science and faith : Can't we all just get along?

[achilles12604]

I am reading a book by Dr. Darrel R Falk entitled, Coming to Peace with Science. In this book, Dr. Falk reiterates exactly what I was saying in a couple of other places on this forum, namely, that science and faith actually complement each other rather than destroy each other. They can be harmonized if the person can put aside there own preconceptions for a moment and look with unbiased eyes.

As he writes in his book, "Too many have come to believe one has to make a choice: either science is fundamentally flawed because it can not see the design rules, or the world of faith is imaginary because it sees that rules do not exist. . . Many are unable to find their way to a bridge not because of limitations constructed by a metaphor but because for them, there is no metaphor. Scripture states that God did his work in six days; days are 24 hours in length; thus it was all over within one week."

He believes the same way I do, that science and faith are not only compatible, but on a deeper level are paintings of the exact same thing. Science and faith are in essence two trails to one destination, not two totally different roads going in opposite directions.

Incidentally while reading through the second section I quoted, I realized something. Dr. Falk was using this section to describe some Christians fall into the trap of "The bible says it so it must have happened exactly this way." But when I was reading it it reminded me of a particular thought group on this forum. These non-theists do exactly the same thing, only against religion instead of for it. They say that because the Bible does not literally and exactly spell out every detail, it must be false and full of mistakes. Therefore it can not be inspired by God. It is the same process of thinking that leads fundamental young-earth creationists to illogically ignore all the evidence of science.

In any case, my question is this . . .

Are faith and science truly two different things? Must they be at odds as society portrays them, or are they easily reconciled into pointing the same direction but in different ways?

[Chem]

The simple answer is no, due to the different realms that are dealt with. Science searches for truth via experimentation while religion (whatever the faith) decrees that they are the only bearers of the truth.

These non-theists do exactly the same thing, only against religion instead of for it. They say that because the Bible does not literally and exactly spell out every detail, it must be false and full of mistakes. Therefore it can not be inspired by God.

The problem here is the fact that the bible and God have gone through so many different interpretations, translations, insertions, censorship, all seeing, vengeful, loving etc. and it's hard to take the Bible seriously on just about anything. This is the problem for non theists especially with a science background.

The bible is held up as the what all people should inspire to, but in it knowledge seems to be frowned upon, incest allowed, mass murder (especially of different beliefs) no problem!

I am far from being a Biblical scholar but people who ascribe to the Bible seem to gloss over such details. Science as we all know, is far from perfect but as a repository of truth offers far more than religion.

[micatala]

To parody chem a bit:

"The simple answer is yes because of the different realms that are dealt with."


To me, science deals with the observable, physical universe (defining observable rather broadly when dealing with things like quantum phenomena).

Religions deals with spiritual and/or moral matters.

One can accept the findings of science and still be a believer in God and a follower of a religion. It is true that certain religions, or certain doctrines or opinions held by some of religious faith might be contrary to science, but that does not mean religion and science are inherently incompatible.

Previous related discussion on this idea on the forum have occurred. For example:

Does Evolution Threaten the Idea of God as Creator?

Can a theist objectively study science?

Can Genesis and the Big Bang be reconciled?

Is it possible for evolution and religion to coexist?

and one of my own threads

Evolution is compatible with belief in God.

I am certainly not trying to short circuit any new discussion, but thought debaters might like to peruse some of what is already here.

[juliod]

It is true that certain religions, or certain doctrines or opinions held by some of religious faith might be contrary to science, but that does not mean religion and science are inherently incompatible.

But doesn't it mean that?

Are there any major religions that don't have multiple doctrinal beliefs that are in conflict with scientifically-understood truth?

In my view it is only possible to live with both science and religion if you compartmentalize. You believe one thing at one time and another thing entirely at some other time.

DanZ

[achilles12604]

It is true that certain religions, or certain doctrines or opinions held by some of religious faith might be contrary to science, but that does not mean religion and science are inherently incompatible.

But doesn't it mean that?

Are there any major religions that don't have multiple doctrinal beliefs that are in conflict with scientifically-understood truth?

In my view it is only possible to live with both science and religion if you compartmentalize. You believe one thing at one time and another thing entirely at some other time.

