finding answers to the appropriate kinds of questions that each world view can ask, then I think that would be a good thing.
In Their Own Words is recorded in Big Think's studio. Image courtesy of Shutterstock
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
533 visitors
"I think it would diminish the hostilities, which are bad for our culture if more scientists were, in fact, willing to stand up and say that faith and science need not to be in conflict because right now that’s a minority view that doesn’t get heard very much and it’s apparent to some people that we are having more of a cultural war - a war that seems to imply that some worldview needs to win and some world view needs to lose." —Francis Collins
Dear Friend Calbab: The only way for anyone to win is for no one to lose.
Quotation posted makes a good point.
Glad you posted this.
Peace and Abundant Blessings Always.
Enoch.
No one needs to lose. I know what science is doing around me, and I can feel what faith is doing in me. Therefore, my proof is I radiate!
Sorry, faith and the scientific method are diametrically opposed. I seriously doubt that 40% figure.
OKAY! The 40 percent figure is sadly not properly dated ("Over a year") in the article. So, it could be less or more (scientists) by now.
Last I heard it was no hard scientists and only 6% of social scientists.
It really does not matter anyway does it? What would be interesting is to see if any of the believer scientists can offer evidence to corroborate their religious beliefs. If not, it does not matter if they are scientists or UPS drivers. Mere beliefs based solely on faith have no explanatory power ... basically of no real value.
From whom did you 'hear' It?
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Agreed. It sickens me to watch the success of con-artists like Ken Ham. Ham is unfortunately competent and is successfully indoctrinating children into his YEC nonsense. That is why I prefer the approach of people like Dr. Collins. Dr. Collins holds true to science (for the most part), explains science (through biologos.com) to Christians and treats belief in God as a 'possibility' rather than a 'certainty'. I do not agree with him on many things, but his approach is IMO net positive and intellectually honest (in contrast to the likes of Ham).
Not as much as it sickens me that some people are so woefully or willfully ignorant or just plain delusional enough to actually follow or believe Mr. Ham.
I have long since understood and appreciated Dr. Collins. He is the founder of biologos.com - a Christian group of scientists who do a rather good job of explaining real science to religious people. This is in stark contrast to Answers in Genesis that seeks to mangle or discredit science to support their Young Earth Creationist, biblically literal belief system.
Dr. Collins, et. al. holds true to the findings of science. BioLogos does not, for example, deny evolution but rather explains it in detail. They falter a bit on human beings and I do not hold back my criticism for this failure in objectivity. But for the super majority of cases, their explanations of science are very credible and exceptionally good for their intended audience.
As for scientists believing in a god (as in a creator entity), there is no real conflict with science. As I have noted repeatedly, science does not preclude a creator entity. It has no evidence to support a God hypothesis but that does not make creation impossible. And, trust me, if evidence emerges of a creator, science will be all over it with enormous enthusiasm. It is simply the case that, to date, there just is nothing that leads a scientist to pursue a God hypothesis properly using the scientific method. Scientists such as Dr. Collins hold a belief in a god based on philosophical factors, not based on the scientific method.
Finally, Dr. Collins, et. al. will disappoint you (to some degree) when it comes to their interpretations of the Bible. Generally (from what I have observed) they encourage theists to view the Bible metaphorically. They do not, for example, hold that stories such as Noah's flood, Tower of Babel, Adam & Eve, etc. are literally true. But they do believe in Jesus' resurrection and thus His divinity.
Bottom line, BioLogos provides a good service, I think, for a society that is so entrenched in biblical faith that at times it cannot process the overwhelming evidence that the Bible is not divine. It reaches out to Christians (and other believers) to explain science in a non-threatening manner. Yes their explanations can make some uncomfortable but ultimately they hold true to the really important (to believers) aspects of Christianity. In my opinion, this is a step in the right direction even though I do not agree with everything they write (obviously).
My Sainted Mother managed to keep the two separate from one another (Registered Nurse) balancing her religious beliefs and the temporal. As TiG mentions she realized that many of the teachings were based on metaphorical representations not literal fact.
Good seed.
Thank you. I am enjoying these words and sentiments emanating from this scientist and faith person. (Smile.)
This quote is from the article above, however I do want to point out that on the website (Big Think Interview) it only gives an estimate of the date of the interview: "Over one year." That's frustrating to me. If I find the program interview actual date I will attach it to this comment.
Is this the point of your seed - that there are scientists who believe in a god (varying definitions of that term - including 'creator entity')?
Frankly, the more interesting question of scientists would be: Do you believe the God of the Bible exists?
Even more interesting would be: Do you believe the Bible is divine truth?
Those questions would reveal the critical thinking aspect of the scientists. Remember, I have noted for years that -based on modern science- a creator entity is a possibility. It is not at all be surprising that a minority of scientists (PEW shows 33%) hold a belief in a 'creator entity'. It would be interesting (and surprising), however, if many scientists actually believed that Yahweh (as described by the Bible) exists.
exactly. It's already been known that there are scientists who hold a belief in a "creator entity" -- it's nothing new. I'm not sure what the point of the seed is. I think there's a misunderstanding between "creator entity" and an entity existing as described in the Bible.
TiG, the point of the article is its unassuming title, We Need Two Kinds of Truth: Why I Don't Want Science or Religion to Win
Dear Friend, Brother in Spirit and Treasured Writing Partner Calbab: Let me post a few ideas to see if they advance the central thesis of this article.
Asher Ginsberg wrote under the pen name Achad Ha Am (Hebrew for One of the People).
In his seminal work Nikudah ha Yud (loosely translated as The Point of a Vowel Point) Ha Am he makes the dichotomy between an archeological and a historical truth.
This is his illuminating example of that distinction.
Tefillin (pre-dawn and morning prayer garments) are in part square in shape.
In the Torah we are commanded to wear them at early morning services (with some technical exceptions that are beyond the scope of the point here).
The Torah commands us to wear them.
It doesn't say how they are shaped.
That information, and other on point specifics come from Scriptural commentaries (Talmud).
Suppose, poses that author we had a way to discern that the original shape of the Tefillin blocks were round, not square in form.
Then the archeological truth would be established that Tefillin are in block shaped round, not square.
However, the historical truth that cannot be so easily dismissed is this.
That the shape of Tefillin adorned by the vast majority of Torah true observant Jewish People that did in fact play a part in nourishing their souls for the majority of the now about six thousand years was and is square not round.
We are fulfilling our end of the unique relationship of the covenant we have with the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; Sarah, Rebeca, Rachel and Leah; the G-d of Israel with square not round items in this case.
So let the books record the newly discovered archeological truth. One irrefutable truth.
And let the Jewish People who do so continue to wear square Tefillin.
Give science what it yields.
Give what has established and continues to proves itself over and over again over thousands of years of history its proper due.
As William James wrote in his incisive work, Varieties of Religious Experience the pragmatic approach to life is to engage what works best in any given context.
This ought easily to resolve alleged tensions between science and religion.
For the physical world employ a reductionist empirical model of epistemology. A Posteriori, inductive; the works.
For things that go beyond that level of reality, ascend to metaphysics.
Ascribe entities and their interrelations with the methods and language of metaphysics.
Pragmatism.
Use what works best in each context.
I encourage you to generate an example from your full rich religious heritage which can convey the same point in an analogous or better way.
Peace and Abundant Blessings to You, and All Who Post Here; Whatever Be Their Point of View.
We are all in this life together.
E Pluribus Unum.
From the many, one.
Could it be that searching for, and using what works best where it works can bring together those who generally go separately?
Stranger things have and will continue to happen over the course of time for us.
Enoch.
Brother Enoch, both apropo and clarifying. For several hours I have been delaying over posting a certain video here or making a separate article out of it. I have decided to post it here and let it make a statement. I think you, we, others will see it explanatory and interesting:
Hungry for meaning: Why
there is no conflict between science and
spirituality| Rob Bell
Thank you immensely, for helping me decide.
