[_ Old Earth _] Christianity in Science?

[Barbarian]

Of course He created all things. As He said, He made Heaven and Earth, and Earth brought forth living things as He created it to do.

 

[Terry Thone]

This thread is discuss how Christianity is related to process of doing science.

1. Does the Bible reveal scientific truth?
2. How is Jesus related to science?
3. Can God be seen through the lens of science, if so how?

These are just some examples on how the conversation could unfold.

This thread is discuss how Christianity is related to process of doing science.

1. Does the Bible reveal scientific truth?
2. How is Jesus related to science?
3. Can God be seen through the lens of science, if so how?

These are just some examples on how the conversation could unfold.

I've read through all the posts on this thread. I think the objective is to determine if science can have an objective look at the Creator. Is this a fair summation of the OP? I have a ? to add to this OP. What "sciences" do not qualify as science? Is philosophy a science? It is not the study of the physical or natural world. I saw a reference to science being a tool. Personally I'd redefine the term to be an agreed upon set of understandings that are considered facts. What is awe inspiring and a little mind bending is the fact that the universe can not perceive itself. The universe has no color, smell, sound or feel. Science is nothing but our perception of what is. The only thing we can know is that we can't know anything. The fact that we can contemplate is not only what sets us apart from everything else in the universe! It also allows us to get a glimpse of the Creator.

So in short "science" the ability for us to contemplate and agree to facts is what gives us the ability to derive that all knowledge is from sense-experience and can be coupled with common sense.

 

[Barbarian]

I've read through all the posts on this thread. I think the objective is to determine if science can have an objective look at the Creator.

I don't know if it is, but if it is, your answer is a resounding "NO."

What "sciences" do not qualify as science? Is philosophy a science? It is not the study of the physical or natural world. I saw a reference to science being a tool. Personally I'd redefine the term to be an agreed upon set of understandings that are considered facts.

No. It's a way of learning about the natural world. A tool, a process. And it has a particular approach that's locked to evidence and the natural world.

 

[Terry Thone]

No. It's a way of learning about the natural world. A tool, a process. And it has a particular approach that's locked to evidence and the natural world.

Philosophy and science are mutually connected by their interaction. Science is defined as a systematized knowledge in general. Without philosophy their is no science and visa versa. Without admitting that their is no such thing as definitive proof you break the connection between philosophy and science. They go hand in hand.

Proof: evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth. "websters dictionary".

Evidence: that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. "websters dictionary".

Everytime one uses proof, evidence, etc you are evoking belief (confidence; faith; trust).

 

[Barbarian]

Philosophy and science are mutually connected by their interaction. Science is defined as a systematized knowledge in general.

No. Here's a far more accurate one:
Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.
UK Science Council

Without admitting that their is no such thing as definitive proof you break the connection between philosophy and science.

You can prove many things. But proof requires that you know all the rules and can apply them to a particular thing. Science has to look at particular things and infer the rules from them.

Proof: evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth. "websters dictionary".

There's a more precise definition in science, math, and philosophy:
This view means furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory. (What may occur, however, are refutations of scientific theories.) On the other hand, pure mathematics and logic, which permit of proofs, give us no information about the world, but only develop the means of describing it. Thus we could say (as I have pointed out elsewhere ): 'In so far as scientific statements refer to the world of experience, they must be refutable; and, in so far as they are irrefutable, they do not refer to the world of experience.' But although proof does not play any part in the empirical sciences, argument still does; indeed, its part is at least as important as that played by observation and experiment.”
Karl Popper, 'The Open Society and Its Enemies', Chapter 11.

As you might be starting to suspect, dictionaries are not good places to learn about scientific, philosophic, or mathematical terms.

Everytime one uses proof, evidence, etc you are evoking belief (confidence; faith; trust).

Belief, as in "I believe in God?" Or "because we find fossils of tropical organisms in the Antarctic, we believe that it was once located closer to the equator?" Or "I believe I'll have another Guinness?" Conflating these very different things mere muddles the argument.