First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply Does science/logic have a place in religion?
Member
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/22/08
I’m very deistic in my image of God, and many of the extremely conservative Christians don’t like this, some might go as far as to say I’m not even a Christian. My idea of God is far from traditional, and I’m sure most of you are already aware of it since I flaunt it around like some kind of banner.

Whatever the case, many people feel that science and religion should never be interspersed. There are also those who thinks that it’s not necessary or even wise to logically analyze divinity. So, what are your opinions on this matter?
Creator
57720 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / canada
Offline
Posted 4/22/08
Science and God can peacefully co-exist (I think I've mentioned this before). Not only can they co-exist, but they should. A talent for science is as much a talent for painting, or music, or writing. A desire to understand our universe is as God-given as a desire to explore any other realm. Intelligence comes from God. If we deny ourselves these gifts in the name of God, then we are denying God Himself. He wants us to understand, learn and explore.

Analyze divinity, if you choose...God's ego can handle it. If you decide that the learning of men is of more value than the learning of God, that is your choice, and no one who truly understands our mission here on earth, the purpose of existence (from a Christian point of view) will try to take that right away from you.
Member
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/22/08

kimmm6 wrote:

Science and God can peacefully co-exist (I think I've mentioned this before). Not only can they co-exist, but they should. A talent for science is as much a talent for painting, or music, or writing. A desire to understand our universe is as God-given as a desire to explore any other realm. Intelligence comes from God. If we deny ourselves these gifts in the name of God, then we are denying God Himself. He wants us to understand, learn and explore.

Analyze divinity, if you choose...God's ego can handle it. If you decide that the learning of men is of more value than the learning of God, that is your choice, and no one who truly understands our mission here on earth, the purpose of existence (from a Christian point of view) will try to take that right away from you.


You know, before order was anything chaos was everything. For that reason, as an aspiring artist, I value math, logic, and science as forms of art themselves. Actually, I’ve come to associate certain emotions and sensations with various numbers.

A nine is a frightening thing, I hate nines with a passion.

A six is a mellow and calm number, it makes me sleepy.

Seven feels complete, a prime and perfect thing. It gives me a sense of being watched over, a sort of comfortable company with God or the wind.

Three makes me feel like there’s a reason.

Two brings forth passion.

One is bland, dull, and banal.

Whatever the case, I agree very much with you. So, let me ask you-Do you feel God is a scientific entity himself, or just the creator of science? Do you feel science really is a method for which to understand God-or, do you think we’re using intellect where wisdom should be employed?
Creator
57720 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / canada
Offline
Posted 4/22/08
Before God created this earth, He created others. He used unorganized matter, which already existed. Before our spirits were created, they were "intelligences" (I have no idea what that means exactly, but there it is... not all the mysteries of the universe can be answered in mortality). Science seems to agree that there was a big bang which started the creative process in this universe...but I have always asked "what went "bang"? The report in the 10th dimension thread about a possible 11th dimension answers this question quite nicely, however, now I ask, where did the 11th dimension come from? So...(1) Is God a scientific entity, or the creator of science? Both, I think. I guess it depends on what branches of science you are exploring. It is possible that science in other worlds is different from science here...biology, chemistry, psychology, computer sciences. Too often, I think, we use science and physics as if they were interchangeable...but there are other branches of scientific study. God has the power to create rules and boundries, but once created, He is bound by them. Let's take the speed of light. I firmly believe that God can travel faster than the speed of light. Relativity is a human concept, and as we are flawed, I believe the concept is equally flawed. God can see around the flaws, and thus use His science to break that "rule". I believe, given time, humanity would also work their way to a higher scientific plane, and also work around this wall. I also don't believe that God will allow that enlightenment until we are capable of handling it responsibly (on a universal level), and I don't believe we have enough time before the Second Coming to earn that responsibility. (2) Is science a method for which to understand God? It can be. Science is a tool, just like reading/writing, math, or any other branch of study...music, art, etc. Any of them can be used to draw closer to, or pull away from God. It depends on what you are looking for in life. (3) Are we using intellect where wisdom should be employed? Some of us are, and some of aren't. As a race, I see humanity using science to replace God, and those doing so would say they are right in this. I disagree. Wisdom is using intellect well. Intellect, like science, itself, is merely a tool. When you take judgement out of the equation, intellect could become a tool for evil. (Not "evil"...dun, dun, dun...but evil in the sense of the opposite of Godliness).

