Should Science Speak to Faith?

[WITHTEETH]

WITHTEETH, genuine question: you say that you should worry about another's feelings? Why is that? I don't see that that is based on scientific reasoning.

Why be moral? Why be healthy? It feels good. There is this natural tendancy in many human beings depending on how they were raised (and genetically i suppose too) of the pleasure to please, and the capacity for empathy.

 

Empirically, i see another suffering in despair, i feel empathy, I've been there. So I help them out because it will help me feel good then too! Is that selfish? Well, i just made 2 people happy, myself and another. And later on, that person will reward me back (in theory haha!)

 

This is the best reasoning i can come up with. Anyone want to chime in?

[Gorth]

Empirically, i see another suffering in despair, i feel empathy, I've been there. So I help them out because it will help me feel good then too! Is that selfish? Well, i just made 2 people happy, myself and another. And later on, that person will reward me back (in theory haha!)

 

This is the best reasoning i can come up with. Anyone want to chime in?

Maybe you are a slave to your genes? A genetic combination that results in the urge to create social structures and "ethics", makes your gene combinations better able to survive than say, a bunch of selfish individualists all struggling to survivie on their own. Ever wonder why you do irrational things you can't explain, it just makes you feel good? Welcome to the selfish gene. It is using stick and carrots to make you do the grunt work for it (which is also "love explained" in The Book of Gorth) >_

[Cantousent]

...And this is the problem with reductionism, my toothy friend. To explain all things away with science misuses science. Your kindness... your secular humanism... is reduced to a selfish gene.

 

That's not the deal though. If you choose to use empirical as observation and only observation, a perfectly legitimate choice, then that really doesn't change things. You observe that someone does not have food and thus is hungry. However, it is a moral judgment to believe that hunger is an evil. You observe that inflicting greivous wounds on someone kills them. However, you must believe that killing is evil. For the record, however, I don't doubt that you can form a complete moral compass outside the bounds of religion. The fact is, I don't attack your secular humanism at all. I still think that "empirical morality" is a convoluted tap dance around the issue. I wonder, however, short of renouncing my religion, if it's even possible to find any common ground with you. Science and religion do not mix. Science and morality, by your own admission, do not mix. Since that's been my stance for quite some time, what's the issue? You want to use empirical in something other than it's scientific meaning so that you can claim "empirical morality?" Fine. Fair enough. Kind of undercuts the whole discussion though, huh? I guess we agree that science should not speak to religion.

 

Does observation equate to judgment? I don't think so, but I'll accept the argument for now.

[WITHTEETH]

I get the feeling the answer to your question may need very basic answer Cantousant. What makes art beautiful? Sure a scientist can look at it and see the brush strokes, the textures, and date it, but can it judge its beauty? No, that takes feelings, and judgment comes from feelings. Everything is a matter of feeling (Hegel would say I believe.) What makes your bible correct, because its says so? Yes, but you have a feeling. Importantly, my feelings are grounded in the empirical realm, not another realm.

Edited June 19, 2007 by WITHTEETH

[Cantousent]

Your feelings are grounded in yourself. The point I've been making is that I don't have any animosity for your secular humanism (a much better fight to pick than empirical morality, btw). You have real animosity for religion. However, have you not observed good, decent people of faith? Your observations have shown you that those of us in "another realm" are all wicked?

[WITHTEETH]

Your feelings are grounded in yourself. The point I've been making is that I don't have any animosity for your secular humanism (a much better fight to pick than empirical morality, btw). You have real animosity for religion. However, have you not observed good, decent people of faith? Your observations have shown you that those of us in "another realm" are all wicked?

I don't believe people who want to be part of that "other realm" are all wicked at all. I don't want to criticize them, just there reasoning. I want to have an open ended discussion about this, its healthy to share reasons, and it helps maintain human civilization. There are issues such as abortion, , contraceptives. stem cell research, gay marriage, that many religions have a problem with, and morally speaking from a humanistic perspective, they cause more human suffering than help.

