[_ Old Earth _] Should Science Speak To Faith?

[lovely]

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articl ... =1&catID=9


I read this article today, and I couldn't help thinking it's just another way for Dawkins to further his bigotry, and 'excommunicate' believers from the scientific world. He hopes to convince other scientists to approach Christians as he does.

Krauss and Dawkins are planning (debating) the best way to convert believers to their worldview (Which they believe is based solely on reason). Krauss' method is through deception, and Dawkins' is through "tough love" which means he thinks they should be injected with a 'healthy' dose of his worldview.

Both men are guilty of trying to speak to a subject that they are admittedly ignorant of themselves...faith. They also deliberately misrepresent it in hopes to make atheism more popular...seemingly the more intellectual belief. Through the entire conversation both men degrade believers, especially those who are scientists, while trying to elevate themselves...their beliefs...by saying only theirs are rational...valid. I wonder, have they forgotten those believing scientists that have come before them? Oddly, they find any who question evolution to be just simply ignorant. I find it interesting that men, who call themselves scientists, would call those who are willing, or who have the audacity, to question their beliefs ignorant. This seems irrational considering the whole debate was about getting people to question their own beliefs. Krauss and Dawkins do not practice what they 'preach'. The sad thing is when Dawkins is accused of bigotry, he denys it and affirms it in the same breath. Krauss pretends to tolerate people of faith, but his aim the entire time he is smiling at them is to make them doubt.

For those who believe that God created the world...even if you believe it was through evolution...Dawkins finds you ignorant, and does not want you to practice science unless you deny the existence of God. Both Krauss and Dawkins prefer atheist scientists, because they find them to be the only rational scientists.

 

[Cirbryn]

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=44A95E1D-E7F2-99DF-3E79D5E2E6DE809C&pageNumber=1&catID=9


I read this article today, and I couldn't help thinking it's just another way for Dawkins to further his bigotry

Would you mind explaining what Dawkins did or said that you think was bigoted? I read the article and didn't see any such thing.

 

[Barbarian]

Should science speak to faith? It can't. Science can only talk about the physical universe. It can neither affirm nor deny anything beyond that.

 

[Featherbop]

My inclination is to say faith and science should not mix. That is not to say a scientist cannot or should not be a theist, just that theism should not influence science.


What does faith have to do with science anyway? For instance, what does creationism have to with science? What value or purpose is there? I'd say that kind of mixing just leads to junk science, conclusions before evidence.

Also, at worst, it seems too many people of faith will try to force their faith as a scientific conclusion, such as the creationist jihad for intelligent design in science classrooms.

 

[Cirbryn]

My inclination is to say faith and science should not mix. That is not to say a scientist cannot or should not be a theist, just that theism should not influence science.

I think they’d both agree with you that theism shouldn’t influence science, but I think the question presented was whether and to what extent science should address questions of faith.

What does faith have to do with science anyway? For instance, what does creationism have to with science? What value or purpose is there? I'd say that kind of mixing just leads to junk science, conclusions before evidence.

Also, at worst, it seems too many people of faith will try to force their faith as a scientific conclusion, such as the creationist jihad for intelligent design in science classrooms.

What does faith have to do with science? They both make conclusions about the nature of reality, and those conclusions tend to conflict to varying degrees. We might recognize (at least) three areas of conflict: 1) areas where faith draws conclusions that are directly contrary to the available evidence; 2) areas where faith draws conclusions that don’t conflict with available evidence, but which are self-contradictory; and 3) areas where faith draws conclusions that don’t directly conflict with any evidence, but which indirect evidence shows to be unlikely.

I think your discussion of creationism and intelligent design involves the first area of conflict, and I think Krauss and Dawkins would both agree that science should oppose faith-based conclusions in that area. As Krauss states: “The earth is not 6,000 years old. The sun did not stand still in the sky. The Kennewick Man was not a Umatilla Indian.†That’s the kind of thing they’re referring to when they talk about “seducing†people into thinking about science.