I guess it boils down to how you use the tools God gave you, the talents, the resources, the intellect. That is a personal decision made by each one of us, and our right to choose is the greatest "tool" we have. Many scientists have done much good in the world, made many important discoveries without ever admitting that God exists. That doesn't make them evil (dun, dun, dun), it only makes them human.
Member
766 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / The Philippines
Offline
Posted 4/23/08
In my opinion (And possibly even some Scientists'.),Yes. Religion and Science go well together like Peanut butter,and Jelly.Or in my case A mage and a Swordsman/woman.Its God's way of keeping the Universe intact.
46535 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/23/08 , edited 4/23/08
@all:Way too many assumptions being made. Please clarify that they are noting more that assumptions. It makes the whole statement more understandable.

@Kimm:

- Before God created this earth, He created others

What?

-(1) Is God a scientific entity, or the creator of science?


Scientific means it uses the methods of science, which are experimentation. I don't think a perfect being needs to experiment.

- God has the power to create rules and boundries, but once created, He is bound by them.

This does not make sense, can you break it down for me? this sounds like the Omnipotence Paradox: can god creat a rock so heavy, god itself cannot lift it?

-I firmly believe that God can travel faster than the speed of light. Relativity is a human concept, and as we are flawed, I believe the concept is equally flawed. God can see around the flaws, and thus use His science to break that "rule"


I see this as picking and choosing for convenience. so you assume relativity is a human concept but science is a creation of God. Care to elaborate?

- (3) Are we using intellect where wisdom should be employed? Some of us are, and some of aren't. As a race, I see humanity using science to replace God, and those doing so would say they are right in this. I disagree. Wisdom is using intellect well. Intellect, like science, itself, is merely a tool. When you take judgement out of the equation, intellect could become a tool for evil.


No, there is no plan 'to use science in order to replace God' what is simply happening is that as more understanding is achieved, explanations such as the interference of God or supernatural factors are simply being seen as less necessary to explain reality. take medieval ages for example. People used to think they were possessed by 'demons'....turns out many of these demons are today referred to as psychological disorders.

This is in no way, an attempt to discredit your entire post, I just don't like it when things are expressed in a manner that can cause misunderstandings.
_____________________

@seraph: Also, God is the creator of science? come on. Science is a human tool to further understanding of reality. And if you are going to reply with the redundancy of 'well god created everything so there fore science was created by it too' then don't mind answering.

__________

PS:

Everything is Art these days....I blame Du champ for this nonsense. >_>

ART comes from artem, Latin for skill or craft
artificial = created by man rather than nature.
Art is therefore a human effort to 'enhance', imitate nature

Math and logic discover nature, science attempts to understanding it and all three involve putting pieces together, yes there is mathematical art, yes there is beauty in logic, yes there is aesthetics in science but that does not make them art, correlation does not equal causation, just because you can introduce art into something does not make it art. science does not imitate nature as a purpose, it may do so while trying to visualize it or make it understandable but is not its main purpose. Neither does math or logic and they certainly not try to enhance it in any way. ( I'm not talking about manipulation of genes for example, as enhancement btw).
Creator
57720 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / canada
Offline
Posted 4/23/08

mauz15 wrote:

Way too many assumptions being made. Please clarify that they are noting more that assumptions. It makes the whole statement more understandable.

Also, God is the creator of science? come on. Science is a human tool to further understanding of reality. And if you are going to reply with the redundancy of 'well god created everything so there fore science was created by it too' then don't mind answering.