 

I believe people are generally good, when we do something we generally have a reason, but is that reason sufficient? With all the contradicting viewpoints, contradicting books from a gods, and ignorance in the world we don't always make the best reasoning i believe. I have hope for humanity, that it can become greater and greater, but to do so, we need to criticize some ideas. We have done so in the past, with slavery, women rights, and communism, i believe we can achieve greater too, especially with the willingness to talk, and have an open ended discussion just like we are right now.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

A lot of good Christians have fought long and hard to ensure the secular nature of our government.

 

So did a great many Deists, yet you never here about them do you? It's all about how the founding fathers wanted a "Christian nation," even though some of the the most predominant despised Christianity.

 

 

Page six of comments is PURE GOLD

 

 

tidewatcher27 (6 days ago) Marked as spam

atheists are such hypocrites! in the biggest way. its a shame and i feel sorry for all of you out there who doesn't know God as much I do. In the end if he is true (so called) true. You all have ALOT to account for. watch what you say incase your wrong. this is serious business. this is God serious. the bible is true and you will find out the hard way I guess.

(Reply)

elfian1977 (6 days ago) Marked as spam

Why am I a hypocrite. I don't believe in any god. So what? How does that harm anybody? Do I know right form wrong? yes. Do I need a 2000 year book to tell what is right and what is wrong? no. Should children be brought up in a faith? I say no. I'll teach my kids about religion and if they choose to pursue it then I'll support that choice because religion is an individual choice which should be made by the individual and not force fed in schools or other areas of public service.

(Reply)

tidewatcher27 (6 days ago) Marked as spam

if your not force feeding god then your force feeding something else. point is..is that atheism is being taught in schools, colleges like its a religion. so ok....this idea you have should go for everyone right...not just certain people. i to be honest do not want to be force fed by atheists as I have been in recent past. thats why it is hypocritical.

(Reply)

silver360modena (6 days ago) Marked as spam

SCIENCE is taught in schools... not atheism. If it is being taught, atheism is the lack of religion.. so it can't be taught LIKE IT'S A RELIGION!!!!!!! DUH!

(Reply)

tidewatcher27 (6 days ago) Marked as spam

well it is and you say DUH go check it out for yourself. It is being taught in colleges "atheism" is right now and how not to believe in God. Atheist comes back at christians like they are a religion you see. I have an excuse I am christian...well whats your excuse

(Reply)

elfian1977 (6 days ago) Marked as spam

Worse case? I'm wrong...there is a god. I'm at the gates of heaven and he tells me that regardless of how I have lived my life the fact that I did not believe means I can't get in. Well to be honest I don't want in that heaven and hang with that kind of god anyway.

(Reply)

tidewatcher27 (6 days ago) Marked as spam

can't u see that if he is your creator then he is God and God has the last word. he made you and he could have made you a robot think logically here. he didn't by choice. his creation is trying to override there creator himself! wow does you children override you? no they listen to you. case and point.

(Reply)

tidewatcher27 (6 days ago) Marked as spam

I hereby challenge any atheist to name any genuine CHRISTIAN of old who believed that the earth was flat. Please supply concrete proof that he was a genuine Christian and substantiate that he believed the earth was flat.

 

What you will realize when you endeavor to perform this impossible task is it was not genuine Christians who believed this myth, but it was the liberal, atheistic so-called "scholars" and etc... of the day who originated and perpetuated that myth.

(Reply)

quiIl (6 days ago) Marked as spam

"I hereby challenge any atheist to name any genuine CHRISTIAN of old who believed that the earth was flat."

 

Wilbur Glenn Voliva (1870-1942), evangelical minister and famous proponent of flat-earth theories. Look him up sometime.

 

Now find me one atheist who's ever said the earth was flat, please.

(Reply)

tidewatcher27 (6 days ago) Marked as spam

Passage Psalm 14:1:

Only fools say in their hearts,

"There is no God."

They are corrupt, and their actions are evil;

not one of them does good!

 

 

I feel so loved!!!

 

 

Its all open to interpretation, but then again the Old and New Testament have been translated, retranslated, interpreted and reinterpreted for over 2000 years so there is no way to accurately to know what the original meaning of the scriptures meant.

