- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
A current thread prompted this thinking but I can't find it so I'll start afresh. It was Suzianne talking about the clarity of religion.
Alvin Plantinga says what I want to say better, from his Christian POV.
quote:
There is still another reason for methodological naturalism; this one, too, is common sense simplicity itself. God has created this whole wonderful and awful (both taken in their etymological senses) world of ours. One of the things we want to do as his creatures is to understand the world he has made, see (to the extent that we can) how it is made, what its structure is, and how it works. This is not, of course, the only thing God's children must do with the world; we must also appreciate it, care for it, love it, thank the Lord for it, and see his hand in it. But understanding it is valuable, and so is understanding it in a theoretical way. One way of understanding something is to see how it is made, how it is put together, and how it works. That is what goes on in natural science. The object of this science is nature; for Christians, its aim (one of its aims) is to see what the structure of this world is and how it works; this is a way of appreciating God's creation, and part of what it is to exercise the image of God in which we have been created.
But there will be little advance along this front if, in answer to the question, Why does so and so work the way it does? or What is the explanation of so and so? we regularly and often reply Because God did it that way or Because it pleased God that it should be like that. This will often be true, but it is not the sort of answer we want at that juncture. It goes without saying that God has in one way or another brought it about that the universe displays the character it does; but what we want to know in science are the answers to questions like What is this made out of? What is its structure? How does it work? How is it connected with other parts of God's creation? Claims to the effect that God has done this or that (created life, or created human life) directly are in a sense science stoppers. If this claim is true, then presumably we cannot go on to learn something further about how it was done or how the phenomenon in question works; if God did it directly, there will be nothing further to find out. How does it happen that there is such a thing as light? Well, God said, Let there be light and there was light. This is of course true, and of enormous importance, but if taken as science it is not helpful; it does not help us find out more about light, what its physical character is, how it is related to other things, and the like. Ascribing something to the direct action of God tends to cut off further inquiry.
unquote
https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/crusbult/web/pdf-to-html/mn2-ap.htm#stop
Originally posted by JS357I agree. "God did it" is not good enough. Let's go find out *how* He did it. This is science's job. Evolution was a good start. Modern astrophysics answers other questions. Christians need not fear science. Science is the "how", after all. Teaching Creationism in schools doesn't do our kids any favors, it only teaches them that critical thinking, the exploration and discovery of facts, is not required or desired, when just the opposite is true.
A current thread prompted this thinking but I can't find it so I'll start afresh. It was Suzianne talking about the clarity of religion.
Alvin Plantinga says what I want to say better, from his Christian POV.
quote:
There is still another reason for methodological naturalism; this one, too, is common sense simplicity itself. God has created this whole w ...[text shortened]... ther inquiry.
unquote
https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/crusbult/web/pdf-to-html/mn2-ap.htm#stop
This started when ChessPraxis quoted Carl Sagan:
“In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.”
I answered, "Because sometimes, in some ways religion is more clear cut than science." I meant that, as Christians, we are told what the truth is in the Bible. It clearly delineates what we should believe and why. This is what makes religion "clear cut". Islam's concepts are codified in the Koran, and the Jews have the Old Testament. It's all laid out for us. Our Faith should be solid, like a rock, unchanging, because we've been told just what the truth is.
Not so with science. We have to figure out science for ourselves. That is why we have the scientific method. And it works well, because we now understand a lot of how the real world works the way it does. Because of the scientific method, we can challenge old ideas and progress forward.
I have often said that Science gives us the "how", while Religion offers us the "why". I consider these two sides of the same coin, and together, they fill in nearly all the blanks we need to understand our place in the universe.
Some theists, however, like the YECs, disrupt this natural flow of knowledge by confusing the two sides, thinking that religion can take the place of science, or that science is somehow "wrong" because it does not follow the "God did it" formula. Similarly, atheism fails also, and in much the same way as the fundamentalists, because they remove God entirely from the equation, just as the YECs remove science from the equation. Atheists seem to think that science can (or should) take the place of religion, or that religion is somehow "wrong" because God cannot be "proven". Certainly, there is a long way to go before there can be any agreement between the sides, but those of us who feel that there can be, in fact, a sort of "unified field theory" uniting these opposing views are a voice of moderation and if only both sides can relax their "set in stone" mindsets, perhaps some true progress could be made.
Originally posted by SuzianneTear down the status quo.
I agree. "God did it" is not good enough. Let's go find out *how* He did it. This is science's job. Evolution was a good start. Modern astrophysics answers other questions. Christians need not fear science. Science is the "how", after all. Teaching Creationism in schools doesn't do our kids any favors, it only teaches them that critical thinking, th ...[text shortened]... ly both sides can relax their "set in stone" mindsets, perhaps some true progress could be made.
There are not two 'sides'. There are people with a multitude of different religious beliefs. There is no single clear cut truth. There are a bunch of human beings struggling to find answers in ALL disciplines, including religion and science, and philosophy.
Yes, religion belongs on this list. This is borne out by the fact that no two Christians agree on every point of doctrine, even though they all read from the same book. And borne out by the fact that other religions have truths that are not compatible with Christianity.
