Here's an interesting quote from Richard Bube, Professor of Materials Science and Electrical Engineering at Stanford University (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/dialogues/practical-atheists/3-96.htm) ...
How does my faith affect my scientific work? There are several ways that I will describe a little further along, but first it is necessary to make the negative of this statement clear: how doesn't my faith affect my scientific work? The answer can be simply given: my faith does not affect my scientific work by giving me knowledge of mechanisms, interactions in the physical world, or insights into proper and improper scientific theories. The reason for this is simple. My faith is that God has created and sustains the universe, and my scientific task is to try to describe in the scientific categories available to me how it is that God does this. If I attempt to decide first what God could do because of my concept of who God is, then to decide that God must have done what he could do, and then use this conclusion as a guiding priciple in doing my scientific investigation, I make a critical mistake and fall victim to pseudoscience. The proper approach to finding out what God has done is to look at what God has done and is doing, and to draw relevant descriptions of his work from that.
Originally posted by widget Who's this God? 😛 Prove it! 😀 Get thee to a nunnery 🙄 Children are starving. Mothers weep :'(
Not quite sure what you're on about here widgey, I only wanted to point out that religious faith is not preclusive of science.
Removed
Joined
15 Sep '04
Moves
7051
28 Mar '06 09:281 edit
Originally posted by amannion Here's an interesting quote from Richard Bube, Professor of Materials Science and Electrical Engineering at Stanford University (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/dialogues/practical-atheists/3-96.htm) ...
How does my faith affect my scientific work? There are several ways that I will describe a little further along, but first it is necessary to make the negative to draw relevant descriptions of his work from that.
What think ye faithful and faithless?
Science investigates the natural phenomenon.
Religion creates stories on the super-natural phenomenon.
The two are irreconcilable. Science must reject all religious assertions because they relate to the super-natural and religion must constantly avoid science in case that science [again] demonstrates that it's stories are illogical.
Of course, a theist can be a scientist...just not when he's doing science.
Originally posted by amannion Here's an interesting quote from Richard Bube, Professor of Materials Science and Electrical Engineering at Stanford University (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/dialogues/practical-atheists/3-96.htm) ...
How does my faith affect my scientific work? There are several ways that I will describe a little further along, but first it is necessary to make the negative ...[text shortened]... to draw relevant descriptions of his work from that.
What think ye faithful and faithless?
I think... this is pretty much exactly why I studied science at university and rarely had a problem. Creation/evolution is irrelevant to the vast bulk of scientific investigation - you can find out all about how things PRESENTLY work, and it's only when you start theorising as to how it came to be that way that you run into any issues.
Originally posted by Conrau K Of course, a theist can be a scientist...just not when he's doing science.
🙄
By that, do you mean: "A scientist can be a theist... just not when he's doing science"? Or, do you actually mean the theist must not be a scientist when doing science?
Originally posted by amannion Here's an interesting quote from Richard Bube, Professor of Materials Science and Electrical Engineering at Stanford University (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/dialogues/practical-atheists/3-96.htm) ...
How does my faith affect my scientific work? There are several ways that I will describe a little further along, but first it is necessary to make the negative ...[text shortened]... to draw relevant descriptions of his work from that.
What think ye faithful and faithless?
Actually, I like this quote very much. Almost any supernatural being can be properly defined to make its existence non-contingent on states of nature. With enough imagination you can believe in Muffy, Chuck Norris, or Invisible Elves. Hell, you can believe that Mickey Mouse sustains the universe on his round, black nose.
When you do science, assume only the natural. Make up Invisible Pink Unicorns afterwards.
Originally posted by Conrau K Science investigates the natural phenomenon.
Religion creates stories on the super-natural phenomenon.
The two are irreconcilable. Science must reject all religious assertions because they relate to the super-natural and religion must constantly avoid science in case that science [again] demonstrates that it's stories are illogical.
Of course, a theist can be a scientist...just not when he's doing science.
Yes irreconcilable true, but my point was that it's possible for a scientist to be a theist without any problems. I guess the issue is that science and religion DO NOT actually describe (or attempt to describe) the same things. They're irreconcilable because they work at cross purposes in a sense.