 

I agree with you , but when someone provides evidence against their, the fundamentalists' beliefs some respond with the weathered expression, "It is all according to god's will." I refuse to accept that as a rational explanation, and demand that they provide me with the tiniest piece of solid evidence. There is no way to back a literal translation of the Bible other than their twisted, unfounded, ideology. We all know the stories and there repeating does not strengthen the case. We all perceive the Bible as we wish, and that is our prerogative. While, it is their right to try and sway those who dissent, they have done nothing but regurgitate, in my mind, drivel. They have NO eyewitnesses, they only have a book that has been translated and rewritten hundreds of times. Consider the source, and you will soon agree with Professor Ehrman that the Bible is clearly a secondary source that contains its own bias. Do you think that the writers and re-writers would not try to change the Bible for their own motives? I can only surmise that if they take the bible at face value they could also take "Jack and the Beanstalk" at face value. Yes, they are correct many places in the bible have been found; or rather it is believed that they have been found. There is no evidence, however, that proves these are the same places. Even if they are, what does this prove? There are a lot of historic accuracies in the bible, but that does not mean every word of it is true by default. "Oh My God! The Garden of Eden was a real place (Bahraih). Therefore, the story of Adam and Eve is true!" That is a ludicrous conclusion. The problem is that the evidence is not something that can be used today, and therefore their

[taks]

IF you say so, but my view is that all knowledge that can be gleaned by scientific understanding of our universe is knowable eventually even though it may not be known right now.

that's the point that you're missing... the fact that someone could "know all" would mean that there is some information that allows someone, or all of everyone, to know something, which requires more "knowing" which means there's some information that allows... ad infinitum. not only is it physically impossible, it is philosophically impossible as well. again, bone up on goedel. there are many concepts that are thought to be true, or untrue, but we can never prove them (the fact that these truths are unprovable has been proven in many cases). if there is ONE thing that is unprovable, your entire thesis on the subject fails. there are many, and a simple bit 'o wiki searching will reveal that. QED

 

taks

[metadigital]

WITHTEETH, genuine question: you say that you should worry about another's feelings? Why is that? I don't see that that is based on scientific reasoning.

Why be moral? Why be healthy? It feels good. There is this natural tendancy in many human beings depending on how they were raised (and genetically i suppose too) of the pleasure to please, and the capacity for empathy.

 

Empirically, i see another suffering in despair, i feel empathy, I've been there. So I help them out because it will help me feel good then too! Is that selfish? Well, i just made 2 people happy, myself and another. And later on, that person will reward me back (in theory haha!)

 

This is the best reasoning i can come up with. Anyone want to chime in?

Albert Camus, in The Myth of Sisyphus, has a lot to speak of about this. Basically there is no compelling reason to be good, evil or indifferent. A person can do and be whatever they feel, whether it fulfills them or not. There is no reckoning, bar the immediate world of our own face in the mirror.

 

This debate has gotten a little of track, methinks. The fundamental issue at stake is that (some) religious folk think that their faith is above the created world, beyond criticism and certainly cannot be subjected to scientific rigour. And not only are they offended that others might think that their faith is not universally correct and accepted, they think it is perfectly acceptable to kill anyone who dares to challenge their god-given wisdom.

 

I would hope that we all would agree that, for our society to survive, all members must be tolerant of others and not wish to extinguish their rights to believe whatever they want.

 

This doesn't mean that belief is immune from criticism.

 

In November 2004, an angry young Muslim, Mohammed Bouyeri, shot and killed the provocative Dutch film-maker Theo van Gogh. The killer had objected to a film that van Gogh had made with the Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali

[Blank]

This debate has gotten a little of track, methinks.

religious threads ftw

[taks]

The fundamental issue at stake is that (some) religious folk think that their faith is above the created world, beyond criticism and certainly cannot be subjected to scientific rigour.

the same can be said for some that think their lack of faith (in a higher power, or religion) is above all as well.

 

taks

[Sand]

IF you say so, but my view is that all knowledge that can be gleaned by scientific understanding of our universe is knowable eventually even though it may not be known right now.

that's the point that you're missing... the fact that someone could "know all" would mean that there is some information that allows someone, or all of everyone, to know something, which requires more "knowing" which means there's some information that allows... ad infinitum. not only is it physically impossible, it is philosophically impossible as well. again, bone up on goedel. there are many concepts that are thought to be true, or untrue, but we can never prove them (the fact that these truths are unprovable has been proven in many cases). if there is ONE thing that is unprovable, your entire thesis on the subject fails. there are many, and a simple bit 'o wiki searching will reveal that. QED

 

taks

The thing is I do not believe in impossibilities. Everything is possible, just some things are just more highly improbable than others.

