Originally posted by Thequ1ckI don't think christians, nor any other non christian religous people, have to defend their faith in the light of science.
Do we have any Christian's out there that are willing to defend their faith
in light of it's usefulness in society? Or am I to expect another round of
chanting?
To know about nature is to know about its creator. To deny evolution, BigBang, quantum mechanics, etc, is to deny the creator.
Originally posted by Thequ1ckWhat contradiction in quantum physics?
I would also like to ask how scientists deal with the contradiction between
consideration of theoretical entities in areas such as quantum physics but
are unable to reconcile this with their counterparts in religion?
"Unable to reconcile with religion"?? No scientist is trying to reconcile science with religion.
1 edit
Originally posted by Thequ1ckAs a matter of historical fact, modern science has developed
As a matter of historical fact, modern science has developed
from an understanding of the world as God’s ordered Creation,
with its own inherent rationality. The issue is whether it can continue
with confidence when it has jettisoned all theological
assumptions. [b]Why does the world behave so regularly that science
can generalise and make universal cl ...[text shortened]... onal manner, there appears little
prospect for providing any external legitimation for science.
from an understanding of the world as God’s ordered Creation,[/b]
No. It goes far behind monotheistic religions, trying to find perfection in nature. If science during some time in history was to "understand god's creation", as you say, it was because in that time all people lived in the worst regime in history, where someone who would dare to question some preestablished truths of church was killed. People here obliged to follow this dictatorship religion. Science and reason was the way out it.
It's a shame, the rest of your comment. You almost sound like if it wasn't for religion, science would never start. But if history tells us something is that religion stopped evolution of menkind for 1500 years, and only when we got out of its wretched claws we started to evolve once again.
Why does the world behave so regularly that science
can generalise and make universal claims about the nature
of physical reality?
The world can be predicted in a mathematical way, so it must have been created by a perfect being... good argument...
Science doesn't care why the world behaves like this. Science only cares for the "how". But you really need the "why", and gods fit as a glove.
Without an appeal to God, as the source and ground of reason, who has made the world in a rational manner, there appears little prospect for providing any external legitimation for science.
Science doesn't want external legitimation. Science doesn't want to be anything more that it really wants: it's a local study susceptible to faults. Legitimation (not proof) comes from experience and applications.
But you have the answer to justify it all: there's an external perfect being who is responsible for all. That's an answer too easy, even if it is true. But even if it was true there was a God, it certainly wouldn't be the lousy Christian God so incoherent and so mundane.
1 edit
Originally posted by Thequ1ck(?) can't get you...
Then how do you say science describes the 'unknown'?
Science describes anything that can be studied. Somethings are unknown because they're too complex and we still haven't got a theory for them (string theory), or because we can't experiment on them (big bang).
Originally posted by serigadoSo what are you saying? 'the unknonw is something that science has not yet observed?'
(?) can't get you...
Science describes anything that can be studied. Somethings are unknown because they're too complex and we still haven't got a theory for them (string theory), or because we can't experiment on them (big bang).
Originally posted by Thequ1ckDon't know what you're calling "unknown", but I guess it's something science can't observe.
So what are you saying? 'the unknonw is something that science has not yet observed?'
I just call "unknown" something we do not know. If we do not know, science or philosophy haven't reached any conclusion about it.
I don't consider theology to give us any knowledge.
Originally posted by Thequ1ckif by unknown you mean God and if you're saying that since science cannot prove God then one must be wrong then you are mistaken.
So what are you saying? 'the unknonw is something that science has not yet observed?'
there will always be unknowns that science will try and solve. God is a different kind of unknown: it cannot be proven by science. God is a matter of faith.
so the reasonable person should explain the universe using science and believe or not believe in God as a matter of personal choice, unaffected by outside factors.
believing in god comes form inside with no proofs, while science is all about facts and proofs.