I think where they disagree is in the other two areas. For instance, if something is self contradictory, Dawkins is going to tell you so, whereas Krauss might look at whether that something particularly matters to science and keep his mouth shut if it doesn’t. That’s more of a political difference, whereas they seem to have an empirical difference with regard to area 3. Dawkins thinks there is indirect evidence to indicate that the existence of God is very unlikely. Krauss apparently disagrees. (See for instance Dawkins’ example of using the Drake equation for calculating the likelihood of alien life in galaxies beyond our event horizon, and Krauss’ response). Since I haven’t read The God Delusion yet, and since Dawkins doesn’t elaborate in this discussion regarding what indirect evidence he thinks he has, I can’t really judge who’s more likely to be correct on that issue.

 

[lovely]

Cirbryn,

I am just reading this today, I missed it somehow. :

I believe that Mr. Dawkins has shown himself to be a bigot against people of faith by his own words...in this article and in his other mediums. He says he is not, but then he acts in an opposite manner. He does not want them to be involved with the practice of science at all...that would mean that any scientist, doctor, nurse, etc. who proclaims faith would be out of practice. If I said that all people who believe in communism should not be allowed to practice science, then I would be a bigot. If I said all Republicans should be excluded from scientific fields, I would be a bigot. Mr. Dawkins says this of people who believe in Creationism and in Intelligent Design...even if they accept evolution. I think that Mr. Dawkins has his own religion, and uses it as an excuse to write books, and give speeches, that promote his own personal bigotry...even to the point where he does not believe parents even have the right to teach their own children about their faith. He does not speak about science at all, but rather his own 'religion', his own worldview.

As far as the Intelligent Design in public schools, I do not share the belief of some that this should be promoted. Public schools are not a place for believers, in my opinion (Just opinion, btw.), and I would not put my child in a class room to be brainwashed for eight hours a day by humanist, atheist, secualrist, feministic, homesexual, etc. teachings...even if they made a note about Creationism. In fact, I believe this so strongly that I would go through great lengths to keep them out of that system. Believers need to unlearn the teachings, and influences, of the world, and the worldly. In schools, they are not taught to think, to be sensitive, to be logical, or to question. Dawkins, and other atheists, are against believers because their 'sacred' system of assumptions, which has been put in place as a foundation of their worldviews, is being questioned, and because their worldy ideas are being exposed and challenged. They react by trying to make those who question them seem foundationless as far as science is concerned, and by attempting to exclude them...it is only in speech for now.

I often hear people challenge Christians to question their faith. This is such a ridiculous statement to me. I would like to challenge atheists to question their faith. The whole reason believers are believers is because they questioned their beliefs...they became Christians. All believers were once atheists. I do not take credit for being able to question, it is only by God's grace. It's my hope that even Mr. Dawkins has his eyes opened by the CREATOR that he currently despises. The Lord bless you.

 

[lovely]

You know, I was thinking about this subject again this evening...

I read this from Cirbryn... 1) areas where faith draws conclusions that are directly contrary to the available evidence; 2) areas where faith draws conclusions that don’t conflict with available evidence, but which are self-contradictory; and 3) areas where faith draws conclusions that don’t directly conflict with any evidence, but which indirect evidence shows to be unlikely.

I was thinking that if I took the word faith in the above quote and substituted it with the word world-view, or belief system, then these areas would apply to every scientist on this planet. Just thinking. The Lord bless all of you.

 

[jsasaki06]

Science has nothing to do with faith.

 

[John]

Science has nothing to do with faith.

LMBO

 

[jmm9683]

LMBO

Maybe in your bizarro world, where the Earth is only a few thousand years old and people lived with dinosaurs. Or are the dinosaur bones there to deceive us? I can't remember which crazy fundie believes what.

 

[BobRyan]

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=44A95E1D-E7F2-99DF-3E79D5E2E6DE809C&pageNumber=1&catID=9


I read this article today, and I couldn't help thinking it's just another way for Dawkins to further his bigotry, and 'excommunicate' believers from the scientific world. He hopes to convince other scientists to approach Christians as he does.

Krauss and Dawkins are planning (debating) the best way to convert believers to their worldview (Which they believe is based solely on reason). Krauss' method is through deception, and Dawkins' is through "tough love" which means he thinks they should be injected with a 'healthy' dose of his worldview.

Both men are guilty of trying to speak to a subject that they are admittedly ignorant of themselves...faith.