[Istima Loke]

that's the point that you're missing... the fact that someone could "know all" would mean that there is some information that allows someone, or all of everyone, to know something, which requires more "knowing" which means there's some information that allows... ad infinitum.

 

I think there is another perspective that is (or at least I believe it is) more accurate than this one. Say that in fact we understand the laws that govern our universe. According to your saying one could gain more knowledge from this fact. That is a contradiction. There is nothing to know about our universe beyond that, since that provides all knowledge in the universe. And to ask why these are the laws of the universe and not some other set of rules, is not a question that can provide knowledge. It is like asking why you were born as yourself. The answer is obvious, you couldn't have born as someone else because you were born as yourself. In a manner, the laws of the universe make the universe.

[Walsingham]

Wow, some pretty good stuff, if I may say so. I disagree with Meta in saying we've got off track. We seem to be quite tightly focussed, but on different facets of the same question. Nor should we be alarmed by failing to form a unified view. Einstein himself had contradictory views on the matter, believing on the one hand in a mystical inspiration caused by religion, and on the other in a rigid empirical scientific methodology.

 

"But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." (Albert Einstein, 1941)

 

To respond to Cant and WITHTEETH, I have quite strong feelings. The selfish gene can tell me that my strategic imperative towards genetic survival is best served by a 'moral' outlook as a rule of thumb. Honesty, collaboration, courage etc. However, while it will tell me this is true for 95-99% of cases, it will remain mute on those most important occasions, when we can be absolutely certain that our actions will never be discovered, and we will never pay a price for our advancement or self-gratification. At such times, the only impediments can be regarded as on the one hand consistency, and on the other hand as this fragment of irrational belief, that we always stand before some higher witness.

 

At the same time as I would not have a life of science without religion, I would equally fight against a life of religion without science. Incorporating, utilising, and wondering at scientific advance is more than just possible. It is a feature of many profoundly holy men and women. The only one I have any experience of personally is Archbishop Desmond Tutu. But I've also read some of the works of Krishnamurti, and he often references science.

[Xard]

that's the point that you're missing... the fact that someone could "know all" would mean that there is some information that allows someone, or all of everyone, to know something, which requires more "knowing" which means there's some information that allows... ad infinitum.

 

I think there is another perspective that is (or at least I believe it is) more accurate than this one. Say that in fact we understand the laws that govern our universe.

 

I love it when people read my posts too

 

Atheists have moral. It's ridiculous to say that just because person is atheist, he is amoral person. Heck, I've been atheist too and I know many atheists.

 

However, science is amoral. That's hard fact. You can't argue your morals, ethics etc. based on science.

 

Basically "I've seen empirically how people feel good" is not valid argument.

 

There's no reason why people should "feel good" or why to make other people feel good. What matters is your own survival in world and that's it. When people argue that making as large amount of people as possible feel good, that steps outside of hard science and goes under worldview category, which ethical and moral areas cannot be determined as some sorts of "facts" by science.

 

Although "ethics" goes under soft science and human sciences, it's still just researching ethics and morals of people.

[Istima Loke]

Trying to decipher your cryptic answer, I suppose that you are referring to this:

 

Anyway, do you know Sand that "Laws of nature" are nowadays "high propabilities" (or whatever the official english term is). It's really just semantics since highest propabilities tend to happen "quite often", but nonetheless, they're still propabilities

 

 

There is a more theoretical example that shows the contradiction: If one knows all, then the knowledge that comes from his knowing everything, is already known to him as if it wasn't he wouldn't know everything.

 

But furthermore, even probabilities have laws. If I know the probabilities of things to happen, and I know that these facts are true, then I know the laws that govern the world. Nobody said that to understand the world you have to know what is to happen. If the latest theories about physics are correct we actually know for certain that we are not capable of knowing what is to come, with certainty. And that is by itself a law of the universe as it provides us with a certain knowledge of how the universe works.

