Should Science Speak to Faith?

[Sand]

The one thing that gets me in all this is the Intelligent Design people, people who try to mix religion with science. It just seems wrong to me but I did have a wierd throught on this.

 

Earth just happens to be in the biozone for life developing around a star, and just happens to be out far enough fromt he galactic core to avoid the harsh radiation there. We just happen to have a moon for us to reach for and it has water (in the form of ice) in one of its poles. We just happen to have two neighboring planets, Venus and Mars, that can be terraformed, an asteroid field with tons of minerals we can use when we get their, multiple gas giants to use as fuel sources, and a moon at one of them that is filled with water that we can use.

 

It just seems a tad coincidential to me.

[metadigital]

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.

You don't believe in evolution? I suppose gravity is just a coincidence, too? You would like Hume ...

[Blank]

Earth just happens to be in the biozone for life developing around a star, and just happens to be out far enough fromt he galactic core to avoid the harsh radiation there. We just happen to have a moon for us to reach for and it has water (in the form of ice) in one of its poles. We just happen to have two neighboring planets, Venus and Mars, that can be terraformed, an asteroid field with tons of minerals we can use when we get their, multiple gas giants to use as fuel sources, and a moon at one of them that is filled with water that we can use.

 

It just seems a tad coincidential to me.

But without most of those biozone factors, we wouldn't be, right? If the probability of it happening is 1/googolplex, we must be that one?

 

Of course, I would subscribe to the "not a coincidence" idea.

 

And as for evolution, I believe it as far as I have seen it happen in recorded history, and from what I can tell it is just mild adaptation, if even that. I don't know if something, no matter how much time you give it, could go gradually from a nonliving rock with water hitting on top of it, to a human.

 

It's also unnecessary to believe in for my faith in God and what he wants me to do, which is love Him by loving others and not sinning. I suppose knowing the truth would be good, but since I am having a hard time being convinced to believe something corollary to the important truths I do know, I won't worry too much.

 

Let's put the belief in evolution or not into perspective. If it is true, how is the world going to change? If it is false? I don't think I'd see people change just because evolution is proven or disproved. Science textbooks and scientists already proceed as though it is undoubtedly true. If it was somehow proven, I'd still love God and obey Him.

 

I don't want to sound like I am conducive to ignorance or that I don't value knowledge, but truly is there undeniable proof for evolution? I think there will always be a leap of faith, unless someone could go back in time and record it happen over the millenia it supposedly did. I think I'll always have reasonable doubt for evolution. Finding fossils and carbon dating doesn't convince me, sorry.

 

I will contend for the undisputed knowledge of reality. In my given office, I will contend for the liberty of man, fearing the reality as portrayed in dystopian novels like George Orwell's. I will not hinder the pursuit of discovering where we are truly from, but I will not go out of my way to prove something I already think is unprovable, nor will I try to convince myself of these things I do not believe are important. I cannot see how it is important. If you can prove to me its importance, then I may consider pursuing the facts about evolution.

Edited June 19, 2007 by Blank

[Pidesco]

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?

 

Morality and ethical codes are only helpful because people are fairly dumb. One shouldn't need a sense of morals to realize that helping each other is the best way to ensure our survival. Meaning that people with friends have a better chance of survival than people without friends. And people with more friends have a better chance of survival than people with less friends.

 

I guess what I mean is that a sense of morals isn't superfluous, but perhaps it should be.

[Tale]

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?

 

Morality and ethical codes are only helpful because people are fairly dumb. One shouldn't need a sense of morals to realize that helping each other is the best way to ensure our survival. Meaning that people with friends have a better chance of survival than people without friends. And people with more friends have a better chance of survival than people with less friends.

 

I guess what I mean is that a sense of morals isn't superfluous, but perhaps it should be.

To make a joining comment between Pidesco and Blank, many things related to evolution are superfluous. Not everything is helpful. Just so long as it does not completely stop a species from propagating, it has a chance to be passed along.

[Xard]

Taking away sense of morals and ethics would be very big thing for human race, and I certainly would not want that, even if those "systems" would be superfluous. Morals and ethics are such a core parts of human psyche that I'm actually scared what kind of people we would be if "helping others for our species survival" would be inbuilt system in our brains.

 

Too machinery.

 

And as for evolution, I believe it as far as I have seen it happen in recorded history, and from what I can tell it is just mild adaptation, if even that. I don't know if something, no matter how much time you give it, could go gradually from a nonliving rock with water hitting on top of it, to a human.

 

It's perfectly possible.

 

I have my own dirty relationship with theory of Panspermia by the way.

Edited June 19, 2007 by Xard

[Blank]

Thanks Xard, helpful, tactful, and intelligent posting as always.