Now, you can believe that you - out of the many, many theists - are the one who has it all right. And all the many other billions of people who do not share your exact same belief set are all at least partially wrong. But the odds of this being the case are so staggeringly remote that I cannot believe a sane person would believe that they are that one.
More likely, they don't realize how unique their own viewpoints are.
Tearing down the status quo would mean that theists could become like the other disciplines and actually grow in their knowledge. They could actually DISCOVER things.
Without that, what is one's faith? Something that is stagnant at best, and dead at worst.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemAnd you... you with this antiquated, immobile-as-a-rock mindset (similar to our local YECs btw) are part of the problem.
Tear down the status quo.
There are not two 'sides'. There are people with a multitude of different religious beliefs. There is no single clear cut truth. There are a bunch of human beings struggling to find answers in ALL disciplines, including religion and science, and philosophy.
Yes, religion belongs on this list. This is borne out by the fa ...[text shortened]... gs.
Without that, what is one's faith? Something that is stagnant at best, and dead at worst.
You think your way is the only way, just as you point your finger at me and assume I have that mindset as well. I'm sure I'll get flak in this thread from other atheists spouting the "party line", just like you as well as other Christians spouting *their* "party line", just like you.
And you wonder why no one moves forward.
Originally posted by SuzianneI am sorry I upset you.
And you... you with this antiquated, immobile-as-a-rock mindset (similar to our local YECs btw) are part of the problem.
You think your way is the only way, just as you point your finger at me and assume I have that mindset as well. I'm sure I'll get flak in this thread from other atheists spouting the "party line", just like you as well as other Christians spouting *their* "party line", just like you.
And you wonder why no one moves forward.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemHolds "me" back? Really? You can say this with a straight face?
Actually, we are moving forward. You are moving with us in the field of science. You are stagnant in the area of spirituality because of a self-imposed limit on your own intellect.
Look, I don't tell people where they should grow, and where they should stay put. I'm just saying - this attitude that you've already got all of the truth mastere ...[text shortened]... single human being to do, is entirely unjustified. And it's a shame, because it holds you back.
Not embracing both sides of the truth is what holds us back.
Denying God or Denying science, either one holds us back. And mainly, what it holds us back from, is understanding the other side.
Non-believers and YECs, two peas in a pod if you ask me.
Originally posted by SuzianneAgain, I am sorry to have upset you.
Holds "me" back? Really? You can say this with a straight face?
Not embracing both sides of the truth is what holds us back.
Denying God or Denying science, either one holds us back. And mainly, what it holds us back from, is understanding the other side.
Non-believers and YECs, two peas in a pod if you ask me.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by SuzianneYou say, "I have often said that Science gives us the "how", while Religion offers us the "why". I consider these two sides of the same coin, and together, they fill in nearly all the blanks we need to understand our place in the universe."
I agree. "God did it" is not good enough. Let's go find out *how* He did it. This is science's job. Evolution was a good start. Modern astrophysics answers other questions. Christians need not fear science. Science is the "how", after all. Teaching Creationism in schools doesn't do our kids any favors, it only teaches them that critical thinking, th ...[text shortened]... ly both sides can relax their "set in stone" mindsets, perhaps some true progress could be made.
Let us hope (pray?) that science and religion limit themselves as you say.
Originally posted by SuzianneThat some atheists are somewhat evangelical doesn't mean everyone who does not believe in God has a fundamentalist outlook.
Holds "me" back? Really? You can say this with a straight face?
Not embracing both sides of the truth is what holds us back.
Denying God or Denying science, either one holds us back. And mainly, what it holds us back from, is understanding the other side.
Non-believers and YECs, two peas in a pod if you ask me.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by SuzianneAnswers to how-questions are also the best answers to why-questions, in my opinion.
I have often said that Science gives us the "how", while Religion offers us the "why".
How does the human moral sense work? Why do humans have morals?
Not all humans have a moral sense. It seems to be intimately connected to brain activity,
which means that a damaged portion of the brain can lead to sociopathy. But those
humans that do have a moral sense are better at co-operating with others, which for a
species of puny physical prowess is decidedly advantegous.
That answers both the how and why of the question. I find that this is almost always the case.
Originally posted by JS357Issues arise where lines get crossed, when someone's how seems to say
You say, "I have often said that Science gives us the "how", while Religion offers us the "why". I consider these two sides of the same coin, and together, they fill in nearly all the blanks we need to understand our place in the universe."
Let us hope (pray?) that science and religion limit themselves as you say.
no to another's why, and the other way around. What upsets me is when
the discussions start, it stops being a discussion, but simply a reason to
attack another person. There are a few here now I don't even bother
reading any more on any topic, just because of how nasty they have been.
Kelly
edit: I should add I've been nasty to others too, and have been ignored
due to that. It can happen to any of us, we just need to beware.
Originally posted by JS357And the "WHO" is revealed in the Holy Bible.
You say, "I have often said that Science gives us the "how", while Religion offers us the "why". I consider these two sides of the same coin, and together, they fill in nearly all the blanks we need to understand our place in the universe."
Let us hope (pray?) that science and religion limit themselves as you say.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!