 

Also I believe that calling science amoral is as wrong as calling it moral (if I understand the use of the word amoral right). Morality is a characteristic of beings with conscious. Therefore science is irrelevant to morality, meaning that science neither promotes morality nor promotes the lack of morality and that is why we can find moral and amoral scientists (even though I have heard numerous logical explanations of why we should be moral).

[Xard]

Aww, man. It couldn't be that cryptic :sad:

 

Moral = ethical views, assessments and behaviour rules of community and individual

Ethics = "chastity study" aka studying morals

Amoral = "Amorality is the quality of having no concept of right or wrong. 'Amorality' or 'amoralism' may also refer to knowing of right and wrong but lacking a belief in the absolute existence of any moral laws."*

 

Thus, I think it's right to call science "amoral", which in this case means "Therefore science is irrelevant to morality".

 

Also, possible morality or amorality (amoral scientist must be very rare case) of scientists has nothing to do with amorality of science itself.

 

Trying to decipher your cryptic answer, I suppose that you are referring to this:

 

Anyway, do you know Sand that "Laws of nature" are nowadays "high propabilities" (or whatever the official english term is). It's really just semantics since highest propabilities tend to happen "quite often", but nonetheless, they're still propabilities

 

 

[A] There is a more theoretical example that shows the contradiction: If one knows all, then the knowledge that comes from his knowing everything, is already known to him as if it wasn't he wouldn't know everything.

 

But furthermore, even probabilities have laws. If I know the probabilities of things to happen, and I know that these facts are true, then I know the laws that govern the world. Nobody said that to understand the world you have to know what is to happen. If the latest theories about physics are correct we actually know for certain that we are not capable of knowing what is to come, with certainty. And that is by itself a law of the universe as it provides us with a certain knowledge of how the universe works.

 

[A] I fail to see what it has to do with current object of conversation here, although that it is in its own way interesting idea.

 

True, that's why I said "just semantics". And it's true propabilities have laws too. What you say here is correct.

 

However, knowing all also includes knowing more than just laws of propabilitie. Knowing of all would also require eliminating propabilites, since propabilities are kind of antithesis for omniscience.

 

Also, laws of propabilities are still laws for propabilities, and outcomes of propabilities are not carved in stone. Laws of propabilities is not "It's more propable A happens instead B, thus A always happens".

 

Loke, fundamentally we agree here (or that was the picture I got from your post). Science can never be omniscientic.

 

Science answers how things are, what things are (well, to certain extent) and when things are (e.g. science answers when deposition happens under certain conditions) etc..

 

However, science can never answer how things SHOULD BE, WHY things are, WHAT individual should do etc. These belongs in playground of religions and certain branches of philosophy (although religions are philosophy too when approached from philosophical, not theological, standpoint).

 

Between these two I put how things will be.

 

But that's more in area of fighting between free will and determination.

 

Kinda off-topic: I think there's such thing as free will, although many things goes like determinists say. However, all is not subject of determination.

 

But I'm not going to talk about that matter more, it should belong in philosophy topic instead of this.

 

And I'm lazy writer.

 

* Explanation of amoral is from wiki

Edited June 19, 2007 by Xard

[Istima Loke]

[A] I fail to see what it has to do with current object of conversation here, although that it is in its own way interesting idea.

 

True, that's why I said "just semantics". And it's true propabilities have laws too. What you say here is correct.

 

However, knowing all also includes knowing more than just laws of propabilities. Knowing of all would also require eliminating propabilites, since propabilities are kind of antithesis for omniscience.

 

Also, laws of propabilities are still laws for propabilities, and outcomes of propabilities are not carved in stone. Laws of propabilities is not "It's more propable A happens instead B, thus A always happens".

 

Loke, fundamentally we agree here (or that was the picture I got from your post). Science can never be omniscientic.

 

Science answers how things are, what things are (well, to certain extent) and when things are (e.g. science answers when deposition happens under certain conditions) etc..

 

However, science can never answer how things SHOULD BE, WHY things are, WHAT individual should do etc. These belongs in playground of religions and certain branches of philosophy (although religions are philosophy too when approached from philosophical, not theological, standpoint).

 

Well I tend to drift away from conversations and I am afraid I am doing so right now...

