Is the science/theism dichotomy necessary?

Originally posted by catstorm
Science does not provide an answer to The Meaning of Life, and neither do landscaping or Diesel Mechanics. Is that their purpose?

You assume there is a meaning to life. Perhaps we have to make our own. Science accepts that understanding our universe is always work in progress, but this means infinite possibilities. Absolute faith seems to be an intellectual dead end.

Originally posted by FMF
This is not borne out by any of your postings that I have read.

That is only because you don't understand my postings and because you probably believe evolution is science instead of philosophy.

Originally posted by FMF
This may be true for many Christians I suppose. But this struggle with things "that go against their beliefs" applies to everyone and in matters unrelated to religion. It applies to interpersonal things and political things and so on. It is part of the human condition I suppose.

Yes, and it can create an unavoidable dichotomy.

Originally posted by FMF
Originally posted by KingOnPoint on the Abundant Life thread
[b]Science doesn't put you with God. Science doesn't try to give you a relationship with God. Science has failed to answer the questions of how the universe was formed and how humanity came about. We cannot depend on science either, when it comes to disproving creation for both the universe and ...[text shortened]... uisitive humans to simply settle for explanations that you just so happened to have settled for?

Sometimes questions can be misleading. They can reveal a misunderstanding of the truth, and essentially lead one away from it.

"Nor has Christianity offered convincing answers to the questions of how the universe was formed and how humanity came about!"

It's not Christianity you should be listening to.

"So why not look at "science" in a different way?"

Why? Why not just see it for what it is? It's just science! But if a scientist produces a theory that contradicts the Word of God we then have a problem.

"Why not see scientists as God's creatures, exercising their God given talents – even if many of them do not acknowledge they were “given” them – and their God given natural curiosity and determination, to push the knowledge of humanity ~ God's creation ~ to its apparent boundaries and beyond, revelling in the astounding capacity of the God given human spirit, to delve deeper and deeper into the wondrous realities of the earth and the universe ~ God's creation ~ and to truly marvel at what this creation is and how it works?"

Why not?

"Why not just look upon scientists as part of God's creation, then, instrumental in exploring that creation in this way and not get sidetracked by whether or not they just so happen to subscribe to 'answers' that Judaism settled upon and that you subscribe to, or the breakaway religion that Judaism gave rise to?"

Well, now you're starting to impose your perspective and definitions on the question, which is misleading because not everyone shares your point of view.

"Why does it matter to you if scientists are believers or non-believers? Surely you believe it is God’s creation that they are examining? Whether they believe that it is God’s creation that they are examining should hardly matter to you if you are confident in your belief that it is?"

It matters to every believer that "all men see" the truth of God's Word and be saved. What another may or may not believe has no effect on the belief of the believer.

"Why is it important to you to reject the endeavours and insights and discoveries of people who are finding out how this universe – designed and deliberately constructed according to your beliefs – actually works, and then marvel at its design and construction, even if they still don’t see it your way?"

As long as those so-called discoveries are true and don't contradict God's Word it doesn't matter.

"Why expect all these brilliant, talented, inquisitive humans to simply settle for explanations that you just so happened to have settled for?"

"Settle" is an unsettling word in this context. Believing God isn't a guessing game. God's Word is true.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]Sometimes questions can be misleading. They can reveal a misunderstanding of the truth, and essentially lead one away from it.

"Nor has Christianity offered convincing answers to the questions of how the universe was formed and how humanity came about!"

It's not Christianity you should be listening to.

"So why not look at "science" in ...[text shortened]... an unsettling word in this context. Believing God isn't a guessing game. God's Word is true.[/b][/b]

"Why? Why not just see it for what it is? It's just science! But if a scientist produces a theory that contradicts the Word of God we then have a problem. "

That is the point of putting the "/" in "science/theism".

The heliocentric theory was once thought by some to contradict the Word of God. Did it contradict the Word of God?