I would argue that they DO know at lot about faith - after all they BELIEVE in atheist darwinism -- they BELIEVE "there is no god" -- they "BELIEVE" that aliens or something like that put the first living cells here -- they "BELIEVE" that although we have no science support for abiogenesis and molecule-to-human-mind evolution that "it happened anyway".

They BELIEVE that either the laws of physics were entirely different for abiogenesis OR "aliens did it".

They BELIEVE that we should blindly accept atheist darwinism EVEN though it is riddled with wild decades long hoxes like Piltdown Man, Simpson's Horse Series, Neanderthal man, as well as Nebraska man and "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" -- all debunked hoaxes that stood to prop up the blind faith religionist arguments of atheist darwinism.

and they "BELIEVE" that they should practice dark ages book-burning style censorship against evidence against darwinism including "legal arguments so that you can not tell students that a BOOK EXISTS IN THE LIBRARY" that debunks darwinism.

Their religionist blind-faith tactics are myriad -- how can you say they know nothing of "faith"??

They also deliberately misrepresent it in hopes to make atheism more popular..

Classic dark-ages religionist tactic.

They practice it well.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Science has nothing to do with faith.

START with a hypothesiis and "then what"?

Where did your hypothesis come from? the atheist darwinist world view or the Christian Bible believing world view?

Enter Darwkins arguing that "there is no god" and his view on atheism and darwinism "proves it"???

what a hoot!

How sad that some christians actually buy into that atheist POV.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

time to "think" instead of merely parrotting atheist darwinist dogma --

from the link in the OP -

Krauss:

Indeed, I have argued that questions of purpose in the universe are generally not a part of science, and the best example I know is that of Georges Lemaître, the Belgian priest who was also a physicist, and the first person to realize that Einstein’s General Relativity implied there was a Big Bang origin to our universe (a claim initially much derided by Einstein). Following this realization Pope Pius XII issued a statement that said science had proved Genesis. Lemaître responded appropriately. He wrote to the Pope and urged him to stop saying that. The theory in question was a scientific theory whose predictions could be tested. What religious implications one took from the theory depended upon one’s metaphysical leanings. One could take it to validate Genesis, by implying that the Universe had a beginningâ€â€a revolutionary scientific claim at the time. But one could equally well take it to imply that there is no need for a God, that the laws of physics are all that are required to understand the universe right back to the beginning. The point is that the science is accurate in describing how the universe works, independent of the metaphysical implications one derives from it. The same is of course true for evolution, which happened and is happening, whether or not one chooses to believe in God.


Dawkins: Of course Lemaître was very wise (although I must add that I am left wondering why he remained a priest at all). As for the option that his physics might or might not be taken to support Genesis, why is it even an interesting question? There never was reason to expect that the writings of an unknown scribe, probably less than a millennium ago in Babylon, might have any special insight into the origin of the universe. If Genesis happened to get something right, why would that be anything but a trivial accident?

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sho ... print=true

The religionist approach that Dawkins takes to his science -- is blatant.

notice that Dawkin's atheist dogma finds it "unninteresting" that the SCIENCE of Lamaitre and Einstein should in fact SUPPORT the Bible.

Bob

 

[Skavau]

Cirbryn,

I am just reading this today, I missed it somehow. :

I believe that Mr. Dawkins has shown himself to be a bigot against people of faith by his own words...in this article and in his other mediums. He says he is not, but then he acts in an opposite manner. He does not want them to be involved with the practice of science at all...that would mean that any scientist, doctor, nurse, etc. who proclaims faith would be out of practice. If I said that all people who believe in communism should not be allowed to practice science, then I would be a bigot. If I said all Republicans should be excluded from scientific fields, I would be a bigot. Mr. Dawkins says this of people who believe in Creationism and in Intelligent Design...even if they accept evolution. I think that Mr. Dawkins has his own religion, and uses it as an excuse to write books, and give speeches, that promote his own personal bigotry...even to the point where he does not believe parents even have the right to teach their own children about their faith. He does not speak about science at all, but rather his own 'religion', his own worldview.