I assumed by "science", Seraph meant the laws that govern nature, as opposed to the study of those laws. So...to rephrase: Did God make the laws? Is God above the law? Is He bound by the laws that He, Himself, made? Whether man uses the tools of science or not does not change them...the laws are indifferent to our knowledge of them. Eg: gravity continues to work, whether a flea knows about it or not. Gravity does not care about the flea. I think Seraph is trying to assertain whether Gravity was created by God, or whether it occured spontaneously.

Personally, I think the universe it too organized to be anything but created.
Creator
57720 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / canada
Offline
Posted 4/23/08

mauz15 wrote:

@all:Way too many assumptions being made. Please clarify that they are noting more that assumptions. It makes the whole statement more understandable.

@Kimm:

- Before God created this earth, He created others

What?

-(1) Is God a scientific entity, or the creator of science?


Scientific means it uses the methods of science, which are experimentation. I don't think a perfect being needs to experiment.

- God has the power to create rules and boundries, but once created, He is bound by them.

This does not make sense, can you break it down for me? this sounds like the Omnipotence Paradox: can god creat a rock so heavy, god itself cannot lift it?

-I firmly believe that God can travel faster than the speed of light. Relativity is a human concept, and as we are flawed, I believe the concept is equally flawed. God can see around the flaws, and thus use His science to break that "rule"


I see this as picking and choosing for convenience. so you assume relativity is a human concept but science is a creation of God. Care to elaborate?

- (3) Are we using intellect where wisdom should be employed? Some of us are, and some of aren't. As a race, I see humanity using science to replace God, and those doing so would say they are right in this. I disagree. Wisdom is using intellect well. Intellect, like science, itself, is merely a tool. When you take judgement out of the equation, intellect could become a tool for evil.


No, there is no plan 'to use science in order to replace God' what is simply happening is that as more understanding is achieved, explanations such as the interference of God or supernatural factors are simply being seen as less necessary to explain reality. take medieval ages for example. People used to think they were possessed by 'demons'....turns out many of these demons are today referred to as psychological disorders.

This is in no way, an attempt to discredit your entire post, I just don't like it when things are expressed in a manner that can cause misunderstandings.
_____________________


I'm sorry about the double post...Mauz edited his last comment rather than posting a new one, and I am simply responding.

Proverbs 26:10 ...great God that formed all things (itals added)
John 1:3 ... All things were made by him
Ephesians 3:0 ...who crfeateda ll things by Jesus Christ
Col. 1:16 ... by him were all things created.
Hebrews 1:2 ...his Son...by whom also he made the worlds, 11:13 ... worlds were framed by the Word of God.
Yes, before God created this earth, he created others. The rest of the universe did not just spring up fully formed.

(1) I already explained that by science, I refer to the laws that govern nature, not the study of those laws. If you don't like this term, then find me another one.

God is all-powerful. In creating the universe, he established laws. We do not know all those laws, and how they work. It is pure arrogance to assume that after a few hundred years of studying these laws, we are masters of them. God knows ALL the laws, since He established them. We fumble through designing crude experiments to try and understand, but in the end, God knows more than we do. He IS bound by His laws...that is part of being perfect. It only seems like a paradox to us, because we do not know all the laws. We study relativity, and assume, in our pride, that we understand it. I propose that we will discover through out study that we know as much about relativity now that Copernicus knew of the cosmos. We are infants. When my daughter looks out the window and sees the snow falling, she cannot comprehend, from the safety of her home, how cold or dangerous it would be to go out into the snow without proper clothing. I, as a parent, have more experience and knowledge than she does. Just because I can't feel the cold from inside the house, does not mean the cold is not there. My child will learn through experiment that I DO actually know more than her, and I my actions are based on greater knowledge.

You are right...there is no PLAN to substitute science with God...but it is happening just the same. We are leaning more to our own understanding. We are teaching the philosophy of men. We are (not you in particular, but many are) mocking those who would believe in God (give Him what name you will). We are becoming puffed up in our pride, and tearing down our "false" idols, only to replace them with new "false" idols. It has happened many times throughout history...one God being supplanted by another. This is the age of science, the age of reasoning, and thus, it is only natural that reason replace "superstition".