DanZ

Can you give us an example of this? Preferrably with Christianity vs science.

[ENIGMA]

To me, science deals with the observable, physical universe (defining observable rather broadly when dealing with things like quantum phenomena).

Religions deals with spiritual and/or moral matters.

One of the things about such a demarcation (or "non-overlaping magesteria" as Gould puts it) is that it is maintainable only so long as the barrier is not crossed by anything that has components in each that contradict each other.

An example within physics is the barrier between general relativity and quantum mechanics. General relativity is great for understanding the behavior very massive items moving at decent sized fractions of the speed of light. Quantum mechanics is great at understanding the behavior of very small items. The problem is that the math for each as it stands is incompatible. Fortunately very few things appear to fit into both categories. Unfortunately, understanding the main mechanics of the big bang seems to be one of those things. Thus, ultimately there must be some means of extending one understanding so that it covers both areas or some alternate understanding which replaces both.

While the example with general relativity and quantum mechanics are a relatively viable split that, for the most part, works for now, the barrier with science and religion as stated above is showing more problems.

There are increasing numbers of "incursions" across the barrier from science as scientific understanding of certain areas increases. How can a "spiritual" notion be maintained if the more we study neuroscience, the more functions are understood to be purely a product of brain activity? If there are such things as souls, what do they actually do, what do they hold, and are such things sufficient to "hold one's identity" as the religions teach? How does a spiritual notion of morality and free-will hold if it is possible for, for example, Derren Brown to psychologically manipulate normal people to commit (what they believe is) armed robbery?

Ultimately, I can't help but get the impression that the breach will eventually be resolved with science taking over both sides of the barrier.

[QED]

To me, science deals with the observable, physical universe (defining observable rather broadly when dealing with things like quantum phenomena).

Religions deals with spiritual and/or moral matters.

I have to agree with Enigma. The certainty that there actually are externally existing things such as "morals" and "spirits" originated in a pre-scientific era. If science provides us with compelling Game Theoretic and Psychological accounts of these matters then we narrow things down towards there being only an observable, physical universe.

What does religion look like if we come to accept that unobservables are entirely internal human constructs?

[achilles12604]

To me, science deals with the observable, physical universe (defining observable rather broadly when dealing with things like quantum phenomena).

Religions deals with spiritual and/or moral matters.

I have to agree with Enigma. The certainty that there actually are externally existing things such as "morals" and "spirits" originated in a pre-scientific era. If science provides us with compelling Game Theoretic and Psychological accounts of these matters then we narrow things down towards there being only an observable, physical universe.

What does religion look like if we come to accept that unobservables are entirely internal human constructs?

However, if they are unobservable, (IE unable to be studied by science or infinite rather than finite), then how can science have an opinion? Just because science is unable to test something does not mean it isn't there or doesn't exist right?

[QED]

However, if they are unobservable, (IE unable to be studied by science or infinite rather than finite), then how can science have an opinion? Just because science is unable to test something does not mean it isn't there or doesn't exist right?

Well what things are we talking about? Things like an "afterlife" are exquisitely detached from the physical reality revealed to us by Physics. Other things like morality and spirituality I believe are well within the purview of science. Once we sort out those things that are in principle unobservable from those that aren't then I think we're looking at a very different basis for religion.

[achilles12604]

However, if they are unobservable, (IE unable to be studied by science or infinite rather than finite), then how can science have an opinion? Just because science is unable to test something does not mean it isn't there or doesn't exist right?

Well what things are we talking about? Things like an "afterlife" are exquisitely detached from the physical reality revealed to us by Physics. Other things like morality and spirituality I believe are well within the purview of science. Once we sort out those things that are in principle unobservable from those that aren't then I think we're looking at a very different basis for religion.

Explain to me how science would be able to study a spirit using the scientific method?

How about something some scientists argue for, lets say multiple universes. How can science prove beyond doubt that there are multiple universes? Some scientists claim they exist. Can they prove them?

The answer is no. So why arn't they shouted out? Because they offer a theory. An idea. something for which there is the possibility, but as of yet, no concrete evidence.

So why does science inability to examine a spiritual realm, prove that there isn't one? Isn't this a huge double standard you are implimenting on behalf of your non-theist viewpoint?