Originally posted by amannion Here's an interesting quote from Richard Bube, Professor of Materials Science and Electrical Engineering at Stanford University (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/dialogues/practical-atheists/3-96.htm) ...
How does my faith affect my scientific work? There are several ways that I will describe a little further along, but first it is necessary to make the negative ...[text shortened]... to draw relevant descriptions of his work from that.
What think ye faithful and faithless?
I like his quote very much. Sadly the fundies on the bored are lining up to knock it down.
If the learned of the Iron Age wrote down their interpretations of the world then it was relevant in their time. Since then human endeavour has lead to new, more powerful, ways of interpreting the world. An honest man recognises that progress has been made since the Iron Age, much of it by devout christians; the dishonest man says that the knowlege of the Iron Age cannot be improved.
Originally posted by aardvarkhome I like his quote very much. Sadly the fundies on the bored are lining up to knock it down.
If the learned of the Iron Age wrote down their interpretations of the world then it was relevant in their time. Since then human endeavour has lead to new, more powerful, ways of interpreting the world. An honest man recognises that progress has been made sin ...[text shortened]... devout christians; the dishonest man says that the knowlege of the Iron Age cannot be improved.
Exactly.
Well said aardy ...
Removed
Joined
15 Sep '04
Moves
7051
29 Mar '06 09:541 edit
Originally posted by amannion Yes irreconcilable true, but my point was that it's possible for a scientist to be a theist without any problems. I guess the issue is that science and religion DO NOT actually describe (or attempt to describe) the same things. They're irreconcilable because they work at cross purposes in a sense.
From the site:
4. My faith enabled me to be open to the apparent descriptions of modern science, no matter how difficult or unexpected they might be, while at the same time protecting me from falling into non-Christian extrapolations or generalizations of these results beyond the range of authentic science.
Example. For many people the challenge of resolving the paradoxes of quantum mechanics and relativity, or of determinism vs. chance, or of God's omnipotence and a creation that obeys physical laws, has proved to be a threat to their faith or leads them into mystical or new-Age-like worldviews that are incompatible with Christian faith. My faith has helped me to be open-minded about the resolution of current problems in metaphysical philosophy, while holding to the basic truth that God is the Author of it all.
What does this mean? What if science challenges his faith? Which do you think he would he choose? Faith or science?
If the basic truth is that God is author of it all, what about when science repudiates his christian understanding of God?
Removed
Joined
15 Sep '04
Moves
7051
29 Mar '06 09:59
Originally posted by stocken 🙄
By that, do you mean: "A scientist can be a theist... just not when he's doing science"? Or, do you actually mean the theist must not be a scientist when doing science?
A scientist cannot make any theistic extrapolations from any scientific experiments. A scientist can be a theist, but at the critical moment of scientific research and deduction- he cannot. He must passively reject any supernatural explanations (which is practically atheism). At that time the scientist is an atheist but when he leaves the lab, he might go straight to church.
Originally posted by Conrau K What does this mean? What if science challenges his faith? Which do you think he would he choose? Faith or science?
If the basic truth is that God is author of it all, what about when science repudiates his christian understanding of God?
Considering that for science to challenge the existance of God they would in effect be attempting to prove a negative then there can be no contradition.
Originally posted by XanthosNZ Considering that for science to challenge the existance of God they would in effect be attempting to prove a negative then there can be no contradition.
I dont think sciences goal is to 'proove' anything but rather to find the most likely explanation for the evidence available. It would be very difficult for science to even imply the total abscence of a being external to the universe. However when it comes to the Christian God then it is different. Of course every Christian has a different (often changing) view of what the Christian God is or is not. However when it comes to specific beliefs by specific Christians, there is almost always a conflict between science and those beliefs.
Originally posted by twhitehead I dont think sciences goal is to 'proove' anything but rather to find the most likely explanation for the evidence available. It would be very difficult for science to even imply the total abscence of a being external to the universe. However when it comes to the Christian God then it is different. Of course every Christian has a different (often changing ...[text shortened]... s by specific Christians, there is almost always a conflict between science and those beliefs.
If creationists have convinced you that most Christians believe as they do then you've been fooled. Most Christians take Genesis to be a non-literal interpretation and are quite happy with evolution as the method by which God created man.
Science and Faith ...
28 Mar '06 03:15
Back to Top