Should Science Speak to Faith?

[Blank]

For your sake I hope it's not me.

Edited June 20, 2007 by Blank

[Walsingham]

I'm no Christian theologian, but I know a few. Apart from you people, of course. They typically argue that our propensity to sin is part and parcel of free will. The gift of free will is part of what makes us special. Everything else in creation is a dumb mook.

 

Or was I not listening properly?

[WITHTEETH]

I'm no Christian theologian, but I know a few. Apart from you people, of course. They typically argue that our propensity to sin is part and parcel of free will. The gift of free will is part of what makes us special. Everything else in creation is a dumb mook.

 

Or was I not listening properly?

I'm hesitant to say Christians have freewill. The book is already written supposedly, if their religion is true then it sounds something more like soft determinism to me.

 

Snippet from Wiki:

A compatibilist, or soft determinist, in contrast, will define a free act in a way that does not hinge on causal necessitation. For them, an act is free unless it involves compulsion by another person. Since the physical universe and the laws of nature are not persons, they argue that it is a category error to speak of our actions being forced on us by the laws of nature, and therefore it is wrong to conclude that universal determinism would mean we are never free.

[Atreides]

You guys should try reading Sandman, and the series Lucifer which is derived from the former. It discusses many things.

 

I've been reading Lucifer over the past week and the writing is quite superb. So far he has created a universe outside God's boundary and opened portals for beings that would wish to be there. I think one of his desires was to escape God's predestination. However, things have not always gone smoothly and God has foreseen it and its outcomes.

[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.

 

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?

You are using the fallacy that "science" is the knowledge learnt from observing the world, the book of facts and laws therein derived from same ... the codex.

 

Science is the mental discipline of only accepting as true what can be demonstrated, predictably, from observed phenomena. It is a rigour of denying what is merely comfortable or convenient to find what is TRUE.

 

You are dodging the spirit of the science by trying to adhere to the letters it is written in.

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?

No, it is scientific. Science informs my ethical decisions, rather than them being handed down (probably from empirical observation and induction by some wise person in the mists of human (pre-) history) or given up by revelation. Now isn't that less 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.

I didn't know anyone was insulted; for my part I'm just trying to clarify a misconception you have. Empirically-driven, logically designed ethical framework derived from laws of mutual benefaction .... versus a divine revelation about how to behave.

[metadigital]

I'm no Christian theologian, but I know a few. Apart from you people, of course. They typically argue that our propensity to sin is part and parcel of free will. The gift of free will is part of what makes us special. Everything else in creation is a dumb mook.

 

Or was I not listening properly?

I'm hesitant to say Christians have freewill. The book is already written supposedly, if their religion is true then it sounds something more like soft determinism to me.

 

Can omniscient God, who

Knows the future, find

The omnipotence to

Change his future mind?

-- Karen Owens

 

[WITHTEETH]

I'm no Christian theologian, but I know a few. Apart from you people, of course. They typically argue that our propensity to sin is part and parcel of free will. The gift of free will is part of what makes us special. Everything else in creation is a dumb mook.

 

Or was I not listening properly?

I'm hesitant to say Christians have freewill. The book is already written supposedly, if their religion is true then it sounds something more like soft determinism to me.

 

Can omniscient God, who

Knows the future, find

The omnipotence to

Change his future mind?

-- Karen Owens

 

Run, a philosophy joke, the pain!!!! Ahhhh!

 

.

.

.

My head hurts now.

[Walsingham]

Isn't it in Preacher where the question is asked whether God knew Lucifer was going to rebel, indeed created him to rebel, and then punished him for doing so?

[metadigital]

I'm not sure if theodicies are pertinent.

[WITHTEETH]

I've heard that god started free will by creating the second law of thermodynamics.

 

So..... Do you guys believe in Angels?

[metadigital]

Only insofar as the total number of dancers can be measured per pinhead.

[Tale]

Faith in general or are we speaking of any faith in particular?

 

We see science speaking to faith in countless individual scientists who have faith. If anyone wants it to be more specific than that, with faith based science, then I would percieve that as up to the faiths to start. Contradictions between faiths should kind of prohibit science, in general, from "speaking to" or otherwise particularly endorsing one faith or another.

 

Christian scientists always kind of confuse me a little. I always took the story of Adam, Eve, and the apple to mean that knowledge was the origin of sin. Seems that pursuit of academic knowledge might be digging yourself a little deeper.

 

But, then again I also enjoy the parallels between Lucifer and Prometheus, Jesus and the children of Zeus. My viewpoint is a bit more literary in an academic sense than personal.

[WITHTEETH]

Only insofar as the total number of dancers can be measured per pinhead.

I'm still trying to figure this out.

[Cantousent]

"You are using the fallacy that "science" is the knowledge learnt from observing the world, the book of facts and laws therein derived from same ... the codex.

 

Science is the mental discipline of only accepting as true what can be demonstrated, predictably, from observed phenomena. It is a rigour of denying what is merely comfortable or convenient to find what is TRUE.

 

You are dodging the spirit of the science by trying to adhere to the letters it is written in."