Dear Brother Calbab: This video is a perfect companion piece to this discussion thread.
I recommend all interested in this topic view it with an open mind.
Great call sharing it.
Peace and Abundant Blessings To One and All Here, On the Site, and Everywhere Whatever Their Position on These Matters.
Enoch.
Science has already "won". Scientific theories are verifiable; mythology and superstition isn't.
Your mind is closed, then? By the way, throwing around various so-called "qualifiers" loosely, is not precise communication.
The article was written by a Christian.
Are you stating that the author is promoting Buddhism, Hinduism, Native American and other faiths that might be incompatible with science?
Hi Mocowgirl! Dr. Francis Collins used the phrases, "people of faith," and "religious faith" above. There is a link in the article to the complete interview on Big Think!
I don't like double speak. I have zero tolerance for people with hidden agendas.
People should state plainly what they mean and mean what they say.
Collins has clearly stated that he is member of the Christian faith and promoting belief in the Christian god, Yahweh, to the exclusion of belief in all other gods and all other belief systems.
I agree with TiG that we need to know which scientists believe in the possibility of a generic creator and which scientists believe in the certainty of the existence of the god, Yahweh.
Got it. So what do you need from me? You have the interview like I do. I do not have his book, THE LANGUAGE OF GOD, to share with you. You answer (about other religions roles in his commentary) may be outside the scope of this discussion.
Acknowledgement that the only faith that Collins is promoting is the Christian faith.
Acknowledgement that the only religion that Collins is promoting is the Christian religion.
Acknowledgement that we do not have accurate poll data on how many scientists believe in Yahweh vs how many scientists believe in the possibility of a nameless, unknown sentient creator. Unless we have accurate data, then trying to lump them all together to advance the Christian religion should be unacceptable to anyone who has any ethics.
That's what Dr. Collins stated. Why are you wanting me, or yourself for that matter, to acknowledge some specific detail into the above that Dr. Collins did not? I accept it on face-value he is speaking of world religions in the scientific community.
And I do not care about insinuations. It is a nice article to me and that is all I care about it. If Dr. Collins has an agenda it is appears to be to answer the Interviewer honestly and firmly. Note, the article is not dated (here or in the link), I mentioned this above. Consequently, I can not announce how long ago or near ago this presentation was done.
Great citations Mocowgirl!
Yes, because biological evolution absolutely nukes the Biblical God (but doesn't rule out the impersonal, non-intervening Deistic God). BE depends on natural selection - a default mechanism that passively selects winners and losers, based on the survival advantages of their random genetic mutations while they struggle to exist in a changing environment. In short, the science is that life exists as a composite of successful random mutations, known to be random because some are helpful, most are neutral, while some a harmful. This explains why some children are born deformed and diseased; they exist as evolutionary expressions of the genetic diversity of life - not because of original sin. Alternatively, they were afflicted on purpose by God. :/
BE tells us that life exists as it does unplanned. One quick scan of the fossil record, with its parade of freakish and bizarre creatures, tells us that life improves - it makes it up as it goes along. This is the exact opposite of planned. No Plan - No Planner.
Stop coopting natural science and claiming it for your God! Ahhhggg! Existence doesn't need a scientist to exist. Nature doesn't need a creator.
No scientist can be a Creationist, even one claiming "theistic evolution" (which is just another form of Creationism and not science). BE is science. It should be obvious to everyone that natural science (biology, geology, astronomy, chemistry, physics...) and supernatural theistic faith are, without exception, incontrovertibly irreconcilable.
Good job exposing the fact that such scientists are being intellectually dishonest when they make such foolish proclamations.
I really don't care what believers believe, as long as they do no harm, they keep it out of government, and they don't call it science!
This is a great video to watch and go over, guys!
And here I thought that the new CoC didn't allow this sort of religious seed.
I'm sorry, Cal and Enoch, but science kicks religion's ass. Science has hit religion with so many rights, religion is practically begging for a left!
I think science and religion can coexist up to the point where religion contradicts well-founded findings of science (and engineering). For example, there is no coexistence for religions that reject evolution or insist that the world was flooded or that the planet is less than 10,000 years old.
There is a coexistence with religions that (in effect) simply hold that there is a creator entity (but no ridiculous stories of floods, etc. or attributes such as omniscience). Most religions, however, cross this line and assert as truth things that simply fly in the face of modern knowledge. That kills coexistence.
Dear Friend TiG: You are a serious thinker.
You may wish to read the following works by Alfred North Whitehead.
They may speak to some of your concerns.
Titles of note are: Process and Reality, Religion in the Making and Science and Philosophy.
You may also want to read the works of E. Hemple and C. Nagel from Princeton University in the 1960's and 70's on Emergent Properties.
If you do read these I would encourage you to write an original article sharing your reactions and original thoughts on these topics of note.
Let me know if this is the pathway you take.
I would be interested in reading your own article(s).
My take is that science and religion can best co-exist when each deals from its own strengths, on its own terms unhindered by the first principles and preconceived notions of those who are not very well versed in their specializations.
For our purposes here, I would combine science and technology.
Technology is mostly applied science.
Science can be theoretical, applied or both.
We probably differ in what co-existence of religion, science and technology means.
They are distinctly different disciplines, dealing with widely different kinds of things in very varied ways.
For example, what are the number of electrons in the valence shell of an atom on an act of compassion?
What are the physical and chemical properties of a moral act?
What is the cellular structure of a comforting word?
You may want to read Gilbert Ryle's, Dogma of the Ghost in A Machine.
Give particular attention to the idea of a category mistake.
Our good friend and my treasured writing partner Calbab and I co-authored an article entitled, "Scriptural Orchard" here on the news talkers.
You may want to read it.
Not all religion (in fact most) know that other than technical manuals most writings are not intended to be taken 100% literally.
Each in our own way, we address this.
Co-Existence of religion, science and technology is easy once neither assumes that it can define what the other is doing on its own terms.
That advances neither.
It also undercuts the credibility of anyone trying to use one to attack and/or do away with the other.
Where science and technology do well is on the most basic levels of physical reality and their inter-relations.
In higher levels, like Metaphysics they do very poorly. And vice versa.
This isn't an either/or.Both are an important part of life.
None of this is particularly new.
If your Midrashic Hebrew is up to snuff, read Maimonides Moreh Ha Nebuchim (Guide for the Perplexed).
After all this time, it holds up for those who are religious and want the benefits of science and technology without giving up the good gifts of religion.
Moreh Ha Teshuvahee (Guide for the Repentant) in the mid 1970's makes the opposite case. It is the companion piece.
It shows how those who want the benefits of science and technology can keep them without shutting themselves off from what the humanities, religion among them provide.
Good work TiG.
This life has elements which are subtle and complex.
There is room for one and all.
It all boils down to freedom of choice.
Let each decide what brings out their better side.
Give them room to run with it.
As the Rev. Norman Vincent Peale used to write, The Power of Positive Thinking.
Peace and Abundant Blessings Always.
Enoch.
In principle I agree, but practically speaking there are problems.
My point is that human beings have learned quite a bit since the times in which most religions were formed. This knowledge illustrates -many examples- where the religious views are just flat out wrong.
I can see religions coexisting with science if the religions were to simply not invent things. A religion could posit a creator entity - a supreme entity (of unknown origin and form) that created the known universe. Period. Nothing more about the entity. No attributes of perfection, loving, omniscient, etc. No personality or desires, no promises, no rules. Just sentient creator. Next the religion could offer philosophies such as love thy neighbor, all life is precious, do no harm, etc. In a sense this is abstract deism coupled with philosophical wisdom - wisdom that has evolved over the ages.
That religion could coexist with science quite well. Unfortunately, outside of more philosophical 'religions' such as Buddhism most every religion on the planet is rich with invented 'truths' and those inventions will almost certainly clash with modern knowledge.
This Jedi Knight prefers to think of a "force" (for lack of a better word).