[Blank]

If one believes that homosexuality is an abomination because it says so in the Bible, one has to accept the other things that are said in the Bible, including the allowance to kill your children if they are disobedient or validation of the right to sleep with your father if you need to have a child and there are no other men around, and so forth. Moreover, science can directly debunk many such destructive literal interpretations of scripture, including, for example, the notion that women are simple chattels, which stands counter to what biology tells us about the generic biological roles of females and the intellectual capabilities of women and men in particular.

I'm actually surprised he said something that I can so easily disprove. I do believe homosexuality is a sin, but I don't believe it's okay to kill children for being disobedient. God told those Hebrews specifically to do that, not Christians of nowadays. Christians are primarily called to love others, so is one loving one's child by killing them instead of trying to teach them the right way?

 

Sleeping with ones father was not said to be okay. In fact, the Bible doesn't really mention the moral aspects of it, as it is just a story where Lot's children feel the need to reproduce and they do so by getting their father drunk and you know the rest. People do a lot of bad and good things in the Bible, but just because there's a story where Lot's children do something doesn't mean it is authorized. Krauss' reasoning is thus flawed in that paragraph.

 

That's not to say he didn't debate well otherwise, but it hurts the rest of his argument when he makes weak points like that.

Edited June 19, 2007 by Blank

[WITHTEETH]

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.

 

A scientist has as much right to speak about god as much as a preacher has the right to talk about Biology right? Well can one really be an expert about something he made up? I am a fan of The Lord Cantousent! I'm a HUGE fan of The Lord of The Rings. The stories we create, that move us are created by our psyche. Am i stupid and foolish just because I do not believe humans history as tortured and degenerating. So because some people killed a person 2000 years ago, humans are only prone to killing and suffering? This is not a truth of history. Talk to an independent woman, a a child with a free education, a cancer survivor, human progress is real.

 

The Christian viewpoint based from the bible clearly points that humanity is doomed. There is no hope. Tolkien believed that losing hope makes people do bad things. But our story has not already been written! Looking at the world, the human condition has gotten better and its is possible to make it even better if we replace bad ideas, with good ones.

 

Yes we are capable of doing terrible things, but we are also capable or great, kind, beautiful things. Scientists should start to tell the story of progress and hope.

Edited June 19, 2007 by WITHTEETH

[Walsingham]

I just stopped for a mooment to admire the erudite qualities of the forum's membership.

 

 

...Anyway... Thanks for the link, Pidesco. However, judging by the comments, that book simply reinforces my initial reason for having religion in science. It fosters a good attitude.

 

In answer to your more recent post I thought I had already answered it. Logic and evolutionary theory (which I try to support) does indeed say that our heredity benefits from having friends and living in generaly honest societies. However, it does not mean that is ALWAYS true for the individual. When you or I stand in a position of unchecked power, and have the unfettered option to commit something 'bad' the only reason not to is because we feel accountable to a non-real entity. In my case this miniature giant space hamster.

[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.

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.

 

Good Lord! (a little prayer on my part)

 

Science cannot speak to faith in the sense of morals. If we're disussing universal laws governing our worldly circumstances, I think we should always give the nod to science. Is eating fatty foods bad for you? Is it dangerous to drive without a seatbelt? These are questions science should answer. Should I care enough about my life to eat a balanced diet and wear a seatbelt? Science does not answer that question. Science will never answer that question. Science might say that the reason we value our own is a matter of genetics or a survival instinct. It might say that the species would die should we not value our own lives. ...But it doesn't care if we die. Science doesn't care if our species dies. What we value, other than in the most hedonistic sense, will never derive from science. Our values are a separate issue. Why can't science give guidance for morals? Because science doesn't care. It just doesn't care. It can tell you what the effects are for a variety of actions by looking at what the effects have been. It can provide the basis for convincing others once you've made a decision regarding policy. ...But Science doesn't have a conscience any more than a rock feelings. As far as putting words in my mouth, meta, I'll trust that you can find a place where I said that humanism doesn't exist. Does science insist that secular humanist: "...search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility?" Hell, even my toothy colleague owned up to the fact that science, as a set of universal laws, does not have a stake in a moral argument. Does science care about enhancing human well-being?

 

In all this, I've always thought it was fair game to bash religion, just generally bad form. After all, the types of sweeping generalizations that atheists claim religious folks use are not all that dissimilar to the same types of sweeping generalizations some atheists use. No, for the record, I don't believe that religion is above scrutiny when faced with observable factors. However, I will ultimately always believe that science will never be the basis for a moral or ethical code. Sure, you might value science as a secular humanist, but to suggest that science is the basis for your values deifies it. Now isn't that strange?