 

But, I will try to explain what I meant. If the current theories of physics say it is a matter of probabilities what is to happen (and not some reason we fail to see), then:

We cannot say that science is incapable of providing us with knowledge of what is to come, because this knowledge does not exist until the event happens. It is not the incapability of science to present such information neither it is the human nature and the way we as a being understand things. It is the nature of the universe that future is not determined before it actually takes place. Knowing all doesn't include a knowledge that does not exist.

 

And to further explain my opinion, I will give an example. If I am not eating an ice-cream, then you cannot answer the question "What is the flavour of the ice-cream I am eating?" and that is not because it is an information that you cannot find out or comprehend but it does not exist as an information because I am not eating.

 

That is why I said "Nobody said that to understand the world you have to know what is to happen"

 

 

Now, I do agree that science cannot tell how things should be, or how we should act (some whys are answered through science though). So I am not really sure how could science speak to faith, or if it should do so, but I think that people should slowly start seeing with more scepticism the Bible and admit that at least some of those things in there are not correct. Maybe religion should start caring more about morality and less about how the world or humans were created...

 

P.S.: I hope what I write makes sense, and is not totally irrelevant with the subject.

 

P.S.2: It wasn't that cryptic

[Cantousent]

By amoral, I mean entirely lacking in morals. Scientists are human beings, and are keenly interested in morals. Every single one of them. They might refer to morals as "ethics" or some such, but all people are concerned with morals. It's, as my friend Gorth might say, part of our moral gene.

 

...And don't think I mean it as an insult when I say that science is amoral. I don't. Science isn't a living thing. Depending on how you look at it, it's either the set of universal laws that govern existence or the language man uses to express what laws and theories he understands.

 

The question meta posed was, "should science speak to faith." My opinion, from empirical morality onward, is that it not only should not, but that it cannot. However, I'm taking a few things for granted. One, I take for granted that we can accept the nature of our universe as we experience it. Where there are laws that govern our existence, we should accept them and proceed through the discussion. Where there are disputes regarding universal laws, we should rely on science as the basis of the discussion. Faith, however, is concerned with our spiritual side. We rely on something outside of science to tell us what is "right" or "wrong." I don't suggest that folks must have religion, or even any spiritual faith, to have a moral compass, but science cannot provide the basis. I've always thought TEETH was a bit strident in his denunciation of Christianity, but I've always been willing to accept his belief in secular humanism. That doesn't mean I'm not Catholic. It just means that I can accept different world views for the sake of the discussion.

 

The upshot is, amoral simply means without morals. It is not immoral.

[taks]

The thing is I do not believe in impossibilities. Everything is possible, just some things are just more highly improbable than others.

which is an absolutely untrue statement. science is not a matter of belief. for example, you cannot prove nor disprove the existence of god. science is not capable of that because it is not based on "belief, and moreso with mathematics. nor can you prove many truths or untruths about "interesting" mathematical systems. this can be proven. that you don't exhibit the ability to understand speaks to your ignorance of a very basic tenet of science. read sand, read.

 

taks

[taks]

I think there is another perspective that is (or at least I believe it is) more accurate than this one. Say that in fact we understand the laws that govern our universe. According to your saying one could gain more knowledge from this fact. That is a contradiction. There is nothing to know about our universe beyond that, since that provides all knowledge in the universe. And to ask why these are the laws of the universe and not some other set of rules, is not a question that can provide knowledge. It is like asking why you were born as yourself. The answer is obvious, you couldn't have born as someone else because you were born as yourself. In a manner, the laws of the universe make the universe.

no, it is not a contradiction. the very fact that you "know everything" belies an underlying method which was used to know that. that method then requires understanding (i.e., "how did you come to this conclusion"). it is almost a corollary to goedel's incompleteness theorem. as i stated, you cannot fully understand the entire box from within the box. the problem is exacerbated by the fact that "the box" is incomplete. i.e., incompleteness means "not fully describable." there are many known unprovable problems. it only takes ONE to falsify any theory that we can know all.

 

taks

[metadigital]

The fundamental issue at stake is that (some) religious folk think that their faith is above the created world, beyond criticism and certainly cannot be subjected to scientific rigour.

the same can be said for some that think their lack of faith (in a higher power, or religion) is above all as well.

