God and Science

[0utmahfays]

As an avid follower of Christ I strongly believe you can intertwine scientific beliefs with God (i.e God caused the big bang, the simulation theory coinciding with the intelligent design, higher dimensions, etc.)

Brand new to the forum!

Would love to hear everyones non-biased opinion of this. 

[NineTwentyEight]

What if I told you that saying that the past is the past is no more accurate than saying the past is the future. Our perception of time is a matter of subjectivity. 

 

 

[iNow]

35 minutes ago, 0utmahfays said:

As an avid follower of Christ I strongly believe you can intertwine scientific beliefs with God (i.e God caused the big bang, the simulation theory coinciding with the intelligent design, higher dimensions, etc.)

Brand new to the forum!

Would love to hear everyones non-biased opinion of this. 

Many very prominent scientists are religious, even more so the farther back in history you look. 

This is, however, not a sign of the two being compatible, but is instead a sign of our human ability to easily compartmentalize our thoughts and maintain inconsistent beliefs. 

One of these (religion and belief in god(s)) is a conclusion in search of valid supporting evidence. The other (science and the methodology of avoiding our own biases) is the search for evidence wherever it may lead in search of valid conclusions. 

You can be religious, and you can believe in a creator god, and you can also do science in addition to those things, but the moment those things enter your scientific methodology or influence your work then you’re no longer doing valid science.

You may let your beliefs inspire and/or motivate you, but you must let the evidence and willingness to change your mind... to be objective and honest about what you see... guide you. 

Edited May 15, 2020 by iNow

[Strange]

5 hours ago, NineTwentyEight said:

What if I told you that saying that the past is the past is no more accurate than saying the past is the future. Our perception of time is a matter of subjectivity. 

 

 

!

Moderator Note

This appears to have no relevance to the topic. 

 

[NineTwentyEight]

In all likelihood if there is a superior intelligence that sets to precedence and emergence of man it's a thermodynamic Boltzmann brain during late entropy. 

[Prometheus]

7 hours ago, iNow said:

This is, however, not a sign of the two being compatible, but is instead a sign of our human ability to easily compartmentalize our thoughts and maintain inconsistent beliefs. 

I disagree that this is necessarily true - though i'm sure it is sometimes, maybe often, the case. 

Iff religious beliefs make an empirical statement that clash with the evidence then sure there will be dissonance. Then there will always be evidence gaps in which people can ferret certain beliefs which avoids this dissonance.

But if religious beliefs make no such empirical claims then they can be entirely consistent with science. Another way of stating this is that religion (could) deal with the world as we experience it, science as the world is. Or that God does exist - as a human concept (and no less important for being so).

[Markus Hanke]

I consider science and religion (the general concept, not any particular religion) to be different and distinct domains of enquiry, that ask different questions about the world and the human condition. As such, there is no reason why the two can’t coexist harmoniously, in fact it is natural for them to do so. Problems only arise when people start conflating the two - making religious claims about the empirical world, or conversely making “scientific” claims about what is not readily amenable to the scientific method, quickly leads to unnecessary disharmony and arguments (and potentially worse). You don’t use a torque wrench to hammer in a nail - one must pick the right tool for the job at hand.

I think both science and religion are equally of value when it comes to understanding what it means to be born human, but they shouldn’t be conflated and confused, because they relate to different aspects of our experience.

[Phi for All]

10 hours ago, 0utmahfays said:

As an avid follower of Christ I strongly believe you can intertwine scientific beliefs with God (i.e God caused the big bang, the simulation theory coinciding with the intelligent design, higher dimensions, etc.)

I believe you CAN, but I don't believe you SHOULD. Scientific beliefs need to be based on trust rather than faith. 

 

10 hours ago, 0utmahfays said:

Would love to hear everyones non-biased opinion of this. 

All opinion is biased, that's why science.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Markus Hanke said:

I think both science and religion are equally of value when it comes to understanding what it means to be born human

This seems to suggest that the life experience of those who are irreligious is somehow of less value than those who are religious, and similarly that the non-religious are unable to access the understanding you cite.

I doubt that's what you meant to convey, but it's inherent in the framing. I'm sure you would agree that my awe for the cosmos and appreciation for the complexity and nuances of the human condition is in no way hindered by my lack of belief in god(s) or my lack of ritualistic religious practice.

While religion is often a helpful crutch for some, most of us are still perfectly successful walking without it perched below our armpits.

[dimreepr]

53 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I believe you CAN, but I don't believe you SHOULD. Scientific beliefs need to be based on trust rather than faith. 

In the context of that stark choice, I believe you're right, but I don't believe that stark choice exists for the majority, in reality science answers questions that can be answered, logically and without bias; while religion address' those things that can't be answered in a sterile logical way, like why am I affraid to die and what happens to the consciousness that is me when I do?

Religion does, at least, attempt to answer these questions, which may not be logical or empirical and is loaded with biased thinking, but for many it makes life bearable.