 

If this is a general discussion of religion v science, then just say so. However, I've gone on in the understanding that we're discussing a narrow issue. Should science speak to faith? No. Wait, I haven't made myself clear. On that specific issue, no.

 

...But I just don't understand why you guys feel so insulted. I think secular humanism is a perfectly reasonable world view. It is not my world view, but I'm willing to accept that it's yours without rancor or ill will. I've said that in more than this post and in more than this thread. I've said that, while science isn't the basis for morals, that morals need not be based on religion or even spirituality. I've said that in more than this post and more than this thread. I guess, if the question is, should science speak to religion on matters outside value judgments? the answer will be yes. *shrug* I doubt that'll be acceptable, but it's the best I can do.

[Sand]

I do believe homosexuality is a sin,

 

That is like saying that being black or asian is a sin.

Edited June 20, 2007 by Sand

[Gorth]

...But I just don't understand why you guys feel so insulted.

Seriously, if anybody in any way feel insulted buy your posts, they aren't worth trying to please anyway

 

Can we have Eldar back now?

[WITHTEETH]

Insulting me would mean beating me in a Unreal Tournament 1v1 Deathmatch, Impossible.

 

Enlight_2.0 is my user name, I'm just throwing that out there....

[Cantousent]

Ahh, you guys win. I'm tired now. However, if I ever pick up Unreal Tournament, I'll have to say a prayer and send you to your maker. hahaha

[Sand]

I have that game. Was never any good at it.

Edited June 20, 2007 by Sand

[Hurlshort]

I'm actually surprised he said something that I can so easily disprove. I do believe homosexuality is a sin, but I don't believe it's okay to kill children for being disobedient. God told those Hebrews specifically to do that, not Christians of nowadays. Christians are primarily called to love others, so is one loving one's child by killing them instead of trying to teach them the right way?

 

Sleeping with ones father was not said to be okay. In fact, the Bible doesn't really mention the moral aspects of it, as it is just a story where Lot's children feel the need to reproduce and they do so by getting their father drunk and you know the rest. People do a lot of bad and good things in the Bible, but just because there's a story where Lot's children do something doesn't mean it is authorized. Krauss' reasoning is thus flawed in that paragraph.

 

That's not to say he didn't debate well otherwise, but it hurts the rest of his argument when he makes weak points like that.

 

I'd like to focus on the "Christians are called to love others" line. If you believe that fully, then you have to be pretty careful making judgements about homosexuality. It's good to stick to that belief personally and not engage in homosexual acts yourself, but if you are really loving others, you shouldn't put restrictions on it. Basically, you should be fully accepting of a homosexual, despite your differences in sexual orientation.

[Laozi]

Science does not answer that question. Science will never answer that question. Science might say that the reason we value our own is a matter of genetics or a survival instinct. It might say that the species would die should we not value our own lives. ...But it doesn't care if we die. Science doesn't care if our species dies. ...But Science doesn't have a conscience any more than a rock feelings.

 

 

You sound like you have been hurt by science, possibly at a very young age. Show me on this doll where science touched you.

[Sand]

Fraggles and Science should not mix.

[Blank]

I do believe homosexuality is a sin,

 

That is like saying that being black or asian is a sin.

Punk. I mean to say that homosexual actions are characterized as sinful in the Bible. If one has a homosexual desire, I would call that temptation, just as if someone had lustful desires for a woman. It's whether the person gives in or not that says if they are sinning (or if they dwell on the thoughts, as Jesus says,"I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.")

 

Moreover, I am a sinner. I sin. Black people and Asian people sin. I am not insulting people when I say they sin. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. I am not debasing people when I say they have sinful tendencies, because everyone has them. It's just a different sinful tendency for a "homosexual" person. But we all need salvation.

 

So what I am saying is that certain actions are considered sinful, and I would recommend to the person not to do them, but it is up to them if they want to do what the Bible says is sin or not. I know I still sin, but I'm working on it. I have desires that are wrong, but I try to change. These desires are as "natural" as you guys claim homosexuality to be, but because I have faith in God and His commands, I try to suppress the desires he tells me to suppress, and I try to have the desires He wants me to have.

 

I try to love everyone, because Jesus has loved me. Here's why you guys don't have to be bothered by me saying homosexuality is a sin: I was walking downtown last weekend and there was a gay parade going on. They had their rainbow buttons on their shirts, but I didn't treat them any differently than I treat any other person. I didn't judge them as horrible people or as stupid or anything other than what I consider any other stranger to be. I smiled as much as I smile at any stranger, and when I entered the restaurant I held the door open for people. I didn't treat anyone as any less of a person. Sure, my heart was a bit distraught that they'd openly rebel against God's commands, but I tried my best to love them as I try to love any other person.