My friends Enoch and Cal
The concept of co-existence of science and religion appears to change as knowledge of the physical world expands. Most religions that are practiced today have their roots in the Penteuch and the New Testament. This is universally true of the three primary monotheistic religions. These two books were written for people 2700, 2100, and then added to in the Q'ran 1300 years ago. Those books all give instruction or moralistic interpretation of scientific principles. They remain the same document.
Let me give a few examples.....In the Penteuch the dietary laws that the Israelites had to follow are laid out. Those laws were absolutely brilliant in the world of man 2500 years ago. Pork killed people. Many people died from the ingestion of certain types of fish. The writers saw this and listed prohibitions. In the 21st century, we understand diet and health better. The question becomes why can't those laws be updated to meet the realities of science.
In both the Penteuch and New Testament there are admonitions against homosexuality as abominations. These were there partially because the books were trying to give those who adopted the religion, a strong family base. We now know that there is a scientific reason that people are homosexual, transgender, etc. It is biological, not immoral. Again, why can't religious texts be updated to recognize scientific reality?
We all know that the earth is billions of years old, not 6000 years old. We have proven evolution as a fact. This is science. Perhaps the way to get science and religion to co-exist is to render unto science that which belongs to science and to render unto religion that which is known only by faith. In that way the believer and the non-believer should be able to co-exist well. This would also be a way that many who left religion could come back without the conflict between the two.
1. The Force.
2. Higher Power.
3. Powers That Be.
4. The Cosmos. ("All that is or ever was or ever will be." — Carl Sagan.)
5. Creator Entity.
6. Supreme Entity
All expressions, apparently, of people reaching out to something higher than themselves.
Dear Friend TiG: That is your interpretation.
You are most welcome and entitled to it.
In my case, having been at this since age three (67 1/2 years ago) knowing these things in their original languages on numbers of levels of commentary over six thousand years or so of refinement I do not see things that way.
None of the things in your post touch what I and mine are doing.
For those for whom it does, if that is the case they can address it if they wish.
All this said, when people come to me, whoever they are, whatever they do or do not believe I will always be there for them in ways that speak to them and their needs.
I do that because of my commitment to the ways of my people and our heritage.
I do that for those who not only disagree, but snark, troll, derail, disrespect, and go negative on what matters to me and mine.
When others need me, I will be there for them.
I make no apologies for that.
I encourage you to read the texts suggested.
I have confidence you can do it, difficult though they are.
Please advise when you write on them, or any other original article you generate for consideration on this site, or other venue.
Peace and Abundant Blessings Always.
Enoch.
Because that would violate the principle reason for dogma - the claim that the words in question are the immutable views of an invisible but all-powerful sociopath. It would ultimately result in a loss of control not just by priests but by all who rely on those texts to condemn and control others.
How else would you describe an invisible sky fairy who murders all the innocent first-born of Egypt (including farm animals) merely because he's pissed at the Pharaoh? Is he merely a fairy with a bad temper and extremely bad aim?
I do not see how what I wrote is simply dismissed as 'interpretation'. Is it not a fact that, using one of my examples, a religion that claims the Earth is less than 10,000 years old is fundamentally contradicting well founded science?
I accept that Enoch, but I was not talking about a particular religion but the concept of religion in general (includes all religions).
Not sure what my [that] way is per my post, but I am interested in how you see things. From your description I might be able to infer what you consider to be my way.
Hello DocPhil:
A fair question. Quick answers.
1. The NT has no dietary prohibitions (though having a few/some in place could help "the obesity-challenged.") By the way, modern science has not properly or suitably equipped people to be socially or fit.
2. The NT does care for (and wrote letters to) and takes special notice of the family. This is true. The NT takes care and notice of compassion, too. It seems the subtlety of Jesus showing compassion to the lost; Jesus making 'command' decisions to forgive; Jesus upbraiding self-righteous individuals and groups for their attitudes and behaviors when pushing themselves into the Kingdom of God ahead of seeing to the outcasts. Well, Jesus did warn, "The first will be last." As a reminder to all to show humility, love, and proper faith to others.
3. It is not reasonable to ask non-Young Earthers, non-Flat earthers, and non-extreme religionists to discuss another group's interest, stances, or doctrines.
More later, please.
This is a great deal of contempt. Not much else in there, Shrekk! Did you mean it to come out to the public this way? Let's strive to leave something constructive along with every comment! (Smile.)
Or maybe a mad Titan trying to maintain balance in the universe by wiping out half of all life?
This chronology is important. The last of the world's great religions, Islam, was born over a thousand years ago. Long before the Reformation. Long before the Enlightenment. Long before the Industrial Revolution. Long before the birth of "natural philosophy". Basically, before our world existed.
As all those movements combined to increase our understanding of the physical world, religions were faced with a choice: evolve in step with all the new knowledge, or deny the reality of that new knowledge.
We hear a lot about the religions that have denied knowledge, because they have sometimes rendered themselves spectacularly ridiculous, and have sometimes imposed factually erroneous (and ultimately immoral) policies in the name of their religion.
We hear little about the religions (including a significant portion of Christianity, much of modern Judaism, and even part of Islam) that have adapted their tenets to conform to physical reality.
IMHO, it's important for non-believers to take note that not all believers are denialists. Tarring with too broad a brush is insulting to those who both believe in God and the "standard model", and therefore counterproductive. If non-believers are as sectarian as religious fundamentalists, we're not going to find any good solutions.
Given.
Not clear why you wrote that as a reply to my post since I did not make a sweeping generalization.
My post focused on the nature of a religion that would coexist with science (and modern knowledge in general).
REVISED:
1. The Force.
2. Higher Power.
3. Powers That Be.
4. The Cosmos. ("All that is or ever was or ever will be." — Carl Sagan.)
5. Creator Entity.
6. Supreme Entity.
7. The Grandest Possible Entity.
All expressions, apparently, of people reaching out to something higher than themselves.
Your post was a good springboard.
Something human beings seem to do naturally. Probably because it is obvious that human beings are tiny cogs in a very large mechanism whose origin is unknown. Not really all that surprising.
Why? Skrekk brings up a good point.
I think that's only true of people who have a natural impulse towards subservience.
Try me! According to religious lore, god murders all the innocent first-born of Egypt. That's a pretty messed up and psychotic thing to do. I'm not sure how such an action is logically or morally defensible. So Skrekk's assessment seems rather spot on.
Been trying to change Orion to Vegas Elvis for a long time. Neil Tyson says no.
Your deflection is noted. And your refusal (or inability) to explain only serves to prove Skrekk and myself are correct.
You clearly don't understand what a logical fallacy is.
You haven't proved either of us wrong. Your refusal to address the points made only shows an inability to do so on your part. If you're going to act smug and claim we cannot understand, then you should at least be able to back it up with an attempt to explain. Otherwise, such smugness and deflection only makes you look foolish and our points stand unchallenged.
I suppose such a juvenile response makes you FEEL better. But you just continue to prove my point.
You seem confused.
How droll. You still haven't addressed either of our points.
Explain how Skrekk or I apparently do not understand.
Actually prefer to think internal power rather than external.
Well, that's just hyperbole and foul language.
I thought it was mainly humor.
"I would not want to look forward to a culture where science lost and religious faith became the dominating force for truth. I would not want to live in a culture where faith lost and science, with all of its reductionism and its materialism became the sole source of truth.
I think we need both kinds of truth. I think we need both kinds of world views to the extent that scientists can help with that realization of a dual ways of finding answers to the appropriate kinds of questions that each world view can ask, then I think that would be a good thing."
I think the best analogy to represent the two supposed "truths", science and religious faith, that this author is talking about would be the difference between a medical doctor and a psychologist. One deals with physical facts or symptoms they can examine and categorize while the other deals with the immaterial feelings and emotions that are far more difficult to quantify and examine. When you get a traumatic injury you don't go to a psychologist to have him fix your broken bones or internal bleeding. You also don't go to a medical doctor when your angry at a co-worker for stealing the lunch you put in the fridge or are upset at your husband because he cheated on you. In the same way, science tells us a lot about what we can physically examine, you go to a scientist when you need to know the amount of fuel needed and trajectory to get a certain satellite weight into orbit or want to know the current climate change trends, not to your local priest to simply pray that the satellite makes it.
