Angloesque Angloesque

The Faith vs. Science War

▼

The Faith vs. Science War

thoughts from a fence straddler

from JoeUser Forums
I started reading through some of the religion vs. science posts. Not religion and science, mind you. I wasn't altogether pleased with the tones people took and the words they used to bolster their side of the debate. But then, why does it have to be one or the other? And why do people have to get on other people's backs about it? Neither camp explains everything about how life came to be as we know it today--not yet, at least.

Me, I believe in God and I believe in evolution. Sure there's conflict, and I've stepped off the fence numerous times on each side. But I keep coming back to both, because there's a lot of persuasion on each side. I have a lot of respect for a lot of creationists I know. It's really hard to be constantly bombarded with taunts, facts, and lies and keep one's faith in God. Alternately, it's hard to be a scientist and be told you're going to hell, or whatever, if you don't believe in God. Who doesn't think about an afterlife at some point, even if they don't believe it it the rest of the time? If I could teach kids this stuff, I'd say, "This is what group A believes. This is what group B believes. They're not mutually exclusive and there are lots of questions about both sides." (Insert Venn diagram...)

My church (which states its belief in the literal 7-day creation) is going through huge talks right now because so many science professors in our schools cannot in goodwill say they believe in a six-thousand-year-old Earth, ergo the literal interpretation of the Bible. In the past they've been fired directly if they state that; these days, though, there is church-sponsored dialogue between the theologians and the scientists, which is generally healthy and respectful. It'll still be years, if not centuries, before my church changes its position on evolution, but the change has to start somewhere.

I know one disillusioned professor, though, whose idea of integrating faith and science is to put them both in boxes and believe in them separately. He says that one day it'll all make sense, and for now, they're neatly compartmentalized in his brain. I like that idea.
blogging
7,695 views 38 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm saying that the Bible is not a science book and, when it comes to science, should be ignored completely.
End of quote

That it is not a science book should be obvious. But that does not invalidate it.

It would be extraordinary if it were magic, but it was distinctly unmagical. What is the big deal about that? Bacteria are complicated chemicals; out of complicated chemicals they arose.
End of quote

Still is just as far fetched to think those those chemicals came together by accident and formed life.

God does not have to be disproven. His existence is an extraordinary claim and must be defended. Otherwise, the default condition is that there is no God.
End of quote

For some it is a extraordinary claim that makes no sense, the bible says as much 1 Corinthians 2:14.
As for defending it, there is is no need. There are some that will never be able to see God.

This is the most ludicrous part. You contend that your religion is more credible than my Zooby religion because you have witnesses. But Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Taoism, Confucianism, Sikhism, and all the others all have their witnesses, and they can not all be correct. Kind of discredits how valuable these "witnesses" are, doesn't it? Makes you wish you had some kind of hard evidence...almost like scientific evidence or something...
End of quote

I never said that they did not have their witnesses, only that you do not. So the value of the witnesses is not in question. This discussion has not been about the differences of religions and which one is correct and which one is wrong. This discussion has been over the existence of God. As for hard evidence for God, I have it, it is all around you. That you choose to believe that it all simply magically happened at just the right time, in just the right place and in just the right quantities is the more ludicrous to me and lacks proof in the face of many theories.

Do I really think that I can convince you or show you proof that you will accept that God exists? No, of course not. As I pointed out before there are those who will remain hopeless. That I play this game with people like you is most likely something I should not do, but we all have our weaknesses and there is some fun in watching the anti-God crowd drone on and on.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
Frankly, I'm kind of annoyed at both of you. My original post was about allowing for both sides, and you two are going at the polarization of the debate. Knock it off.
Offworld Trading Company
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top

Evolution and Creationism can both be true, although by Creationism I mean the idea that God created the universe and life in general (I don't think a literal interpretation of Creationism with the world being created 6000 years ago would fit). Evolution is just about organisms changing to fit into their environment.


Science neither proves nor disproves God's existence nor does it lean toward any side of the fence on the subject. That's why I sit on the fence.

Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
Frankly, I'm kind of annoyed at both of you. My original post was about allowing for both sides, and you two are going at the polarization of the debate. Knock it off.
End of quote


Sorry, I could make the case that Bulby drew first blood. But since this is your blog article and you have asked the debate to end I will stop.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ah, smitty, you're so respectful. I only meant knock off the polarization, the one-or-the-otherism. The debate should always rage (it keeps people on their toes and, hopefully, constantly searching), but here it's supposed to be in the context of whether or not one could allow for both evolution and creation. There were times when the two of you were presenting things thusly, but it was getting out of hand. I don't mind the debate in the context, so don't knock that off. :) cheers.

-T.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
But that does not invalidate it.


As a religious book, sure, it's "valid." As a source of science information, it is not.


Still is just as far fetched to think those those chemicals came together by accident and formed life.


Not nearly as far-fetched as it is to believe that an omnipotent being from outside the universe generated a cosmos and the human race out of nothing at all.


As for defending it, there is is no need.


So when you make a claim, you don't have to defend it despite the lack of evidence? This is a new one...


I never said that they did not have their witnesses, only that you do not.


Thank you for the missing the point, which is that witnesses are irrelevant since they are obviously "wrong," if only by their mutual contradiction.


As for hard evidence for God, I have it, it is all around you.


Nope. I contend that everything around me is perfectly explainable by physics and chemistry.


Do I really think that I can convince you or show you proof that you will accept that God exists?


Finally, something reasonable! No, I don't think so. But the difference is in the mindset. A scientist will admit that it is POSSIBLE that a scientific theory is misguided or even completely incorrect; thus, I concede that it is POSSIBLE that God exists, that Jesus was the Son of God, and that the Bible is 100% true. Will you admit that the opposite is POSSIBLE?


***


Frankly, I'm kind of annoyed at both of you. My original post was about allowing for both sides


Please. There are more erratic tangents on which we could have gone. What kind of a discussion did you want to spark? A dozen people all saying that they agree with you and with each other?


***


Sorry, I could make the case that Bulby drew first blood.


I'll take credit for the first strike; I just don't see what's wrong with that. If you don't want commentary because it might leave a bad taste in your mouth, don't post articles.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
As hard as civil argumentation in the context of the article must be, perhaps you should take your toys and go home.

I always wanted to use that one.

Seriously, if you think I'm looking for everyone to agree with me, you're dumber than I thought.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
Seriously, if you think I'm looking for everyone to agree with me, you're dumber than I thought.


Oh, geez. Just stop whining that the debate that rages on in the comments to your article isn't everything you hoped it would be and more.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't think a literal interpretation of Creationism with the world being created 6000 years ago would fit


This is where my skepticism lies. If you allow that part of the bible is a metaphor - a fable constructed by people in a different time and place, then you must allow that anything is open to question - including the claimed existence of God, miracles, etc. It comes down to faith, not proof, it is inherently non-scientific.

Which is not to say the two concepts (faith and science) are mutually exclusive.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
Poetphilosopher,

Good point. A pitfall for me was trying to figure out what parts, or whole, of the Bible were indeed metaphor. It gets to be a slippery slope, and I don't know how some people manage to keep their faith and believe only portions of the Bible. It's like believing the parts that make you feel good, making the Bible conform to your worldview. I'm not sure how to deal with that part.

-T.
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
Arghhh... sorry I can't help myself :-)

As a religious book, sure, it's "valid." As a source of science information, it is not.
End of quote

True, and it can be equally said that science is not a valid source for information concerning the meaning and purpose of life.
The magical mix of chemicals is just as far fetched as any God.

So when you make a claim, you don't have to defend it despite the lack of evidence? This is a new one...
End of quote

As I said, the evidence is all around you and there is some documentation in a book called the bible. And while you may claim everything around you has a valid explaination in physics and chemistry I contend there are many things that science currently says "we just don't know".

Finally, something reasonable! No, I don't think so. But the difference is in the mindset. A scientist will admit that it is POSSIBLE that a scientific theory is misguided or even completely incorrect; thus, I concede that it is POSSIBLE that God exists, that Jesus was the Son of God, and that the Bible is 100% true. Will you admit that the opposite is POSSIBLE?
End of quote

Sure it is possible, but as you would say, it is not probable.

Oh, geez. Just stop whining that the debate that rages on in the comments to your article isn't everything you hoped it would be and more.
End of quote

LOL, I sense that you are giving yourself more credit than you deserve.