Could you state a current scientific theory that contradicts the Word of God?

Originally posted by FMF
Originally posted by KingOnPoint on the Abundant Life thread
[b]Science has failed to answer the questions of how the universe was formed and how humanity came about.

There's a difference between "failed" and "not yet accomplished". For most of human history, one could claim that science has "failed" to give humans the ability to fly or talk to someone far away. However, like with answering how the universe or humans were formed, they were simply things science had yet to accomplish.

That said, science has at least gotten is closer to the answer, unlike religion, which has done the exact opposite.

I don't assume that life has a meaning which is waiting for us to discover. I agree with the existentialists that life's meaning has to be created. Whether my meaning is more true or worthy than yours is a question that science cannot touch.

Originally posted by catstorm
I don't assume that life has a meaning which is waiting for us to discover. I agree with the existentialists that life's meaning has to be created. Whether my meaning is more true or worthy than yours is a question that science cannot touch.

My point exactly! A meaning that cannot be touched!

Originally posted by JS357
"Why? Why not just see it for what it is? It's just science! But if a scientist produces a theory that contradicts the Word of God we then have a problem. "

That is the point of putting the "/" in "science/theism".

The heliocentric theory was once thought by some to contradict the Word of God. Did it contradict the Word of God?

Could you state a current scientific theory that contradicts the Word of God?

Have you forgotten about the theories of evolution, abiogenesis, and the big bang?

Originally posted by vivify
There's a difference between "failed" and "not yet accomplished". For most of human history, one could claim that science has "failed" to give humans the ability to fly or talk to someone far away. However, like with answering how the universe or humans were formed, they were simply things science had yet to accomplish.

That said, science has at least gotten is closer to the answer, unlike religion, which has done the exact opposite.

Science is getting some of you closer to understanding that "life comes from life" (biogenesis) not from rocks or a puddle of water. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Have you forgotten about the theories of evolution, abiogenesis, and the big bang?

Of course your objections are already registered. I am interested in josephw's examples of scientific theories that contradict what he calls the Word of God. Unfortunately, he often fades away at times like this.

BTW the RCC and many others are delighted with the BB; are fine with evolution, and there is no fully fledged scientific theory of abiogenesis for the Word of God to contradict, to my knowledge.

Originally posted by JS357
Of course your objections are already registered. I am interested in josephw's examples of scientific theories that contradict what he calls the Word of God. Unfortunately, he often fades away at times like this.

BTW the RCC and many others are delighted with the BB; are fine with evolution, and there is no fully fledged scientific theory of abiogenesis for the Word of God to contradict, to my knowledge.

Okay, actually biogenesis is considered just an hypothesis since there is absolutely no credible evidence that can be given to even support such a theory, especially since it violates the Law of Biogenesis. But many evolutionists still cling to the hope that it could become a theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Originally posted by RJHinds
Okay, actually biogenesis is considered just an hypothesis since there is absolutely no credible evidence that can be given to even support such a theory, especially since it violates the Law of Biogenesis. But many evolutionists still cling to the hope that it could become a theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

On this date in history, RJ and JS agree on something: bg is a hypothesis.

Originally posted by josephw
Well, now you're starting to impose your perspective and definitions on the question, which is misleading because not everyone shares your point of view.

Misleading? I have not attempted to mislead anyone into thinking that the OP is anything other than my own point of view.

Originally posted by josephw
"Settle" is an unsettling word in this context. Believing God isn't a guessing game. God's Word is true.

If someone believes that the earth was created in a matter of days and that it is less than ten thousand years old, when, by contrast, we humans have established that this is not true, wouldn't subscribing to the 6 days/6,000 years as a 'literally true' explanation be a case of "settling" for something that is less than what it could be, i.e. accepting it, being satisfied by it, and not wanting or needing or seeking a better or more accurate explanation? What's wrong with the word "settle" being used to describe this kind of situation?