So yes, I feel most people do need both, science facts and spiritual faith, though I wouldn't necessarily call them both "truths" as the science one certainly could be but the spiritual one is going to be based on feelings and opinions coming from various religious persons or religions. And when one tries to do the job of the other you often get disaster, like the Christian science couple who let their child die because they didn't believe in doctors and science but just prayed for their child to beat a very real illness.
Damn! The first time we've ever disagreed on anything.
I said most people, not everyone needs spiritual faith. And I don't believe anyone should listen to established religion to find their faith, you'll find nothing but charlatans, snake oil salesmen and narcissists using fear and emotions to control people and to keep their coffers full.
I believe "spiritual faith" to be more of a meditative state of mind which deals more with our inner emotions and ability to process our position in the universe, as small specks of dust on a tiny piece of gravel hurtling around a hot coal that is just one speck among trillions upon trillions. That concept takes a bit of reflection and an inner conversation with our id, ego and super-ego.
Some people need psychologists to wrap their minds around their own existence, others can simply be amazed at the beauty and grandeur of our natural world as science unravels its secrets.
Speaking of snake oil salesmen, just watched Little Big Man last night. (Again).
I agree but I hope that over time fewer people need to rely on any form of superstition.
Well, we are not all going to JUST rely on science. Doing so would be unreasonable, unacceptable, and not required of us. There are other ways of knowing available to us. We should use every method of knowledge available and in its proper context.
As long as it is actual knowledge. And that is the problem, is it not? How do we verify that what we think we perceive is real? Ultimately we need independent verification, evidence and sound reasoning.
For example, the sensation of euphoria while praying is not evidence that praying is communicating with anything, much less the grandest possible entity.
1. Define what you mean by actual knowledge, please.
2. Objectivity? Universalism? Or, something testable in a lab? Please elaborate.
3. Euphoria when praying should not be confused with communication. Who would think so?
how can you independently verify that it is communication with anything (including the grandest possible entity) ? what is your evidence ?
I did in my post - you even quoted it. "Ultimately we need independent verification, evidence and sound reasoning." Actual knowledge means verifiable fact as opposed to feelings, emotions, delusion, fantasy.
Independent verification.
Exactly my point! So when someone is praying and walks away with a heightened feeling of some sort, that does not mean they actually communicated with the grandest possible entity.
You did not clarify your comment. But, I am okay with that by now. Moving on.
Give me a break.
The phrase ' real knowledge ' is not difficult (e.g. think the opposite of ' delusion ') and I even explained it in my first post. You needed another explanation so I (giving you the benefit of the doubt) added to it with my second post. At this point if you cannot understand this relatively simply notion it is not because of me.
Too argumentative! Too combative.
Why not? Science gives us the best possible explanations and evidence.
As opposed to religion?
Sure, but it's about actual knowledge and factual and accurate information.
Simply put: it is about the ever-changing state of [insert your designation here] definitions. Soon [insert your designation here] human 'perfection' is going to box you into a position no human can operate at for long.
I talk to God all time. Sometimes, I bring in my family.
We need science for a fact. And, I don't see it getting in the way of religion nor vice versa.
All the two do is create controversy.
Don't you mean you talk AT God? Pretty sure you do.
No........to!
"to" suggests a real two way conversation. Is that what you are implying?
yes
please see comment #9. my fault for not posting it correctly.
Could be Satan you are really chatting with. Do you two use Instagram when doing so? Facebook? Skype? Discord?
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh.....funny!
But it does. YEC believe the Earth is <10,000 years old. When they push this nonsense (successfully) they introduce more ignorance into society. This is but one example.
When religion makes claims that are obviously false of disproven by science, then religion does try to get in the way of science by pushing dogma over actual fact.
In response to Magnoliaave (i forgot to hit "reply" apparently, i apologize)
how are you able to independently verify that it is really God you are talking to ? (just a question, not a statement on your beliefs)
For all my years there were no requirements. Are there some now?
no no, i don't want any miscommunication. I'm not stating there are requirements or that there aren't. I'm asking how you are able to independently verify that it is God you are talking ?? -- what is your criteria you used to determine that it was God ? (you may have none, and that's fine too. we are all different.)
Phoenyx is asking how you know that you are communicating (two-way) with the grandest possible entity. It is a given that you believe you are having a conversation with the creator of everything. Phoenyx is asking what evidence leads you to believe that the ultimate sentient force is having a chat with you.
I understood it the first time, but thank you.
Well, first of all He says.....Hi, I am God! What's on your mind? or, I may, God, you got a minute?
ok. So if i said "Hi, I am God! What's on your mind?" - would that mean (to you) that i am God ? (just a question, not denigrating or anything of that nature)
Isn't it said that satan is the great deceiver ? So, did you get verification ?
(Just messin with ya.) lol
Seriously, I could give you a real eye opener, but I am not. I won't allow ridicule nor condescending remarks.
I am out!
secret password.
Of course, you would never denigrate or anything like that.
i have been to people in the past (who hasn't ? we are all human) but i put in that disclaimer in an effort to communicate that i'm not trying to denigrate you - just trying to get an answer to the question. i apologize if you took offense to it.
*sigh* maybe one day you'll get it right. I accept she has faith in a God (higher entity etc), that's not the issue nor what we were discussing. Are you done playing the "victim card" now ?
(Skirting) Telo
yes we all get it - asking "questions" is now "attacking" your faith. are you done playing the "victim card" yet ? (the odd thing is - if you don't want to answer a question, you really don't have to and can just walk away.. no one is forcing you, odd right ?)
sorry, your psychological projection will not work. There was no need to comment in the manner you did unless you felt someone was "attacking" that person's faith. To suggest otherwise is dishonest at best.
curiosity - ever hear of it ?
and i haven't suggested otherwise. I'm simply asking questions - which gets under your skin for some reason.
it seems the last word is usually (shocker) "Impasse."
Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]
Isn't that pretty much what David Berkowitz said, that his neighbor's dog told him who to murder?
“Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.”
― Richard Feynman
“I don't argue things being spiritual vs scientific, because I've never met anyone who knows enough about either to be convincing--including myself.”
― S. Kelley Harrell, M. Div.
Unfortunately, they conflict.
When a mother refuses on religious grounds to allow doctors to give her child a blood infusion (to save the child's life) we have a clash between religious belief and medical science.
So yes religion and science are certainly different but that does not mean they are, in practice, independent and can peacefully coexist. (For the most part they can, but not entirely.)
I think they call that "Choice", with all it's consequences !
We don't live in "Sanctuary" or the "Star Trek" Era yet !
Yes, that is true. But clearly the conflict (the point I made) is still there.
The Heaven's Gate cult made the 'choice' to take poison to catch the Haley spaceship to Heaven prior to the Earth's imminent recycling. That was their choice, no question, but it was also a clear conflict between religious views and science (as well as common sense, reality, ...).
The only ones "Conflicted" are the ones looking from the outside in. To many times, people in the know, don't actually know.
“I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.”
― Plato, The Republic
A truly amazing response given this is what you responded to:
Really?
You do not see the conflict between the example suicidal religious belief and science (reality actually) in this example??
"The Spaceship scenario" was their religion. Their choice, they're issue, they are now dead. Oh well.
Alien Spacecraft's have been debated for decades, either for or against. Your point ?
You make no distinction between 'zany' groups that are more non-profit associations than mainstream religions? How about this? Do you associate your scientific endeavorings with 'bad' and 'mad scientists.'? Where does commonsense kick in and coarse through these non-stop discussions?
Note: I am dipping in and out of this thread right now as I am busy. I hope the above came out as sincerely as I mean it!
They all seem zany to me, so I wouldn't make much of a distinction outside of degree of zaniness.