Because most people reside in the middle of that particular bell curve, while most of the arguments that pertains to this question, resides in the extremes of it. 

 

 

It doesn't matter what's truer, what matters is we steer the arguments away from the extremes.

Edited May 15, 2020 by dimreepr

[Phi for All]

10 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

In the context of that stark choice,

You see it as stark? On one hand, we have tens of thousands of conflicting faith-based religions describing the supernatural phenomena they worship as deities, and on the other hand we have the possibility that none of them are right. I won't make the mistake of claiming the second is the default position, but I will say the lack of evidence for god(s) makes me automatically take a "wait and see" neutrality (not quite fence-sitting, or eternally skeptical, just measuring the evidence).

[dimreepr]

13 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

You see it as stark?

I see the statement you answered as stark.

Edited May 15, 2020 by dimreepr

[MigL]

2 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

You don’t use a torque wrench to hammer in a nail

I have used a cordless drill to hammer in a nail...
Too lazy to climb down off the roof to go get the hammer.
I suppose Religion is the 'lazy' way to explain things; you don't have to put in the effort that science requires.
( not that I have a problem with Religious beliefs; I, personally, have no need )

One thing I do find frustrating...
Neither I, nor any other scientifically minded person ( I wouldn't presume to call myself a scientist ), has ever gone to a Religious discussion forum, and posted mathematical proofs, or scientific observations. We seem to know the difference.
Yet Religious people regularly come to this scientific discussion site, and 'preach' Religion.
Why do they assume science and Religion can be discussed in the same context ?

[iNow]

18 minutes ago, MigL said:

Neither I, nor any other scientifically minded person ( I wouldn't presume to call myself a scientist ), has ever gone to a Religious discussion forum, and posted mathematical proofs, or scientific observations

Being a scientifically minded person, you should be able to recognize this as a baseless assertion with no underlying evidence in support. 

[dimreepr]

18 minutes ago, MigL said:

Neither I, nor any other scientifically minded person ( I wouldn't presume to call myself a scientist ), has ever gone to a Religious discussion forum, and posted mathematical proofs, or scientific observations. 

You do know the rules, right? If, I can be bothered to find an example...

[MigL]

25 minutes ago, MigL said:

has ever gone to a Religious discussion forum

Sorry.
Make that "Neither I, nor any other scientifically minded person, that I know of, has ever gone..."

Edited May 15, 2020 by MigL

[dimreepr]

14 minutes ago, MigL said:

Sorry.
Make that "Neither I, nor any other scientifically minded person, that I know of, has ever gone..."

You're, kind of, proving my point...

Edited May 15, 2020 by dimreepr

[MigL]

Sure.
But my statement is now true.

( also re-read the first part of my original post, about me being lazy )

Edited May 15, 2020 by MigL

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, MigL said:

Sure.
But my statement is now true.

Only if you're being told the truth...

Imagine if a scientist is corrupted in some way, and you knew him/her?

[Externet]

14 hours ago, 0utmahfays said:

As an avid follower of Christ I strongly believe you can intertwine scientific beliefs with God...

Hello.  Why do you mix Christ with God ?

Christ was a  plain guy pissed off by the abundant crooks (like we are today with drug dealers, thieves, criminals, politicians...)  and injustices of those times and decided to attempt convincing (preaching) everyone to be good and straight, not harming the rest, using all his also fed-up friends (followers) that shared his same beliefs for the search of just and good behavior of the masses.  May have not succeeded completely at that time, and was killed as a result of his failure to get rid of the injustices.

Christ is in history,  god is in novels from many religions.

Edited May 15, 2020 by Externet

[MigL]

31 minutes ago, Externet said:

Christ was a  plain guy

There is no proof that he actually existed.
( only hearsay, after hundreds of years )

To a scientist that makes a difference, to a Religious person, it doesn't ( and it shouldn't ).
See the difference ?

Edited May 15, 2020 by MigL

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

See the difference ?

Yes, time and the corruption of meaning...

[Externet]

OK, accepted.

There is a bunch of couple of milennia-old personalities that may also pose the doubt of their existence.

The dozen apostles that surrounded the skinny crucified guy wrote volumes of their experiences with him.   -Which is not proof he existed-  but brings it much closer to reality,  why doubting about that many accounts ?   We do not have written records of the adventures of Pontius and his governing friends.  Or do we ?  It could be recorded there by political historians.  Actually I have not attempted to track original manuscripts from those romans.  That would be nice...

 

Decided to search... This is supposed to be a letter from Pontius and response from Tiberius about the crucifixion -wich still proves nothing-  Sorry; unable to translate...

----> http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=harley_ms_5556_f029r

Edited May 15, 2020 by Externet
Added material.

[MigL]

We had a very informative thread a few years ago, concerning the existence ( or lack of ) of proof  that Jesus existed. 

[iNow]

9 minutes ago, MigL said:

We had a very informative thread a few years ago, concerning the existence ( or lack of ) of proof  that Jesus existed. 

It is a short read at only 34 pages (:lol:)