Absolutely.

 

As J.B.S. Haldane said when asked what evidence might contradict evolution, 'Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.'

 

Wow, some pretty good stuff, if I may say so. I disagree with Meta in saying we've got off track. We seem to be quite tightly focussed, but on different facets of the same question. Nor should we be alarmed by failing to form a unified view. Einstein himself had contradictory views on the matter, believing on the one hand in a mystical inspiration caused by religion, and on the other in a rigid empirical scientific methodology.

 

"But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." (Albert Einstein, 1941)

 

To respond to Cant and WITHTEETH, I have quite strong feelings. The selfish gene can tell me that my strategic imperative towards genetic survival is best served by a 'moral' outlook as a rule of thumb. Honesty, collaboration, courage etc. However, while it will tell me this is true for 95-99% of cases, it will remain mute on those most important occasions, when we can be absolutely certain that our actions will never be discovered, and we will never pay a price for our advancement or self-gratification. At such times, the only impediments can be regarded as on the one hand consistency, and on the other hand as this fragment of irrational belief, that we always stand before some higher witness.

 

At the same time as I would not have a life of science without religion, I would equally fight against a life of religion without science. Incorporating, utilising, and wondering at scientific advance is more than just possible. It is a feature of many profoundly holy men and women. The only one I have any experience of personally is Archbishop Desmond Tutu. But I've also read some of the works of Krishnamurti, and he often references science.

Does it seem that Einstein contradicts himself? That his words can be cherry-picked for quotes to support both sides of an argument? No. By 'religion' Einstein meant something entirely different from what is conventionally meant. As I continue to clarify the distinction between supernatural religion on the one hand and Einsteinian religion on the other, bear in mind that calling only supernatural gods delusional.

 

Here are some more quotes from Einstein, to give a flavour of Einsteinian religion.

 

I am deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion.

 

I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.

 

The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive.

[Pidesco]

You people should try this.

[Blank]

I believe someone tried stating this earlier, but what about how morality and ethical codes can help a species along their evolutionary walk by not killing themselves and caring for each other? So regarding physical devices which have evolved, why can not devices invented by the mind not be evolutionary?

 

On the other hand, when a species helps itself like ours, it is helping the weaker parts, which then mingle with the stronger ones, and physical evolution would seem to come to a slower pace than if only the strongest were surviving. Of course, these are humans and we care about them, but from an evolutionary perspective, ethical codes seem to be good and bad. I speak as though a believer in evolution, though I am not.

[metadigital]

By amoral, I mean entirely lacking in morals. Scientists are human beings, and are keenly interested in morals. Every single one of them. They might refer to morals as "ethics" or some such, but all people are concerned with morals. It's, as my friend Gorth might say, part of our moral gene.

 

...And don't think I mean it as an insult when I say that science is amoral. I don't. Science isn't a living thing. Depending on how you look at it, it's either the set of universal laws that govern existence or the language man uses to express what laws and theories he understands.

 

The question meta posed was, "should science speak to faith." My opinion, from empirical morality onward, is that it not only should not, but that it cannot. However, I'm taking a few things for granted. One, I take for granted that we can accept the nature of our universe as we experience it. Where there are laws that govern our existence, we should accept them and proceed through the discussion. Where there are disputes regarding universal laws, we should rely on science as the basis of the discussion. Faith, however, is concerned with our spiritual side. We rely on something outside of science to tell us what is "right" or "wrong." I don't suggest that folks must have religion, or even any spiritual faith, to have a moral compass, but science cannot provide the basis. I've always thought TEETH was a bit strident in his denunciation of Christianity, but I've always been willing to accept his belief in secular humanism. That doesn't mean I'm not Catholic. It just means that I can accept different world views for the sake of the discussion.

 

The upshot is, amoral simply means without morals. It is not immoral.

I'll leave aside your scientist-bating for the moment. (Why can't science give guidance for morals? That is the very basis for humanism, after all. Are you denying humanism exists?)

 

I'm more concerned with why you think science can't AND SHOULDN'T speak to faith.

 

The reason I enquire is that we must be careful to not give too much respect to religion, past its due, lest we end up giving the Narcisistic Personality Disordered carte blanche to delude those "willingly gullible" cult members.