Is it reasonable to call "good" religious people names Peter? Do you see no differences whatsoever in people who stay away from extremes and those who rush to the extremes in the sciences and world religions?
Which names?
Do I associate all believers with some degree of cult activity? Yes. Because all religions are fundamentally cults. Therefore all such believers must be cultists.
be careful with the "cult" word - there are many sensitive religious people on NT.
That was an extreme example to make a point. Rather obvious.
You mean other than illustrating conflict between religious beliefs and science (and reality) with a rather stark example?
You don't hear them asking because it hits a little too close to home. Nobody wants that lol.
so i take it that you are not a fan of using the English words properly ?
ah, so now you are suggesting anyone who uses the word "cult" instead of "religion" is no longer a decent human - very classy insulting people like that.
cult is a synonym for religion just like sect and doctrine - but you don't seem to have an issue with those words oddly. i don't hear one person ask another "what doctrine to you belong to ?".
the meaning of the word is:
which is how it is used. I don't say "Pass me the cult and some butter please !" and neither does anyone else since that is not how to use it nor has anything to do with it's meaning. It's real nice that you have this pretend battle of "believers vs non-believers" in your mind on NT, but not everyone plays those little games.
Unfortunately. But that's ok. Science will get us there eventually.
there's no choice - it clearly is an insult:
because if you use logic then logic dictates that by your own statement - non-decent humans use the word cult instead of religion. You don't think that's an insult ? My posts don't make any suggestions of that nature and i even put disclaimers on them so people understand my viewpoint better - i'm simply asking questions.
Not so obvious, if I felt the need to ask further clarification.
If you know that cult is a loaded term, why not treat it that way and clarify your intent for using it? It would save so many words. . . .
More than this, my comment was more expansive than religion alone. Curious: Can you explain why you chose to leave the sciences out of your reply?
I feel I was very clear in both my meaning and intent. I'm not sure what you are really asking here.
Anyway, science relies on fundamental research and rationalism. Even when a scientist is thinking outside the box, s/he still relies on this. It is inherently different than religion in every way. The only extremes in science are people pushing the boundaries of what can be researched. But it still has to go through the rigorous process of verification and validation, and it has to be repeatable before it becomes actual.
Can you explain to me in what possible way science and religion deserved to be mentioned in the same question you posed? Also, what names? I assumed you were referring to the previous use of the word "cult", but I could be wrong.
That would be cool, but until then, I'll keep my skeptic status.
I'll remain optimistic. One thing is for sure, science will be the only way to get there.
The writer was making no distinction between cultish religious groups and their practices and more mainstream world world religious group and their practices. That prompted me to ask if a distinction is made between 'bad' and 'mad' scientists who build creative and dangerous products putting them into the stream of world societies, and good science.
More later.
Shock and Awe works too.
How many times have we heard that so-called "Scientific Findings" could turn humanity on its head. I'm still waiting for my head to be turned....."TOTALLY" !
There are conflicts in EVERYTHING. Maybe Science can finally prove there is no God ?
All I've seen so far from Science, is their take on the "How", nothing about the "Why". Ever wonder "Why" there so many wild looking species on this planet ? What is the "Reason" for that.
Maybe we are just a "Southpark" episode, where planets/beings we have never seen, dumped all their unwanted at.
How so?
I never heard that one. Of course, there are a couple of examples off the top of my head that could qualify: the discovery of Penicillin and nuclear fission, just to name two.
A logical fallacy.
Evolution.
Is that the one where Earth is actually a galactic reality show?
Why ?
"Evolution."
For a Bazillion species that don't make sense ?
"Is that the one where Earth is actually a galactic reality show?"
OK we have to come to some sort of consensus about the word cult. I will not do that here, since I don't want to meta on someone else's article, but this needs to be settled. In this case only, the author will get to decide what term they want.
One cannot prove a negative.
Evolution is the best explanation of why so many species exist.
Other than superstitious people who have a bias and thus a personal motivation for making a distinction, why would anyone else do that? From what I can tell the only real difference between superstitious groups is the number of members.
And the fragile superstitious folks like censorship when it protects their feelings.
Okay. I can answer that. There are no real checks and balances with religion. At all. Other than your own discretion. Which as a general statement about people, is not reliable.
What "mad" scientists are out there right now? Or recently even? I haven't heard of any.
Don't envy your job. Used to moderate a few sites on the vine and don't miss it.
Science isn't actually in the business of proving there is no God. It would be like a scientist going into the Pacific Northwest woods to prove Bigfoot doesn't exist. Any scientist worth his salt would be going in to explore and examine what's there, the flora and fauna, but knows that just because you don't find Bigfoot doesn't mean it doesn't exist, there's always somewhere else to look. With God you'd have to look in every corner of the entire universe using tools you can confirm are able to test for everything before you could even come close to saying "I've proven there is no God!".
Science just keeps examining and testing what it can see and quantify and comes up with the best explanations for the things we find, not for what we don't find.
Ok, cult is acceptable..Kult isn't acceptable.. Problem solved.
LOL I wouldn't be able to keep a vine open, I'd let anyone say anything and soon no one would be there.
Thankfully that's not the case here.
lol
wink
Whose negative ?
Evolution proves no such thing as to the "Why" there are so many species on this planet.
WHAT ?! are you stating these two so-called "Scientific Findings" could turn humanity on its head ? that's crazy talk !
Whomever states science should prove there is no god (proving a negative fallacy).
Uh, yes it does. If you knew anything about evolution, you would understand basic evolutionary concepts like species diversity.
I know, right? I must be going crazy. But hey, sometimes crazy works. lol
Everything is based on perception. Water is wet. Platitudes are pointless.
Science is not concerned with proving there is no God. However, should evidence emerge showing that God exists science would be full of positive excitement.
Exactly. Science does not explain why we are here. Science explains how we evolved based on well-founded observation and reason. (Using life as the example.)
Are you serious? Assuming you are, please take time (seriously) and review this from bioLogos.com (a group of scientists who are all Christians).
I think you are confused on 'why' as in explanation versus 'why' as in existential purpose (philosophy). Science will answer 'why' questions such as 'why do human embryos have tails ... and other vestigial features '? It will not answer philosophical 'why' questions such as the purpose of life.
Cult*(definition for the sake of this article):
Any religious movement that is organizationally distinct and has doctrines and/or practices that contradict those of the Scriptures as interpreted by traditional Christianity [including other traditional world religions] as represented by the major Catholic or Protestant denominations, and as expressed in such statements as the Apostles' Creed.
* Scripture Twisting, 20 Ways the Cults Misread the Bible, James W. Sire, 1980, InnerVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Ill
I understand that Perrie put this in your hands for this seed, but just so you are aware, this definition means that the following are to be considered cults:
... and many other various religions.
I doubt that was your intent, ergo this heads up.
???? The "why" is because species evolve in response to environmental pressures and this planet has a wide variety of environmental niches.
The definition comes from a Christian point of view (per the reference book title). I am attempting to have this definition 'task' itself to cover other cultish ideas and practices that are not part of classic world religion too. It's the best I can produce on short notice.
Every organization, every community of people, has its "checks and balances," rules and regulations. Indeed, a major complaint of [place your designation here] is that religions try to run/control individual lives. So religious groups are hardly 'wild west' projects.
Good -> Evil
Good science -> Bad science
'Glad' science -> 'Mad' science
I believe you are aware these forces transit along degrees. There are people/scientists glued to the poles of the scales and people/scientists crossing lines in-betweens. Furthermore, the Bible warned: False prophets and false teachers would increase along with the power and influence of the Message affecting the world. Accordingly 2000 plus years later such false persons flourish. Compare this to the increases in science now and upcoming, and you can get a sense of the proliferation of science 'invaders' destined to muck up science.
I literally disagree with everything in your response, and it is also worth noting that while asking questions, you also have not likewise been answering them. Like "what names?"
Anyway, I feel this has run its course. I'll be interested to see which concepts you post about next. If nothing else, they are fun.
