Re: Religion and Science -- RSQUBF discussion forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [10] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 06:14:57 05/27/04 Thu
Author: Mike K.
Subject: Re: Religion and Science
In reply to: Tony Lang 's message, "Religion and Science" on 01:44:58 05/27/04 Thu

Tony,
let me start off with a few things.
As Chris already stated previously, science assumes "weak atheism" as a basic premise. This "weak atheism" is NOT equivalent with the fact that the scientist personally disagrees with the existence of God.
It simply means that the scientist assumes "There is an explanation for everything", a premise like "And then a miracle occurred" is not scientic.
Of course, many times scientists are simply incapable of explaining an event. Then, they have to decide: "Is it supernatural?" (i.e. does it contradict the PROVEN laws of science) or: "Is it beyond my explanation?" (i.e. are given theories and laws insufficient, does it contradict a theory but not a law?)

A basic example would be for instance the phenomenon of lightning. Given the laws of gravity and electricity, lightning is simple to explain. For the Norse shamen it was also easy to explain: "Thor's fury"!
Now, which of the two explanations do you prefer? If you were an ancient Viking, you might prefer the second. However, living in today's generation, you would rather dismiss the second and prefer the first. Then again, where's the "proof" that a strike of lightning is NOT "Thor's fury"? Well, there's none, but there's also no proof that it is. So for us, the explanation that it's electricity at work is sufficient.
Maybe later, scientists will find out further laws and then "electricity and gravity" alone will not suffice for us as an answer.
But if we'd accept a "divine intervention" as an answer, we don't need to look for any further explanation. And this is what science's "weak atheism" is about.

A scientist who simply says "I can't explain it, it must be an act of God" is making himself unemployed, what's his job if he just accepts everything "it's just like that"?
However, to say "There is a rationale behind this" does not necessarily say that God didn't make it to allow to happen like this in the first place, much rather it means: it's not mysterious, it's basic, simple, WITHIN the bounds of human comprehension.
A scientist so, in my opinion, has the job of deciding what is within human comprehension and what is not, and when he decides that something is beyond comprehension, then proof must be given that it CANNOT be comprehended, not by me, nor by you nor by any human being EVER.
This is the point where Chris points out that many scientists admit to the existence of "a god", not necessarily the Christian God, but an entitity that must be behind all things.

Now, we come to a more concrete point.
There is always the "state of the art", ie. the current knowledge. This knowledge is limited, and sometimes erroneous. Many times science is based on a premise, a theory. This theory is widely accepted as "valid", even though no proof has yet been found. Sometimes, those theories can be disproven by someone. Other times, proof is found and then said theory becomes a "law".

There's many examples in science, like gravity once was only an idea, people accepted that "things fall down". Later, Newton made more investigations and as a result, today we have the "law of gravity".

In the aforementioned subject, psychology, there are many numerous schools of thoughts, even to the point where some are mutually exclusive, yet it's quite hard to "prove" any thesis, so speculation abounds.
Many times, certain "theses" are "proven", then the "proof" is re-examined, found insufficient or even false!

Sometimes, this happens after many years. For example, look at the theory of relativity. For nearly a century, scientists are doing their best to prove it, many attempts were made, none sufficed, some even totally wrong. Up to now, the theory of relativity is widely accepted in physics, yet MAYBE one day it would be disproven. Or MAYBE it becomes proven, then it's a theory no longer.

However, it is not feasible to reject a whole field of study just because a certain thesis which might even have been predominant among a specific group of study is considered unfeasible by others in that group, or because it's been disproven.
If you'd reject any science where there's a quarrel going on about a certain thing which is accepted by some and not accepted by others ---
well, in mathematics you have the prime example of the "axiom of selection". This is schools of thought at their best. Here, we are talking about an axiom, not about a theorem. Axioms are TRUE BY DEFINTION. If you reject this axiom, then you're not capable of selecting one specific real number. If you accept the axiom, then you can pick any real number any time you want.
And there's been discussions for many decades among people who reject that axiom and those who use it! So, if we'd take this example, if you reject a science where there's two opposing schools of thought, then you must reject mathematics as a whole, then you shouldn't even add 1 and 1!

So, unless you're an expert, rather stay away from the details and just stick to what is "common ground", i.e. considered by a majority as "acceptable" (that doesn't make theories true necessarily, they can still be disproven). This yields at least a basis of conversation for those who have a bit of knowledge as well.

Oh, to get back to the subject: I also do not believe that science and faith are in contradiction, yet science "de-mystifies" many things.
Faith, unlike religion, is not built on concepts and "this is like that".
Many times, religion has been proven false by science, when so-called "speakers for God" made up certain things which later were simply found to not be the case.
Like: you can produce lightning without "angering Thor".
Or, the "blood of Jesus" in Rotenburg is really just a tixotrope, if it was running in Jesus' veins, then Jesus wouldn't have had any hemoglobine or water, but just chemistry... Well, does it disprove that Jesus lived or was a man? No, it just disproves that this phial contains a mystical "blood of Jesus" but merely a chemical substance developed by some 13th century people to fool gullible people into worshipping a bit of chemistry and glass.

Science can and WILL expose religion where it is against the Truth. Science, I believe, will NEVER be able to PROVE a contradiction between the existence or even the person of God and reality.
We all know that "God is hidden", yet "hinted at in creation", which means that the more you dig, the less things you will find that are "God's work" (i.e. the more you know, the less "miracles" you will assume are irreproducible - I don't mean there's no "miracles", but for instance, let me use this example once more: lightning is no divine act in itself but an explainable phenomenon) as told by clergy of all kinds of religions.
There is still God's work, and God still is the originator of all creation, but - whoseover is overly quick to explain something to be doing "a miracle!" might one day find themselves be exposed as a quack.
This should not turn people away from God, but should make people skeptical of people who are trying to "show God by doing works of power". Indeed, Jesus already hinted that trying to see God through miracles is not the right way but leads astray.
The more people are aware of the capacities of science and what God enables men to do, the less they will be led astray by people "showing great signs".
I assume that in TRUTH, science will bring people closer to the REAL God, away from any idols and man-made imaginations!

That said, let me apologize for all those articles "disproving God", I don't believe they are substantial, I just wanted to make sure you are aware that whatever science says is not "gold by definition".

In Christ,
Mike K.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Educated guessing -- Mike K., 06:32:17 05/27/04 Thu