|
Post by Fyacin on Mar 15, 2009 15:36:10 GMT -5
Is it ironic that I thought this thread was beleiving in God and Satan for a second?
|
|
|
Post by synchesis on Mar 15, 2009 15:53:01 GMT -5
I can never understand assertions like "it's a contradiction to believe in both God and science." "Science" is not an entity, it is a process. It is the deliberate and careful act of observation, of learning from experience, of explaining how, not why, the universe works. God is an entity, an ethereal being that transcends the physical. The two do not conflict in any way whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 16, 2009 6:58:42 GMT -5
I believe in magik.
|
|
|
Post by tohellwithhades on Mar 19, 2009 21:33:06 GMT -5
I can never understand assertions like "it's a contradiction to believe in both God and science." "Science" is not an entity, it is a process. It is the deliberate and careful act of observation, of learning from experience, of explaining how, not why, the universe works. God is an entity, an ethereal being that transcends the physical. The two do not conflict in any way whatsoever. Agreed
|
|
|
Post by Shiv on Mar 22, 2009 1:13:51 GMT -5
Science is just man's best attempt at interpreting the universe
It's rooted in subjectivity
|
|
|
Post by ecclesiastes on Mar 22, 2009 9:41:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by behemoth on Mar 22, 2009 10:19:23 GMT -5
I can never understand assertions like "it's a contradiction to believe in both God and science." "Science" is not an entity, it is a process. It is the deliberate and careful act of observation, of learning from experience, of explaining how, not why, the universe works. God is an entity, an ethereal being that transcends the physical. The two do not conflict in any way whatsoever. Thank you. As you stated, science and the belief in God are inherently uncontradictory. Anyone who says otherwise is simply wrong. As people have already said here, science is only interested in observing and understanding the physical world and the way in which it works. Theology and the belief in God are directly interested in a transcendant being that directly exists (or doesn't) outside of the physical realm. Science can only make assertions about that which is in its realm of observation...the physical realm. It can neither refute nor support the belief in God because God is a concept outside of its bounds. True science and true scientists are uninterested in theological claims of God (this is not to say that they cannot be people of faith, just that when doing science they are not looking at God, but that which He has done). In contrast, we are all people of limited intellect and understanding (apart from 1859 of course). We are incapable of completely understanding the world around us, let alone a being beyond that which we know with our senses. As such, people, when formulating a world view, will have an incomplete picture. They will gravitate towards certain areas of knowledge as they like or best understand. Here is the only place where conflict between science and God can come in. A person's worldview that centers exclusively around an understanding of God is going to be different than that of a person who formulates their worldview exclusively around science. Thus then as the main point, only when people make claims about the world based on an understanding of God and science can there be a conflict between the two. Ever wonder why angry atheists (an absurd idea in the first place by the way I see things) such as Sam Harris only attack "fundamentalists" and conservative "evangelicals" from various religions (particularly Christianity)? That is why. It is the fundamentalist world view stemming from the fundamentalist understanding of God's Scripture that conflicts with scientific understanding. Not God in and of Himself. There is nothing to attack with science if you step out of that worldview. This is because God does not contradict science, but rather is out of the realm of what science can even talk about. Anyone who says otherwise immeadiately ceases to do science at all. As for my stance on the specific issues of creationism and evolution...I'll save you all from that for now as this is too long already.
|
|
|
Post by Atheo on Mar 22, 2009 15:39:58 GMT -5
To my mind, science and theology are deeply incompatible. They simply cannot be intertwined. Science is about what is known to be true and nothing more, while theology is based upon private speculation. Science is as objective as possible (while recognizing that it is impossible to completely avoid personal bias, try as we might) while theology is entirely subjective. This does not invalidate one or the other- to each his own- but it certainly means they cannot make statements concerning the other's field. The scientific method is applicable when seeing to understand the corporeal world. It has shown absolutely no evidence for the spiritual world, so it cannot apply there. Now, this does not mean the spiritual world does not exist. It merely means we cannot justify belief in the spiritual world with evidence. If one has something else to back it up, fine, but NOMA works both ways: if theology and science operate in entirely separate fields, science cannot disprove theology's claims. But neither can it prove them: if you're going to believe in God, you must simply find something other than evidence to back up your claims.
