is there a reconciliatory christian view towards science?

Something to contemplate on the subject of science, god, and understanding...

Ever since I first read it, this has really blown me away.

link

 

rhad, that article and your fascination with it works nicely with your sig.
But seriously, thanks.

 

I agree (somewhat bitterly, I guess), and you are welcome.

 

The discoveries that come when a new tool comes out for brain imaging are both scary and wonderous. Here's a recent article about the "spirituality spot" being found.

I shudder to think of a pill being made for those DIY spiritual types. For one thing, there are probably better organic versions, but I never really liked science's intrusion into this field... even if it's inevitable.

Some would claim that this would open up the spiritual community to more people, but the history on social progress keeping up responsibly with technological progress doesn't make me optimistic.

I think the wonder is lost when people try to extract the process, whether through science or some other means, into simplistic and rigid models from inherently complex things. For some scientists cooped up in labs, creating embryos for research becomes a routine, a matter of probability and numbers to an end. For whatever intents and purposes, the other parts are marginalized and left out. The final conclusions sometimes reflect this, but that nuance is left out to the average person.

Individually, in the age of instant gratification, looking up novel summaries on Wikipedia might give a person the desired facts, but they’re missing out on the mystery, introspection, and discovery that came to the conclusion.

For the latter, that isn’t the fault of science, but rather human nature. Science’s fault is telling laymen what things seem, consequently killing our ability to imagine other possibilities.

I think there are several focal points that many religions share in common. Those points are usually insights that branch out from those disputed fundamental aspects.This would differ to the common skeptic saying religions no better than believing in Santa Claus.

I'm not a religious scholar or anything like that, and I'm not demanding that level of accountability. It just seems to me that the more vocal skeptics, for example the skeptics on Christianity, have never read the Bible.

Or if they have read it cover to cover, it's from a literal perspective that's similar to how Fundamentalist would interpret it. The same fundie a skeptic would typically trash.

 

This is a sad, cliche, and largely inaccurate view of how a scientist views work and life's passion. I appreciate that wonder is lost for you when a topic is researched, and I wouldn't debate your feelings on the topic. But similarly, I'd hope you can see that others find a cornucopia of wonder in research, where more questions (and deeper questions about our existence) are typically generated than are cold, discussion-ending answers. Cheers.

 

I don't think this is a view all scientists share, just some observations and accounts from lab researchers who feel the tedium in their field. A nightmare for the passioned scientist would be all questions being answered.

There's going to be some who work from paycheck to paycheck. What I'm saying or my concerns are are the scientists who do ethically grey research that on the surface doesn't seem to make any sense. Or others who are stuck professionally.

Actually, I think scientists get the most rewards out of discovery, process, and debate, but that level and depth of knowledge is esoteric to the common person who shares a passive interest. Scientists know there isn't always a definite conclusion to a matter, but many people think there is. It's that misconception by the laymen that I'm concerned about socially. People trust what they read/see on the news or other media, but what's left out might be the best parts.


BTW, I'm still amazed when I research. Getting information gratifies me. I guess it's snobbery on my part to claim it's better to lift up a book than finding the final answer with my fingertips.

 

My point was that the realm of science is rigorously defined, while religion is more nebulous. One can't discuss science without understanding the scientific method. There is no common "religious method", though. The common themes that relgions share (something akin to Jung's archetypes) are a matter of meta-analysis--they are themselves disputed and can't be required as a priori knowlege before discussion can take place.

Also, and this is not to be condescending at all, what exacly is the difference between believing in God and believing in Santa Claus?

And from what perspective should we (skeptics) read the Bible? I can appreciate metaphor, but I can't appreciate giving someone else's holy document an exceptional status that shields it from critical analysis.

 

just read a little more here...

God is a spirit so science isn't the way to know God.

I think knowing God goes more this way... you must have a spiritual receiver to know God, only God can give you one, and He gives one to people who are humble of heart and trusting like a little child... (is that a method?)

a skeptic looks around at the world and sees nothing of God...no problem, He's obviously undetectable to a skeptic... at least I draw that conclusion.

a believer like MM looks at the world and remarks he sees something of God's wonder all around...a Christian believer can be very intelligent but this doesn't help him in spiritual areas, it even leads him to be puffed up on himself which is the opposite of what he needs spiritually...

here is a simple but irksome analogy... you could be standing in a room with TV signals filling the air but you would have no way of receiving them without a TV receiver, you would never know they existed without the means to receive the input.

the spirit realm is not the place for science... the skeptic dare not look for this spiritual receiver.... he does not believe it exists - no reason to

how do you use the scientific method to understand how to turn deep bitterness into full forgiveness, or deep selfishness into charity- consistently?

these are complex spiritual matters locked inside the human heart (spirit)

no place for a skeptic

 

Scary because the seperation of church and state is needed more than ever in todays world.

Last thing we need is another leader banging on about praying etc.

 

rhester, I mean all of the following in the most friendly and conversational way possible.

(1) I would largely agree with that. I don't think any of the science we're talking about attempts to know God, but it is fascinating to better understand, on the human side, our drive for and obvious benefit from the act of faith. I see no threat there, and I don't think many people would say science will provide the whole enchilada here. Far from.

(2) Far be it from me to dispute this, but some of us feel that we are closest to God when we utilize our given tools to the best of our abilities.

(3) I don't think scientist = skeptic at all, and this relates to point #2. A scientist should primarily be skeptical of his/her own data and experiments, first and foremost. This does not mean he/she should be skeptical of religious experiences, at all, and I know so many deeply spiritual scientists. People of faith.