 

There's a gay guy at my work. I don't treat him as weird or persecute him. I talk with him as when I talk to anyone else. He's a nice guy. There are other people at my work, and they are nice people. But I'm pretty sure that each of them has sin in their lives, including me, and including the "gay" man. That doesn't mean I stop loving them or treat them differently.

 

I hope I have shed light on what I mean when I say "homosexuality" is a sin.

[Sand]

Punk.

 

Why, yes, I am.

 

I mean to say that homosexual actions are characterized as sinful in the Bible. If one has a homosexual desire, I would call that temptation, just as if someone had lustful desires for a woman. It's whether the person gives in or not that says if they are sinning (or if they dwell on the thoughts, as Jesus says,"I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.")

 

Well, iti s not a sin for a husband to desire his wife is it not? Its not adultery, is it? Now if two gay men who are just as committed to each other and married (which some states and churches allowed) would that be considered a sin? Having gratuitous sex and lusting, hetero, homo, or otherwise, I agree are sinful, but two individuals dedicated to each other and committed I wouldn't consider their love as sinful regardless of gender.

 

Moreover, I am a sinner. I sin. Black people and Asian people sin. I am not insulting people when I say they sin. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. I am not debasing people when I say they have sinful tendencies, because everyone has them. It's just a different sinful tendency for a "homosexual" person. But we all need salvation.

 

I also disagree with this. God made us who we are and by denying our true selves we deny what God made us to be. Salvation does not lie in the denial of who and what we are, but embracing it in full.

 

So what I am saying is that certain actions are considered sinful, and I would recommend to the person not to do them, but it is up to them if they want to do what the Bible says is sin or not. I know I still sin, but I'm working on it. I have desires that are wrong, but I try to change. These desires are as "natural" as you guys claim homosexuality to be, but because I have faith in God and His commands, I try to suppress the desires he tells me to suppress, and I try to have the desires He wants me to have.

 

The thing is I don't think that God tells us how to act and how to be through scripture. Scripture in the Bible may have been inspired by God but written by the hand of man from a patriarchal archaic society without any clue about the way the modern world is like. The only true understanding that we can have is through our own experiences and how God expresses him/herself in the natural world around us. Scripture is not the end of spirituality but a book of history. We need to embrace our true selves through embracing our needs and desires fully.

 

I try to love everyone, because Jesus has loved me. Here's why you guys don't have to be bothered by me saying homosexuality is a sin: I was walking downtown last weekend and there was a gay parade going on. They had their rainbow buttons on their shirts, but I didn't treat them any differently than I treat any other person. I didn't judge them as horrible people or as stupid or anything other than what I consider any other stranger to be. I smiled as much as I smile at any stranger, and when I entered the restaurant I held the door open for people. I didn't treat anyone as any less of a person. Sure, my heart was a bit distraught that they'd openly rebel against God's commands, but I tried my best to love them as I try to love any other person.

 

God made them who they are, just as He/She made you the way you are and myself. Denying oneself of who he or she is IS denying God.

 

There's a gay guy at my work. I don't treat him as weird or persecute him. I talk with him as when I talk to anyone else. He's a nice guy. There are other people at my work, and they are nice people. But I'm pretty sure that each of them has sin in their lives, including me, and including the "gay" man. That doesn't mean I stop loving them or treat them differently.

 

I hope I have shed light on what I mean when I say "homosexuality" is a sin.

You have and I o disagree with you, but mostly on what a sin is and how you limit yourself only to the Bible, which is a pretty unreliable text.

Edited June 20, 2007 by Sand

[mr insomniac]

I also disagree with this. God made us who we are and by denying our true selves we deny what God made us to be. Salvation does not lie in the denial of who and what we are, but embracing it in full.

That sounds like an excuse to do whatever the hell you want, and damn the consequences. I don't think that's how it's supposed to be.

[Sand]

Hey, it works for me so far and I don't damn the consequences. I embrace them! WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

[Blank]

I also disagree with this. God made us who we are and by denying our true selves we deny what God made us to be. Salvation does not lie in the denial of who and what we are, but embracing it in full.

That sounds like an excuse to do whatever the hell you want, and damn the consequences. I don't think that's how it's supposed to be.

Sin has perverted what God made us to be. As a Christian, one has to constantly battle the tendency to wander from God.

 

But yeah, we'll probably disagree in the end, but hey, I tried, right? I'd still PnP with you any day.

Edited June 20, 2007 by Blank

[Sand]

Likewise. I guess we will find out who is right and who is wrong when we die.