46535 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/23/08 , edited 4/23/08

kimmm6 wrote:


I'm sorry about the double post...Mauz edited his last comment rather than posting a new one, and I am simply responding.

Proverbs 26:10 ...great God that formed all things (itals added)
John 1:3 ... All things were made by him
Ephesians 3:0 ...who crfeateda ll things by Jesus Christ
Col. 1:16 ... by him were all things created.
Hebrews 1:2 ...his Son...by whom also he made the worlds, 11:13 ... worlds were framed by the Word of God.
Yes, before God created this earth, he created others. The rest of the universe did not just spring up fully formed.

(1) I already explained that by science, I refer to the laws that govern nature, not the study of those laws. If you don't like this term, then find me another one.

God is all-powerful. In creating the universe, he established laws. We do not know all those laws, and how they work. It is pure arrogance to assume that after a few hundred years of studying these laws, we are masters of them. God knows ALL the laws, since He established them. We fumble through designing crude experiments to try and understand, but in the end, God knows more than we do. He IS bound by His laws...that is part of being perfect. It only seems like a paradox to us, because we do not know all the laws. We study relativity, and assume, in our pride, that we understand it. I propose that we will discover through out study that we know as much about relativity now that Copernicus knew of the cosmos. We are infants. When my daughter looks out the window and sees the snow falling, she cannot comprehend, from the safety of her home, how cold or dangerous it would be to go out into the snow without proper clothing. I, as a parent, have more experience and knowledge than she does. Just because I can't feel the cold from inside the house, does not mean the cold is not there. My child will learn through experiment that I DO actually know more than her, and I my actions are based on greater knowledge.

You are right...there is no PLAN to substitute science with God...but it is happening just the same. We are leaning more to our own understanding. We are teaching the philosophy of men. We are (not you in particular, but many are) mocking those who would believe in God (give Him what name you will). We are becoming puffed up in our pride, and tearing down our "false" idols, only to replace them with new "false" idols. It has happened many times throughout history...one God being supplanted by another. This is the age of science, the age of reasoning, and thus, it is only natural that reason replace "superstition".




Right, well I have not seen the word science used that way before.

I mentioned that giving that argument of he made everything is not satisfying to me. It may be true it may be false but that's it. That's all it tells me, there is no practical use I can get from that argument, I don't gain any deep understanding of reality by it. God made everything, that's nice...AND? this is why creationism fails to be a theory just by defining itself. The information it gives could be valid but it cannot be used to gain understanding of how things work.

It is pure arrogance to assume that in this universe which is billions of years old, in a tiny piece of that universe, in an even more minute piece of land, individuals who only began writing about 5000 years ago, come up with different written sacred texts made that have been translated so many times; meaning there is possibility of meaning being changed.

Texts whose sacred credibility relies only on trust, that belong to a period where it is difficult to be certain if they are truly complete, intact, or if there is more to be discovered, are telling the truth of the universe. And it just so happens that the correct text is coincidentally the one you most probably were introduced to by your family as the only true one. It is pure arrogance to attempt to interpret absolutely everything using such text as a guideline, and it is arrogant to assume our limited perception permits us to claim that these words written so long ago are absolute.

If science is wrong with an assumption it moves on to the next one, if that next assumption makes sense, it is constantly tested, enhanced, and expanded and if something else is discovered which happens to refute that previous concept held as true, the matter is discussed and if that new idea is truly a better map of reality the old one is discarded. Religion does not do that very often, and when it does it takes a lot of time and social assimilation (earth not the center of the universe, for example) science changes constantly and because it does it expands faster. Yes is wrong to assume we have mastered the understanding of these laws but this attitude is not the the norm, bad science is not the norm. Dogma is the norm in religion however.

The arrogance goes BOTH ways.

".....It only seems like a paradox to us, because we do not know all the laws."

this statement is empty, you are justifying an assumption with another, is like trying to cover a leaking bucket with yet another leaking bucket.


" We are leaning more to our own understanding. We are teaching the philosophy of men. We are (not you in particular, but many are) mocking those who would believe in God (give Him what name you will). We are becoming puffed up in our pride, and tearing down our "false" idols, only to replace them with new "false" idols. It has happened many times throughout history...one God being supplanted by another. This is the age of science, the age of reasoning, and thus, it is only natural that reason replace "superstition".