Peter, I thought the 'rules of the road' allowed for me to define that word for this thread.
Why??? (Smile.)
Peter blanket disagreements simply can't carry much power. Moreover, I sit here and field positive, snarky, diminutive, creative, tacky, well-thought out, self-serving, ghettoize drive-by, comments. Mostly, doing so in my own power. I think I try hard. Furthermore, some factors in any discussion do not need a reply—only a private head-nod or low "that a boy!" Even a dismissal to move on to other 'highlights' in a board of 'fiery' writers.
I don't reply to every thing people write to me, because not all of it matters or makes sense. Tip: If you have something you want to particularly have answered/addressed: Highlight it from the rest, please. I will try to oblige you or at least say why I can not or won't.
Just me usually,
Babs
Ah. I see that now. It does seem weird to pick the only definition that favors your argument. In the effort to be fair, all the definitions would hold equal value. Yes?
That. Is part and parcel with participation on social media sites. That doesn't mean there isn't an end to be had though. For me, this particular chapter is closed because I see no value in continuing along this specific topic. It isn't an indictment of you, but rather a simple statement that I feel it's run its course, so I elect to wait for the next topic instead.
Yes! I even looked up that same dictionary definition - thought it was great too. Thought to post both definitions, and had to choose one for the article's sake.
Thank you, Texan. You and others are welcome on my articles! Thank you for being here now!
I understand. Should I 'stir' something in you up again on this thread stop by and let 'er rip! (Smile.)
Maybe Science can prove there IS a God ?
That would certainly be a Nobel moment. But there's no evidence for a god to begin with. And science usually does not concern itself with supernatural matters.
Weird !
"Why Real Scientists Think Aliens Would Never Eat Humans"
"Aliens Could Attack Earth to End Global Warming, NASA Scientist Frets"
so why would you not choose the dictionary (the book which is a collection of words and gives their meanings and other information ?) ?
Are aliens supernatural entities? Otherwise, what's your point?
Are they ?
or
Are they Not ?
Ever met one ?
And no, "Illegal Types" doesn't count.
No!
Are you sure ?
Or is that just what you "Believe".
Yes. Considering that life evolved on this planet, it's logical to assume and mathematically probable that "alien" life exists on other planets, especially given the myriad of conditions under which life can originate and evolve. There's nothing supernatural about it.
I don't go by belief.
So ........ "Assumptions" matter to you. Not necessarily honest to goodness undeniable proof.
"I don't go by belief".
Yet you "Assume" ?
as·sume
[əˈso͞om]
VERB
1. suppose to be the case, without proof.
"Frisbeetarianism is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck."
George Carlin
Prove, no. But if evidence emerges for a sentient creator of everything, science will be all over it.
There is a profound difference between these two statements:
I assume that extraterrestrials will be natural life forms - beings of the natural universe.
I believe aliens are supernatural.
I "Assume" there is a God.
I concluded that from your comments.
For me, I do not assume there is or is not a God. I am not convinced there is a God based on the remarkable lack of evidence for the grandest possible sentient entity. I am convinced, based on the literary evidence, known facts and logic, that the God of the Bible does not exist.
If "Assumptions" are acceptable, Thus comes the day of the 2 Truths .
I "assume" based on logical analysis, mathematical probability, and available evidence.
I like proof. Even empirical evidence. But there is not a shred of either to support any assumption, much less an assertive claim for a god.
Based on what? Mere belief?
You "Assume" with a few statements attached. Is your "Assumption" more relevant to mine ?
Assumptions are now the "truth" ?
At least one is said to be anyway.
Why not.
Isn't Science in place to..... find ?
It's not so much an assumption than it is a logical conclusion based on what is known and the available evidence.
I'd say yes!
Assumption is a perfectly legitimate mechanism for simplifying that which is complex. Every assumption introduces inaccuracy and thus one should strive to make modest assumptions or to gather facts which lessen the scope of the assumption. For example, in engineering one will make simplifying assumptions to design a mechanism that works within certain tolerances. Without the assumptions the problem could be extraordinarily more difficult to achieve but would be more ideal (unnecessarily).
In an argument, one makes assumptions because one cannot know everything. The problem with assumptions in arguments is the same as noted in engineering. If the assumption is faulty, the resulting conclusion will be nonsense.
For example:
1. That which comes into existence must have a sentient cause ( a faulty assumption )
2. The universe came into existence
∴ The universe has a sentient cause
QED - God created the universe
The above argument is valid but because the first premise is a faulty assumption, the argument is unsound and the conclusion is not valid.
you seem to be confusing an "assumption" with a logical conclusion based upon logical analysis, mathematical probability, and current available evidence (and lack thereof in the case of current available evidence) . an assumption (as you pointed out in 10.1.70) is without proof (no evidence, nothing) .
Nope !
mental gymnastics are amazing - you should get a high score with your confusion of assumption and logical conclusion, unless you could provide your proof for your assumption ?
That's crap. Any Engineer that simplifies, is a quack. Human Public safety is involved. A good engineer will put a bit extra in there design.
This is what "Simplified" does:
I can only go by what the person I was commenting with.....POSTED !
3rd party protectors are fun to watch....aren't they ........ Phoenyx.
And there is no more ?
What is Humanly known and available is "Finite" in your mind ?
and you clearly stated you "assumed" there is a God after posting that an "assumption" is without proof - then tried to conflate that term with a "logical conclusion" which does have evidence. Again:
do you think you can answer it this time ?
who's protecting anyone ? you seem to take this all personally - probably not a good idea. TiG and Gordy have no need for any "protection" from me nor anyone else - they can hold a conversation and debate quite well on their own, but this is a public forum which means anyone can interject at any time in any conversation for their own reasons and interests (unless it's private messaging etc), i'm sorry this upsets you so much.
You clearly are not familiar with engineering (or design in general).
Clearly.....Duh !
"after posting that an "assumption" is without proof - then tried to conflate that term with a "logical conclusion" which does have evidence."
I did nothing of the sort !
Maybe go back to the beginning, to "See" what was ACTUALLY being said. Research can be your friend !
Like I said...."Third Parties" can be so Ill Informed at times.
What more would you like?
Whatever gave you that idea?
How DOES IT FEEL to be wrong. Did you just "Assume" ? "Logic" isn't what it's cracked up to be.
You're in MY WORLD......NOW ! 35 years worth. No Failures !
Your comments !
Then you misunderstood what I said.
It was in "Black and White" !
Not Grey, Pink, Purple, red... or any other color.
Just "Black and White" !
10.1.70 - posted definition of assumption - claim without proof
10.1.73 - posted you assumed there is a God
10.1.75 - posted assumptions are now the truth - which means you are stating that any claim without proof (as you posted) is the "truth" now. I challenged you on this.
10.1.81 - another poster stated that they weren't making an "assumption" but a "logical conclusion" while you were upset that your "assumption" was presumed to be less than their supposed assumption which was clarified to a "logical conclusion" since there is evidence considered.
I challenged you on the truth aspect since an "assumption" isn't the "truth" but a logical conclusion is the truth based upon logical analysis, mathematical probability, and current available evidence (and lack thereof in the case of current available evidence) and yet you still think your "assumption" is the "truth" for which you provide no evidence .
I'm quite informed - but you seem to be a bit ill-informed on the conversation that you yourself were having - Research can be your friend !
now, again (for the 3rd time) :
do you think you can answer it this time or will you try to keep dodging and deflecting ?
Your Assumptions.... not much of an understanding ....But go on anyway. it's fun to read.
now, again (for the 4th time) :
do you think you can answer it this time or will you try to keep dodging and deflecting ?
so far you inability to answer simple questions (like the one above) shows you have "not much of an understanding" as well and it's fun to read - please proceed
Doesn't matter. You still misunderstood what I said, especially since I never said anything like "What is Humanly known and available is Finite."
To funny !
I guess you don't want to understand.
"Not until we are lost do we begin to understand ourselves."
Henry David Thoreau
But it was "Logical".
