Making God fit...

[Frinkiak7]

*snip*

To take him out of context: science and religion are fundamentally asking different questions and realistically serving different purposes. *snip*

I agree completely with that analogy. Science and religion (and philosopy, too) are asking totally different questions.

Science asks, "How?"

Religion and Philosophy ask, "Why?"

In my mind, science isn't concerned with motive, but rather the mechanics involved in whatever process is being studied. Religion and philosophy try to determine motive.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

..................... And one of the main problems with people of science on these forums is taking their tool box to the bar and thinking they can keep people from enjoying a drink.

My two cents,

Flick

I'm sure it's a problem with some, but no more so than the drinkers who want me to leave my tool box at the door.


There is also the problem with the drinkers who think the scientists should pay taxes on their tools but the drinkers shouldn't have to pay taxes on their drinks; not to mention getting drunk and trashing the bar, then demanding that the scientists use their tools to repair the place for free.

 

[phildonnia]

Acharya S. So reliable.

The standard disclaimers should apply, and I apologize for not making them. The link I provided was to a scholarly-sounding article written with an air of authority. This has absolutely no bearing on its truth.

The piece was, as I said, influential to me. I appreciate also the links you provided in refutation of some of its points.

 

[Bri]

What I don’t understand is how someone can build a mental bridge between a belief in what science tells us and a belief in the God of the Bible...

For me, every time I try to combine these two ideas, I fail. I have tried to ‘fit’ a divine God/Jesus into my beliefs but it seems like I am trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. I feel stuck sometimes.

Some people "fit" God into an otherwise skeptical belief system using the following logic:

God created the universe, and therefore created the laws of nature. Science cannot observe God (since God is outside of nature) and therefore cannot apply to God.

This belief system does leave the possibility of someone or something perhaps being able to defy the laws of nature and science if ordained by God. It also means that not everything is going to be provable by science.

Some skeptics default to the position that if something is unprovable by science, it is probably false. Since God as described above is unprovable, they choose not to believe in God.

However, this belief system would still allow for skepticism of those things that can be proved or disproved by science, provided that you also believe that God doesn't routinely interfere with the laws of nature in a way that would be detectable by science.

The most compelling reason people believe in God is probably because belief in God (or at least a belief in some force that exists outside of nature) allows for things like free will, which currently cannot be explained by science. Science has never observed anything other than a cause producing a predictable effect, which would preclude human beings from being able to affect changes independently of past events.

-Bri

 

[Dr Adequate]

What I don’t understand is how someone can build a mental bridge between a belief in what science tells us and a belief in the God of the Bible. I have met several people in life (both in person and on the internet), that have managed to somehow do this. They believe whole heartedly in a scientific explanation of our world, from the events just after the Big Bang to the evolution of mankind from nothing but atoms, but they still cling to a believe that the God of the Bible exists in spirit and that Jesus was part of him sent to save us. I want to know how a person like this can justify that belief.

This is not a problematic as it might seem. There are only a few bits in the Bible which contradict science, and if you interpret them liberally enough, you can square them with science.

Can you find any statement in any scientific textbook which would invalidate any statement in the "Apostles' Creed"? (Bear in mind that God by definition can supervene the laws of nature.)

There is, for example, nothing in science which invalidates the idea that Jesus died for my sins. How could there be?

 

[autocrosser]

(Bear in mind that God by definition can supervene the laws of nature.)

Keeping this in mine, no. If God can navigate around any set laws of nature, anything is possible. That being said, I can see exactly how someone could believe in science and still hold firm to religion at the same time. Any question can be drilled down to the "God did it" answer.

I do appreciate all the responses.

 

[kuroyume0161]

I agree completely with that analogy. Science and religion (and philosopy, too) are asking totally different questions.

Science asks, "How?"

Religion and Philosophy ask, "Why?"

In my mind, science isn't concerned with motive, but rather the mechanics involved in whatever process is being studied. Religion and philosophy try to determine motive.

Despite the stigma placed on science by some religions and their adherents, science has no agenda to 'destroy' religious beliefs. This supposed agenda is a conspiracy theory concocted by those who see a connection between the rise of atheism and materialism and that of scientific and technological success against the apparent dwindling of religiousity and 'moral values'.

Alternatively, there are those religions and adherents who spend inappropriate amounts of time (and money) attempting to shove their 'why' into science's 'how'. Islamic fundamentalists want to destroy western civilization, Christian fundamentalists want to... destroy western civilization, for some general examples. They indict science in any arena in which they feel their literal view of their dogma is threatened: evolution, cosmology, abiogenesis, cloning, stem cells, heliocentricism, sexuality as natural and not a choice, lifestyle, or sin, to name a few.

In other words, there is too much one-way leakage of this compartmentalization. People can 'mix metaphors' (as it were) as long as one isn't encroaching upon the other. This is a delicate balance for some and has often resulted in pure BS (when inappropriate science is applied to religious tenets and vice versa). A great example of blurred vision here is "The Physics of Immortality" by Tipler. Starting from sound scientific principles, he meanders into hyperbole and speculation in order to reconcile two disparate ideologies. Another example is the 'study on prayer' which supposedly showed the efficacy of prayer 'scientifically'. When religion and science are combined and allowed to interact, the only result is pseudoscience and pseudoreligion.

ETA: I agree with your assessment, but the problem is that so few get this. They think that science's 'how' is a 'why' and we end up with stupid stickers on Biology textbooks and a populace receiving advanced medical care and surfing the internet on jetliners while decrying the validity of evolution!

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

Hi autocrosser. I was wondering why you haven't considered other religions besides Christianity?

Also, I would recommend you learn more about Paul (Saul of Tarsus) to better understand the Christianity most people think of.

To better understand Jesus, the man that most likely existed, in my opinion, I would look into what religion and beliefs Peter and James (the ACTUAL disciples) had and really look into who authored the gospels, why the epistle of James mentions not divinity of Jesus, and who the heck were these Gnostics.

Also, look into the Nag Hammadi.

Bottomline, I appreciate your view that Jesus might've had some insight to a creative force in the universe. But consider the fact that Jesus himself may have never believed himself to be God and merely thought himself the messiah to save the Jews and defeat the Romans, something he was crushed to learn was not the case.

Here's a link I like:
http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/mine/jesus_myth.htm

 

[Dr Adequate]

And one of the main problems with people of science on these forums is taking their tool box to the bar and thinking they can keep people from enjoying a drink.

If their enjoyment of their drinks has nothing to do with their enjoyment of its flavour or alcoholic properties, but rather to the lively expectation, fostered by the barman, that their drinks will give them the power to drive in screws, then there is no way I can tell them the truth without spoiling their enjoyment of their drinks, and, indeed, making them feel like chumps.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Keeping this in mine, no. If God can navigate around any set laws of nature, anything is possible. That being said, I can see exactly how someone could believe in science and still hold firm to religion at the same time. Any question can be drilled down to the "God did it" answer.

While it is true that a distressing number of people ofreligious people reason "Here is something I don't understand --- therefore God did it --- by God I mean the God of my choice --- therefore my religion is correct" it is not necessary to do so, and presumably scientists, being quite smart, don't go in much for this loopy thinking. In my experience the more intelligent sort of Christian bases his faith on the Gospels, not on God-of-the-gaps style thinking.

Moreover, it can easily be argued that a good and truthful God would create a universe which is by nature lawful and so comprehensible to its inhabitants. Hence, if there was a God, we should expect science to be successful, and so we can't hold any particular triumph of science up as a defeat of theism.

Scientists with faith can therefore look for the material causes of natural events, and accept the results of such research, just as cheerfully as their atheist colleagues.