 

I always find it interesting that you use the word fallacy to describe the other side in a disagreement. Science is the codex. The mental discipline of science is not science. It is a philosophy, but not science. I'm not dodging the spirit of science. I would rather see science as the set of rules. That's not a weaker position, by the way. If we use science as the basis for our observable world, and ethics and morality as our reaction to it, then science is beyond reproach. It works both ways, then. Science cannot speak to faith, true. ...But then faith cannot speak to science.

 

At this point, I would like to establish an basis for agreement. Can we agree that science, as a set of laws or rules, does not care about morals or ethics? Can we agree that Science simply has no stake in the argument. Then, can we agree that those who study science can apply the things they learn through science to enhance their world view?

 

Frankly, despite your clever post, I'm not dodging the issue at all. I sincerely do not believe that science will ever be the basis for ethics or morals. I think I'm I adhering far more rigorously to the spirit of science by separating it from the moral argument than you are by putting it in the middle.

 

Untill we establish that morals and ethics are a purely sentient construct, then I don't see this issue moving at all.

 

"I didn't know anyone was insulted; for my part I'm just trying to clarify a misconception you have."

 

"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 didn't know if you meant science-bating or if you'd meant to say science-baiting. Either way, it seemed as if you'd taken insult.

 

At any rate, I have no misconception. However, I will let you take the last word. We all know the famed meta constitution and, short of spending the rest of my life answering the arguments you fabricate and attribute to me, I just don't think I can compete. The floor is all yours, meta. :Cant's smiling at meta with a raised eye-brow icon:

[Walsingham]

Feeling a bit small dog at the minute. Science can tell us what gives a given result. Classifying the result as good or bad is an ethical question, and equally is axiomatic. As such it is not scientific.

[Blank]

We all know the famed meta constitution and, short of spending the rest of my life answering the arguments you fabricate and attribute to me, I just don't think I can compete. The floor is all yours, meta. :Cant's smiling at meta with a raised eye-brow icon:

Truthfully, I know nothing of science. Thus I will take this opportunity to bow out also. It was a pleasure arguing parallel to you, Cant. :Blank's trying to copy Cant's coolness but failing while grimacing icon:

 

Edit: Though, I am going to look into some books that Meta is referring me to. I have this summer off to read them, so why not become more educated?

Edited June 20, 2007 by Blank

[WITHTEETH]

Maybe we are getting a little over analytical with the topic title. Because if you want to get extremely analytical science doesn't have a mouth, and faith doesn't have ears. I read the topic title as Should the general consensus of science devotees talk to the general consensus of people of faith?

[Cantousent]

Then the answer is certainly yes. All people are concerned with morals in one way or another.

[WITHTEETH]

Preseident Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research

"If this legislation became law, it would compel American taxpayers for the first time in our history to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos," Mr Bush said.

 

"I will not allow our nation to cross this moral line."

 

"Our conscience calls us to pursue the possibilities of science in a manner that respects human dignity and upholds our moral values."

 

White House spokesman Tony Snow earlier denied suggestions that the veto was "an attempt to muzzle science".

 

But the Democratic Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, said Mr Bush "ignored the will of the American people, of leading medical researchers, and of a bipartisan majority of the Congress".

 

Speaking at a liberal conference earlier on Wednesday, Democratic Senator for New York Hillary Clinton said the decision "puts ideology before science, politics before the needs of our families".

[Sand]

Bush is a backwards thinking man, and seems to still be living 19th century. Its the 21st century and society needs to progress, not regress. The the US isn't the forefront of scientific advances then some other country will be and the US will suffer for it.

Edited June 20, 2007 by Sand

[SteveThaiBinh]

Science must talk to faith, but for goodness' sake let Krauss do the talking and have Dawkins hand round the biscuits or something. Dawkins isn't always abrasive and rude, but he does seem to manage it with a fair degree of frequency, whether he means it or not. On the whole, few religious leaders or prominent atheists/humanists are particularly good at talking to each other. I've seen panels of religious figures speaking at length of the need to deepen understanding and co-operation between the faiths, and at the same time dismissing atheists and humanists as having anything worthwhile to say at all, and vice-versa. I suppose both groups thought the other would, in time, wither and die. This appears unlikely in the near future, so better for everyone to get their acts together and start building bridges.

[WITHTEETH]

Dawkins doesn't really point to religious moderates, he really focuses on the fundamentalists. And they are the same way towards him. It takes all kinds of people to make the world go round. Some think Micheal Moore is to extreme, but for every extremist, there is another equally extremist opposing him/her.

[Sand]

Dawkins doesn't really point to religious moderates, he really focuses on the fundamentalists. And they are the same way towards him. It takes all kinds of people to make the world go round. Some think Micheal Moore is to extreme, but for every extremist, there is another equally extremist opposing him/her.

True enough.

[Walsingham]

Now this is science, just not rocket science. If moderate educated Americans don't vote, then this leaves the choice of presidents to irrational uneducated fools. Being surprised that the result is an irrational uneducated fool is the only thing more stupid.

[Sand]

Well, Democrats all the way! Barack Obama would make a nice president. Edwards is too freaky and Clinton is too... well... politically inside. However it would be cool to see a woman president put the smack down on Iran. Oh, the fun there would be too much to miss. HA!