Your logic is flawed, and you are still wrong!
'cause it doesn't agree with yours ?
No, because it's wrong.
You do luvs you some "Assumptions".
too funny, that simply must be it - right ? you are so misunderstood with your clearly effective communication (yes, that was sarcasm)
Seems you have an issue !
Not my problem.
But think about the ENTIRE conversation I had with another some more. Read, Read, Read !
You'll get it one day.
not at all - would you like to try that again ?
seems to be an issue with effective communication - if you feel i misunderstood you then i'd look in the mirror for the source of that if i were you.
we can only hope you'll understand the difference between proof and no proof one day and which one is more closely aligned with the truth.
The only one making assumptions here is you, and you even admitted as much.
I "assumed" on one thing. You've been "Assuming" on everything...... Logically ?
Seems you have an Issue !
Did that help ?
"if you feel i misunderstood you then i'd look in the mirror for the source of that if i were you."
Mirror Mirror on the wall........
.......Well surprise, surprise, surprise.... my comments still stand. How 'bout that.
And a baseless assumption at that.
It looks like Phoenyx was right: you are confusing assumption with a logical conclusion.
Your conclusive "Assumption" ?
"God" exists. Prove me wrong.
And by the way.....No ...... I never said you were wrong for saying "God" doesn't exist.
No, I concluded based upon your statements which demonstrated no understanding of how design necessarily incorporates simplifying assumptions. An engineer would learn that as a freshman in college.
You need to define what you mean by 'God'. Your assertion is meaningless without that definition.
It's in all the papers.....
Your "Conclusion" was wrong !
"An engineer would learn that as a freshman in college."
Then you don't know what REAL engineering is. Your book fed.
i'll give you another shot to try again - you keep failing (hint: i have no issues) . Would you like to try again ?
Mirror Mirror on the wall.... well surprise, surprise, surprise - your comment is still supposedly misunderstood and you still need to look in the mirror for the source of that problem ... How 'bout that. Figure out the difference between assumption and logical conclusion yet ?
Are you claiming to be an engineer? If so, what area: mechanical, electrical, chemical, nuclear, software, aeronautical, civil, ... ?
I wouldn't hold your breath for an answer on that one.
Conclusive fact!
Prove yourself right! You made the positive assertion. So now you bear the burden of proving it.
You must be confused. I didn't say "god doesn't exist."
Perhaps sanitation?
I'm just seeing this so sorry - but how can there be two kinds of truth?
There are actually more than two kinds of truths in context of what Dr. Francis Collins is addressing. He is focusing on science and religion in context of this interview. For the rest of it you will have to take time to read the segment of the article above or the linked article! (Smile.)
This is a very limiting article which narrows the discussion down to only one religion (Christian) vs science.
This article totally ignores the possibility that other belief systems have the truth of the origins of life and the Christian religion is completely wrong.
If the goal is really truth, then all past and present creation gods and stories should be given equal consideration.
Dr. Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D is certainly qualified to write an article on balance according to the points and merits he wishes to convey. This is a non-issue for the sake of this discussion.
and the Christian religion that he believes in. The Christian religion that is based on a book filled with things that science has debunked, but used to be preached as the truth.
Reincarnation may be the truth. One of the gods that Yahweh was jealous of may be the truth. Or nothingness may be the truth.
Collins is just another Christian trying to promote his own religious belief system as the truth.
Shame! Shame! Shame! Such a dismissive comment has no redeeming value. Dr. Francis' is a thinker who adds to both sides, science and religion.
It's true, Cal, and the truth always has value.
What? Mocowgirl has narrowly defined truth to, I presume, the scientific method or [place method here] alone. What came before is not the only form of truth in this world and Dr. Collins is doing a small part to make this point clear. Dr. Collins adds to his faith -> science and vice versa.
Truth, my friend, truth. And truth doesn't care what you or I believe.
As long as he advances scientific knowledge and doesn't twist science to try to make his religious beliefs have scientific validity, then it does not matter what his religious beliefs are. He could be a Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Agnostic, or even an Atheist.
None of that is relevant, because Doctor Collins is both a scientist and Christian.
Dr. Collins statement from the article (above):
For the most part, in my opinion, Dr. Collins is true to science. We certainly would not agree with some of his interpretations of science but he does not twist it (at least not much) to suit his religious views. For example, Dr. Collins has a mastery of biochemical evolution and genetics yet he still believes that God is actively involved in evolution. He does not claim to observe evidence of divine tampering with the mechanics of evolution but does believe God is ever present watching His design unfold.
Not at all.
I said that religions other than Christianity may hold the truth. Religions that share zero beliefs with Christianity.
There could be a "creator" that creates and moves on. There could reincarnation until we reach the point of nirvana. Reincarnation allows us to make mistakes and learn from them until we can be true servants to others on our path to eternal peace and oneness with all existence.
So, according to Collins, Yahweh bombarded the Earth with stardust, mingled it with water, watched "natural selection", but did not direct evolution of life on Earth = life on Earth was not intelligently designed?
I think Dr. Collins believes life is intelligently designed. He believes evolution is God's mechanism for speciation and I am pretty sure he thinks God is not entirely hands off during the process. But, I have never read anything from him that suggests he has any evidence of divine tinkering.
That's why the recreation area is adjacent to the sewer.
Hey, I am not agreeing with him.
I am with you, Tex, let them at it. Its Calibab and TIG. (No value) Telo; They have already decidedl
(No value) Telo
What is that supposed to mean?
Darn if I knowl
Does one have to believe in God to be moral?...to be compassionate?...to appreciate beauty, the arts, human history?...to love, to feel grace, to have purpose?
This article seems to imply in a roundabout way that natural scientists who have faith in a naturally-determined universe, are somehow unfeeling robots, who can't appreciate a sunset, a rainbow, or the light of the silvery moon. Quite contraire, as natural scientists not only are passionate about nature (passion is what gets them through the coursework), they have deeper knowledge that helps them to more deeply appreciate such phenomena. Yes, non-experts can appreciate, but until that knowledge is acquired, stars are little more than points of light in the sky, even if considered a gift from God. Similarly, a 500 million-year-old fossil looks like a 5 million-year-old fossil to the untrained eye, however, to someone familiar with geology and the evolution of life on the planet, the difference is jaw-dropping astounding, so sublime as to inspire a deep appreciation, even to the point of profound reverence (a "mind-gasm" per Philhellenes). Why do we require our kids to take classes in Art History and Music Appreciation? A: To obtain the knowledge that greatly increases our appreciation, that enriches our lives, that increases our awareness of who we are and how we fit in. If I showed you a bristle-cone pine, and you didn't know that it was the oldest living thing on earth (ca. 4,000 years), you might just go meh. Then there was Ronald Regan, who informed us that, "If you've seen one Redwood tree, you've seen them all." He missed the day in school that they talked about botany.
Your post reminds me of the Richard Dawkins book, 'Unweaving the Rainbow.' It discusses the relationship between science and the arts.
Thank you lennylynx! I am in the process of writing a Dawkins-like book, so I will look that one up!
* Question: How has your study of genetics influenced your faith ?
Francis Collins: My study of genetics certainly tells me, incontrovertibly that Darwin was right about the nature of how living things have arrived on the scene, by descent from a common ancestor under the influence of natural selection over very long periods of time. Darwin was amazingly insightful given how limited the molecular information he had was; essentially it didn’t exist. And now with the digital code of the DNA, we have the best possible proof of Darwin’s theory that he could have imagined.
So that certainly tells me something about the nature of living things. But it actually adds to my sense that this is an answer to a "how?" question and it leaves the "why?" question still hanging in the air.