The Dalai Llama is one of the most interested readers of new neurotheology research, for what that's worth. He is not what I would call a skeptic of faith. But he seems to be a person who is devoted to learning each day he walks the earth. I do not mean that to be a right or wrong approach, but an interesting one that appeals to me.

 

From a religious perspective, the scientific method is a tool created to the best of our abilities. To a religious person, this tool can't determine the final answer for everything. It's definitely the best we can do, and there's no expectation that we'll discover a way to prove God's existence in a court on earth for example.

Also, religion is nebulous because it can't be defined easily. It's not a mess. I realize you didn't say that it's a mess, but I got that vibe. Perhaps it was just me, but I felt it important to say. It's just beyond the reach of science IMO. I don't know why it's so difficult to accept that we are incapable of doing certain things. We are limited people. We do great things with what we have, but we have a ceiling.

 

I suppose the next step is that all leaders should be atheists?

How will it change anything if a guy shows or hides religion? He believes what he believes in both cases.

 

Great post, and I was speaking on behalf of myself... not religion in general...I also know quite a few scientists who are deeply Christian and a few from other faiths. I know a brilliant geologist who works for Shell Oil who actually promotes the creation story through geology, but I never can understand him, he has trouble breaking it down into terms I can understand (he is too technical for me and I really don't have that much interest in geology and I just think of creation as a faith based concept)

I think that everyone has a drive to believe in things and express hope and faith, from a Jesus perspective I believe the Holy Spirit or a Divine Spirit must help us know the spiritual realm. Even if we aren't looking. God is not hiding but He helps us find Him. Seeking is important to God IMHO and yet at the same time those who aren't even looking also can find a spiritual connection with God.

What I meant by a receiver is that our natural sight cannot help us, our two eyes cannot be the primary method to see spiritually. We need spiritual sight, spiritual hearing and God offers this to those who have a humble attitude and a simple faith.

I believe God wants to reveal Himself in many methods, but there is no hard fast rule.

For example I read the bible before I became a Christian and it meant little if nothing to me. After I became a Christian it became a light of clarification to my life. I did not find religion in the bible.

I think science is a worthy pursuit that adds value to life, it is the whole field of discovery and testing to me. I do not think it is the best method to find spiritual realities although they are linked inseparably. For instance many analogies exist between science and spiritual concepts- ex. agronomy and sprititual life. Physics and spiritual truths. etc.

I used the term 'skeptic' to generalize those who discount religion as a value to mankind. many hard core skeptics have expressed to me that religion is unnecessary and even evil. I should have been more specific.

But if you are opposed to the idea of God due to skepticism and find spiritual faith to be misguided then I would say you have positioned yourself to miss any experience or evidence to the contrary.

Every bias has a consequence.

 

Hmmm...

i'm all for separation of church and state...but i don't think that requires that our leaders avoid any sense of the spiritual in their lives.

all he said was that he prays daily and he feels a need to get beyond himself in service of others.

 

I’ll chip in my 2 cents on this. I see no separation between the pursuit of an understanding of spirituality, specifically one’s own spirituality, and science. From a Christian standpoint the Bible says that people should seek the truth, and goal of good science is to seek the truth as well. Note that the scientific method was largely developed by religious scholars, most notably Islamic scholars, and that scientific method and “religious method” are essentially one and the same.

It’s been noted that 97% of humans believe in a god of some sort. The obvious conclusion from this is that there is likely something to that belief. That’s a scientific conclusion based on scientifically data. What exactly that belief is about can be pursued through hard science and social science as well. There are no barriers between science and religion. They are both part of the same whole. I should note that I’m talking about ideal science and ideal religion. I think we all know that both can be corrupted and let astray by external factors, and this means that in practice there can be an appearance of conflict between religion and science, but there is no conflict between their core principles.

 

Looks like I'm a little late to this discussion... but here's my take:

I guess I'm what you would call a born-again evangelical Christain. I have this discussion ALL the time with my Christain friends. What I have learned is that a large number of Christians believe in evolution to a certain point. They believe in what is referred to as "micro-evolution". The kind of evolution where different species change and evolve within their own species, but it never results in a completely different species.

I believe Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled" hits on this briefly.

 

If a species can change by variation and natural selection, what stops it from evolving into other species? By what mechanism is micro-evolution possible but not macro-evolution?

 

What DOESN'T stop it from evolving into another species?? I'm not a scientist or anything like that... but there IS a theory of micro vs. macro evolution in which there are many scientists believe in the micro theory. There isn't any more proof for macro than there is for micro. In fact, due to the lack of evidence that we currently have, micro is probably more believable at this point.

But once again, it's not as if I've done the scientific research to be qualified enough to make any of these arguments.

 

One of the most, if not the most, important philosophers of science was Karl Popper (not a religious scholar), who introduced the falsifiability standard to the scientific method. Only theories that are falsifiable can be considered scientific. This is because of the simple fact that no amount of evidence can ever completely affirm a theory, while only a single counterexample is necessary to debunk it.

God is an example of a non-falsifiable theory. Any potential evidence against the existence of God can simply be dismissed on the grounds that God is beyond our understanding.

As to your claim about the implications of 97% (I'm interested as to where you got this figure) of humanity believing in a god, what do you specifically think that suggests?

I agree that religion is beyond the reach of science, for reasons stated in my response to Grizzled. I'm not sure what you mean by "mess" but I would say that many religions employ messy logic.

 

Before going down this road, I'd like to hear what you think is the difference between micro- and macro-evolution.

I will say that there is a ton of evidence for the theory that all life on earth is descended from a common ancestor (this is often what people refer to as macro-evolution).

This page on talkorigins.org is an excellent place to start, assuming you really are interested in the science behind evolution.