On a personal note, I don't think that the scientific method is the only way to find knowledge, although it's certainly the only way to find objective knowledge. And while I'm perfectly content to avoid using science to delve into the realm of theology, I am irritated when the religious use pseudoscience to try to defend their ideas (i.e. creationism: a clear violation of NOMA. They take theology and try to apply it to the scientific method, with disastrous results).
|
|
runny
New Member
I am cool or something.
Posts: 11
|
Post by runny on Mar 22, 2009 17:16:41 GMT -5
oh wow. its Atheo
|
|
|
Post by behemoth on Mar 22, 2009 17:39:04 GMT -5
Yay! He's back! Well, maybe...
Quick question Atheo, pardon my ignorance, but what does your acronym stand for? I'm not sure if I've seen it before. Anyway, notice I said nothing about creationism being science...it is at best a theological/philosophical presupposition that people start at, and from there try to throw a touch of scientific reasoning at it so it sounds science-esque.
I don't necessarily mind the idea of people trying to use science "as the means to understanding the world that God created" but two things must be kept in mind. First that the science they use to understand God's creation is entirely separate from their God and does not prove Him, and second that their presupposition of a "first mover" or whatever motif they use is likewise separate from the science they do. They are in fact two statements about one's understanding of the world being pieced together into a larger, more complete world view (I am not saying that a world view that lacks either God or science is incomplete, but rather I am using the term world view in a collectivisit since in which all that a person thinks or holds to be true and would include an idividual's tastes in areas outside of theology, philosophy, and science. Nothing condescending here.).
Back to the true point of this post...I saw an Atheo!!!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Brent on Mar 22, 2009 18:54:30 GMT -5
Atheo to the rescue!
I just said that in the Celibacy thread, there is no way we can observe anything outside of our world. We have zero evidence God exists because he does not reside in our realm, and that is my reasoning for not believing in God. I personally cannot believe in something without evidence.
|
|
|
Post by clareabel on Mar 23, 2009 3:22:06 GMT -5
Atheo to the rescue! I just said that in the Celibacy thread, there is no way we can observe anything outside of our world. We have zero evidence God exists because he does not reside in our realm, and that is my reasoning for not believing in God. I personally cannot believe in something without evidence. We know, you've said this a few times. And how do you know Africa exists?
|
|
|
Post by mountair on Mar 23, 2009 3:35:13 GMT -5
Africa is in our realm. We can fly in a space shuttle and see the continent from space. We can also travel there.
There can be no empirical evidence of the metaphysical. For myself and many others, no evidence leads to no reason to believe. I see it as no different than Santa or the Easter Bunny.
|
|
|
Post by Brent on Mar 23, 2009 5:38:59 GMT -5
Atheo to the rescue! I just said that in the Celibacy thread, there is no way we can observe anything outside of our world. We have zero evidence God exists because he does not reside in our realm, and that is my reasoning for not believing in God. I personally cannot believe in something without evidence. We know, you've said this a few times. Yes, I have. That is why religious discussion is ultimately worthless. The arguments can go in a circle forever. A Christian can claim God exists through personal experience (seen this argument many times here) An Agnostic/Atheist can claim that they do not believe God exists because the personal experiences of God cannot be verified. There is no link between us and God because we live in different ends of the spectrum. The Bible, "God's word" is not a valid link because of this very fact. It boils down to faith. Believing in something without evidence. You either do or you don't.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 23, 2009 7:05:36 GMT -5
Agnostics/Atheists need faith also to believe the things that they do, in fact they are a religion in and of themselves.
Personally I do not know what I believe, but i know that I cannot stand what today's christian "religion" has become. I guess you could say i have faith in God, but absolutly no faith in the people that claim to be christians and abandoned entirely what it means to be a "believer".
|
|