Other aspects of our universe I think also for me as for Einstein raised questions about the possibility of intelligence behind all of this. Why is it that, for instance, that the constance that determines the behavior of matter and energy, like the gravitational constant, for instance, have precisely the value that they have to in order for there to be any complexity at all in the Universe. That is fairly breathtaking in its lack of probability of ever having happened. And it does make you think that a mind might have been involved in setting the stage. At the same time that does not imply necessarily that that mind is controlling the specific manipulations of things that are going on in the natural world. In fact, I would very much resist that idea. I think the laws of nature potentially could be the product of a mind. I think that’s a defensible perspective. But once those laws are in place, then I think nature goes on and science has the chance to be able to perceive how that works and what its consequences are.
*
The quote you provided well represents how I have come to understand Dr. Collins' perspective. He talks knowingly about matters of science within his area of expertise. No surprise there. He is highly convinced that biochemical evolution is indeed the mechanism for speciation. This is real knowledge.
Now, on the religious side, Dr Collins shows speculation. He speaks in terms of possibilities ... ways to envision how a creator might work with all he knows about science. He does not claim to know or even offer probabilities. He simply offers logical reasons why a God might exist. Quite intellectually honest.
BTW I am tempted to just go ahead and rebut his mention of the fine-tuning argument but that is off-topic so I will not.
The question could be this: Why are science and religion merging in Dr. Francis Collins?
Why can't Dr. Collins' logic simply displace and eliminate faith (in God)? How is Dr. Collins' faith grounded?
Please consider that Dr. Collins' faith does involve his mind, and not just his heart and soul. Where natural revelation stops informing him, the simple message of the Gospel, spiritual revelation, strongly continues to inform him.
I have yet to read where Dr. Collins holds that human beings have a direct spiritual connection with God. He tends to hold more that God pre-wired 'experiences' or 'sensations' in our brains. Not saying that I think his view is credible but it is quite different from 'I chat with God through supernatural communication lines'.
Like I said, you might be disappointed with Dr. Collins. He thinks more along the lines of 'God is a possibility - and I favor this possibility' rather than 'God speaks to me' (Calbab) or 'I have had physical relationships with Jesus' (livefreeordie).
To wit, I think Dr. Collins is far more grounded in reality (the natural world) than you would prefer.
Tell you what, do not contrive thoughts for me and I will stay out of the business of ( Deleted, Skirting {SP} ). Deal?
No deal. Much better to just respond thoughtfully to my completely on topic comment rather than creatively generate gratuitous complaints about my writing style coupled with a vague personal attack.
This ...
... is my opinion about Dr Collins' beliefs relative to those you have expressed on NT. Maybe you could note disagreement with a topical, civil rebuttal.
Vague personal attack? God does not interact with me in any sense an Agnostic-Atheist generally would appreciate. So what the. . . heaven. . . qualifies an attempt writing that to me? In my opinion, this 'talk' was flowing smoothly, until shade was thrown.
Try to focus on your topic rather than (incessantly) trying to drive this into petty, personal meta.
Try to focus on your the topic rather than (incessantly) trying to drive this into petty, personal meta.
Are you suggesting that you do not communicate (two-way) with God (regardless of how)? For example, you have made it quite public that you pray a lot. That is one-way communication. Does God answer (regardless of how)? If so that would be two-way communication.
My understanding is that you believe you have two-way communication with God. If that is an incorrect assessment then I will be happy to make the adjustment.
That's the kindest, non-personal way, I can put it. Definitely so, without coffee yet! Moving on.
A non-answer to a simple and relevant question as to whether or not you believe to have a two-way communication with God.
Don't complain that I misrepresent you then if you refuse to offer corrections even when I ask for them.
You have my answer. That my answer is not well-received. . . is not my fault. I would like to move back into the stream of topic now. Is this "OKAY!"? The article is about Dr. Francis Collins after all.
It does not answer the question. It is vague and evasive.
Sure, you initiated this sidebar and will clearly continue to avoid answering even the most basic of questions anyway.
Thank you for this by your leave your Highness!
Yes, that life exists unplanned.
Once we answer the how - passive natural selection and random genetic mutations, the why question evaporates. Since we do not exist on purpose, it really makes no sense to inquire as to why. There is nothing there to appeal to.
Einstein was more of a Spinoza pantheist; he did not accept a supernatural, personal god.
So it is beyond the possibility of naturally occurring?
This is precisely Deism - not in the least Christianity; to his credit, this is a big step towards reason.
Which laws? Don't some laws trace their roots back to more fundamental laws? And those to even more fundamental ones. Before you know it, you're talking about the laws ruling events like quantum fluctuations, and things like virtual particles. Does it really take a mind to create The Primal Law ruling over the basic building blocks of existence? If existence cannot become non-existence, then it hardly takes a god to manage such things that, by their own nature, take care of themselves.
Could biological evolution, for example, be a rule that a sentient entity simply constructed? Natural selection is an unintentional process; it is the default mechanism, passively selecting winners and losers over time as the result of environmental change in combination with genetic mutations that randomly offer survival advantages (as some are harmful), so there is nothing to construct. We are offering an unnecessary step without reason. No outside entity is needed to create a mechanism that exists and operates naturally. Furthermore, why would an entity defer to a natural mechanism that would be limited to producing only natural results to begin with? Seems we have plenty of good reason to conclude that any such proposed, emergent creator neither created nor manipulated nature, but simply let it take its course.
Why does nature even need a creator? That is incoherent.
Beyond that, why worship such a creator, who didn't plan for us to exist and doesn't intervene to help us? This is the "Deadbeat Dad" god who split after the Big Bang, leaving Mother Nature to do the work of providing for and raising up life.
The question could be this: Why are science and religion merging in Dr. Francis Collins?
Why can't Dr. Collins' logic simply displace and eliminate faith (in God)? How is Dr. Collins' faith grounded?
Please consider that Dr. Collins' faith does involve his mind, and not just his heart and soul. Where natural revelation stops informing him, the simple message of the Gospel, spiritual revelation, strongly continues to inform him.
I have yet to read where Dr. Collins holds that human beings have a direct spiritual connection with God. He tends to hold more that God pre-wired 'experiences' or 'sensations' in our brains. Not saying that I think his view is credible but it is quite different from 'I chat with God through supernatural communication lines'.
Like I said, you might be disappointed with Dr. Collins. He thinks more along the lines of 'God is a possibility - and I favor this possibility' rather than 'God speaks to me' (Calbab) or 'I have had physical relationships with Jesus' (livefreeordie).
To wit, I think Dr. Collins is far more grounded in reality (the natural world) than you would prefer.
Maybe God Didn't Intend His Existence to be Easy to Determine*
Certainly the social biologists have put forward arguments that religion could have an evolutionary basis, that we humans are designed in a certain way to look for agency behind actions that we don’t understand. That may then relate to why various cultures over time have identified something mysterious and supernatural outside of their own experience to try to explain things that didn’t otherwise have an explanation.
I think it’s too simple to basically say, "Well that does it." Either God is true or God is not true. Either God is real or God is not real. It’s not a matter of whether you can explain it away by hypothesis . The question is what’s the real answer?
I think far too few people have looked at the question from that perspective. What’s the evidence for the idea that God exists or doesn’t exist? I think anyone who’s looked at that would conclude that the strong atheist position of saying, "I know there is not God" is not an easy one to sustain. It basically implies a certain degree of hubris and arrogance to say that "I know so much that I could exclude any possibility of there being a God."
On the other hand, the evidence will never draw people to the conclusion of saying "I know confidently there is a God." Maybe god didn’t intend it to be that easy.
*
He has done an excellent job at that. Not only is there no evidence, He actually provided fake-evidence by presenting his divine Word in a form that is errant, contradictory and subject to countless conflicting interpretations - all of which are considered THE truth.
I agree, the gnostic atheists AND the gnostic theists both hold untenable positions. One should never claim God exists or No God exists because both are statements of certainty and no human being has the knowledge to make such a claim.
The super majority of atheists are agnostic atheists who simply state they are not convinced a God exists. Even the most vocal, celebrity atheists are agnostic atheists. Gnostic atheists are very rare. Gnostic theists, however, are commonplace. The focus should be on the gnostic theist, eh?
Dr. Collins is an agnostic theist.