Why is this spoken as if it was news? This behavior is not because of religion is because of human nature. Therefore it applies to both atheists, theists and everything in between. To Y person who believes in Y religion, the other religions could be seen as false, as 'philosophy of men' To X person, member of X religion the Y religion is incorrect and is therefore seen as philosophy of men. Atheists mock religious people, religious people used to torture and even order, and support crusades against other people whose worldview did not fit theirs, the Y idols are considered false by the X people the X idols are false to the Y people. This is only a bunch of social animals with limited perceptions, trying to make a sense of the world, trying to belong to a group who reinforces and support their worldviews and that are affected whenever a person or a belief interefre with their selfconcept, and/or does not coincide with theirs.

It happens with religion with music, with school choices, with culture, with presidential elections, with social institutions, with art, with everything.

Many people who did not adhere to any religious ideas used other tools and arrived at the same morals and virtues and were exemplary human beings, I'm sorry but isn't man made in gods image according to your belief system? I don't think is unreasonable to assume that man can discover much things independently of faith, and still be a moral person. If I have a kid, and I provide him with guidelines to how to live, and then the kids grows up and matures enough that he discovers on his own many of the truths of life, and becomes independent, and prepared enough to move on and shape its own path I as a father would be proud of him. he has not abandoned me, but he is more independent.

I find this talk of 'leaning more to our understanding and thought' using a negative tone to it kind of silly. In the sense that, to me it would not be illogical to think that if God made intelligent beings, gave them free will, etc....why would those creatures need to be babysitted forever?
Creator
57720 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / canada
Offline
Posted 4/23/08
Mauz...I appreciate what you are saying...I even understand it. I'm NOT trying to convert you. The original post was "should science and God mix"...not "Does God exist?", not even "should every scientist believe in God in order to study science?" My understanding, from text, was that Seraph was referring to the laws that govern nature, not necessarily the persuit of knowledge. Perhaps, now that I re-read the orginal post, I have mis-interpreted the question.

We all have learning from different sources...if you can use your texts to support your position, then I should be able to use mine. It is a given that I believe in God, and all of my understanding is colored by that, just as you don't, (or at the very least you are undecided), and your understanding is colored by your perceptions. I have a great deal more understanding about creation than I am sharing, because I know you would not accept it, so there is little point. If you know anything about Latter-day Saints, then you know that we "believe the bible to be the word of God, so far as it is translated correctly". One of the key reasons for the Book of Mormon is to help clarify plain and precious truths lost from the bible through mis-translation, omission, and loss. (btw...my family didn't introduce me to God...it was the other way around.) You are also assuming that God has no other worlds over which He presides...and that would be arrogant in the extreme. My statement about paradox is only empty if you lack faith. I believe in the supremacy and omniscience of God, and therefore, the statement is not empty at all...to me. Since I am sharing MY opinion, I get to decide how empty my feelings are. You are not required to be filled by my faith...which is good, because I can't give it to you anyway.

I didn't expect my last statement to be taken as "news". Even I can see that humanity takes it's Gods where it will, replacing less popular idols with time. Christianity is dying. I can see that. It doesn't change my faith in it, though. Just as I cannot convert you to Christianity, you cannot convert me to atheism (or agnostism, if you wish). Your second last paragraph has me baffled. It ISN'T unreasonable to assume that man can discover much things independently of faith, and still be a moral person. I never said it was. I'm sorry if that was the impression I gave. I do ask you...even though you child would be seeking eventual independence, would he stop loving you, just because he has reached maturity? Has it ever occured to you that God wants the same thing? He created us, He gave us a world on which to grow and learn, He gave us talents, some for music, some for "art" (pretty broad, I'll admit), some for discovery, some for understanding, some for writing, some for faith, some for kindness, some for listening and some for talking. He gave us agency to use this world, and all the other gifts given us as we best see fit. It is not His way to control us. As we grow, and learn, and choose, He steps back and guides us the way that will make us happiest, and then lets us decide for ourselves. Let's say your child decides one day to choose Christ. Would you see that as a betrayal? You've raised you child to think for himself all his life...and here he is giving up his "freedom" for an antiquated belief system. Do you still love the child?