As far as the Intelligent Design in public schools, I do not share the belief of some that this should be promoted. Public schools are not a place for believers, in my opinion (Just opinion, btw.), and I would not put my child in a class room to be brainwashed for eight hours a day by humanist, atheist, secualrist, feministic, homesexual, etc. teachings...even if they made a note about Creationism. In fact, I believe this so strongly that I would go through great lengths to keep them out of that system. Believers need to unlearn the teachings, and influences, of the world, and the worldly. In schools, they are not taught to think, to be sensitive, to be logical, or to question. Dawkins, and other atheists, are against believers because their 'sacred' system of assumptions, which has been put in place as a foundation of their worldviews, is being questioned, and because their worldy ideas are being exposed and challenged. They react by trying to make those who question them seem foundationless as far as science is concerned, and by attempting to exclude them...it is only in speech for now.

I often hear people challenge Christians to question their faith. This is such a ridiculous statement to me. I would like to challenge atheists to question their faith. The whole reason believers are believers is because they questioned their beliefs...they became Christians. All believers were once atheists. I do not take credit for being able to question, it is only by God's grace. It's my hope that even Mr. Dawkins has his eyes opened by the CREATOR that he currently despises. The Lord bless you.

[citation needed]

 

[BobRyan]

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=29011#p381730

Substantive response needed.

 

[BobRyan]

As far as the Intelligent Design in public schools, I do not share the belief of some that this should be promoted. Public schools are not a place for believers

1. Intelligent Design is the "modest" argument in favor of "ALLOWING scientists the Academic freeddom to follow the data WHERE IT leads EVEN if it leads to observations about design that do not pander to atheist religionist dogma". This is the HEART of science -- not simply "an optional component".

2. Given that Christians GAVE US almost all major branches of science today -- why should we insist that they leave the field of science AND of education?

What purpose does that serve?

I often hear people challenge Christians to question their faith. This is such a ridiculous statement to me. I would like to challenge atheists to question their faith.

Indeed. If you have a YEC (Bible believing Chrisstian arguing for young Earth Creation) and a diehard atheist Darwinist arguing for darwinian evolutionism -- you have two religionists debating their respective by-faith positions.

But Intelligent Design is neither one. It does not argue anything about the nature of God or the subject of worship or even Creation - it simply OBSERVES that some things SHOW they were "designed".

It stops there.

As I have pointed out - one of the 4 basic forces in nature - electromagnetism has been scientifically analyzed and reliably studied to differentiate between wave forms showing DESIGN and those created by "rocks" -- random background noise.

Bob

 

[proponent]

1. Intelligent Design is the "modest" argument in favor of "ALLOWING scientists the Academic freeddom to follow the data WHERE IT leads EVEN if it leads to observations about design that do not pander to atheist religionist dogma". This is the HEART of science -- not simply "an optional component"

Intelligent design is the belief that human beings and all of the things in existance(except prehaps God) were created with intelligence, and that it was a planned out. You skew your definitions so that people will read them and say, "oh yeah, I'm all for academic freedom, therefor I must believe in ID" when in reality ID is simply a theory, not a scientific method.

Also, your capital LETTERS make no sense TO me at ALL.

 

[Biblereader]

Faith and science, true science, have NO conflicts.

The most advanced scientists, in some fields, have admitted that there
has to be God, and He had to have created the Universe.
They all eventually reach a point that shows them Jesus. Whether they admit that or not,
is their choice.

 

[Skavau]

Faith and science, true science, have NO conflicts.

The most advanced scientists, in some fields, have admitted that there
has to be God, and He had to have created the Universe.

Did these 'advanced' scientists conclude the existence of God through independent scientific research? Are their results available? Can I see the data?

Moreover, what constitutes 'true science', precisely?

They all eventually reach a point that shows them Jesus. Whether they admit that or not, is their choice.

I am sure that must be comforting to believe in. But regrettably it is also incredibly arrogant to presume that many scientists secretly have been shown Jesus.

 

[Barbarian]

The most advanced scientists, in some fields, have admitted that there
has to be God, and He had to have created the Universe.

I, for example, believe that there has to be a God Who created the universe. But I can't show that by science. It's foolish and dangerous to expect science to tell you things like that. Can't happen.

Faith, and the evidence of God in your heart is sufficient. If not, science can't help you.