Hmmmm...*heavy sigh*.... I should prolly delete most of this reply, since it is WAY off topic, or at least move it to another thread. I'm not going to, though. If we can't get back on topic, I'll move it later.

Member
1283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Everywhere you wa...
Offline
Posted 4/23/08

kimmm6 wrote:



My statement about paradox is only empty if you lack faith. I believe in the supremacy and omniscience of God, and therefore, the statement is not empty at all...to me. Since I am sharing MY opinion, I get to decide how empty my feelings are. You are not required to be filled by my faith...which is good, because I can't give it to you anyway.





Arguments from personal incredulity can not support any assertion logically.
Creator
57720 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / canada
Offline
Posted 4/23/08
For all the new-comers here...I don't ask that you believe, I only respect the fact the I do. When discussing religion in any form, it is done with the understanding that logic will not always be part of the equation.
46535 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/23/08 , edited 4/23/08
OK this can keep going forever and I was never satisfied with what I posted anyways (I always posted during breaks before going to class >_< so it was all done in a hurry) I apologize if you felt a conflict was going on kimm.

One thing, when I said empty, I mean the statement, I was not attacking faith or anything like that. But anyways


The reason I mostly addressed minor points so far is because I find the question rather silly. For a long time I have always been of the idea that reason and faith are not really parallel, nor opposite things. It's the same strand, a continuum. Think of it as a color spectrum, notice how each color relies more or less on the ones next to it in order to for lack of a better word, 'exist'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Spectrum4websiteEval.svg

One side is Faith, in the other is Reason, since we are humans is almost impossible to reach the complete each end of it. What does this mean? it means that in us, there is certain reason in faith and there is also certain faith in reason. The degrees of both cases depend on what is being the subject and the circumstances.

Notice also how in the spectrum is kind of hard to tell in concrete terms, for example, where does red starts and where does it end? where does yellow ends and green starts? Religion addresses many things, spiritual, moral, and explanations. Science deals with nature, but that also includes our behavior, psychology, etc. Is not hard to imagine that sooner or later a conflict of concepts will start, mainly because neither side can reach agreement. To illustrate: 'where do you start? well where do YOU end?'

Language also plays a role here, the word soul used by one while cognitive self could be used for the other, yet...our current knowledge is so limited at the moment does not permit us to be really certain of what we are trying to grasp.
Member
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/23/08 , edited 4/23/08

@seraph: Also, God is the creator of science? come on. Science is a human tool to further understanding of reality. And if you are going to reply with the redundancy of 'well god created everything so there fore science was created by it too' then don't mind answering.


Where the heck did I say God created science? O_O I don’t recall having said that at all.

However, I would claim that God created a scientific world. We know the universe exists as it exists. Science comes from a Latin root meaning “to know” to “seek knowledge.” In other words the point of science is simply trying to understand things as they are.

To understand something is simply to know its nature. To know is to perceive the truth. In other words, if you believe of what is that it is, you are right and therefore know-even if you don’t know you know. At the same time if you believe of what is not that it is, or of what is that it is not, you are wrong; therefore, you do not know.

What is something’s nature? Something’s nature is its relationship with itself and with other things.

So, physics is the science of the physical universe. Physics; therefore, exists to understand the universe. Physics; therefore, exists to know the nature of the universe. Physics; therefore, exists to understand the relationship of the universe with itself and other things.

So, if the Judeo/Christian God truly exists-this is a vital point to science, to physics, because we now know the relation of physics to God-we now understand a little more of the universes existence.

I will also say that I think God is a scientific and ordered entity. I think God is simply a being which exists on a higher level of science than physics. He created everything physical and so all physical things are possible for him.


In short, I deduce that if God really is real, then part of science is to understand God, for science is the pursuit of knowing the nature of everything.

First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.