Mathew 13, and its applicability in philosophy

[guillaumeb]

Christians might be generally be familiar with the parable of the sower and the seed, but for the non-Christians and non-theists here:

Then he told them many things in parables, saying: “A farmer went out to sow his seed.... Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root.
Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. Whoever has ears, let them hear.

In my view if one is receptive to the message it will resonate with that person, but if one resists the message, the words will bear no fruit.

Some feel that science has all the answers, or that science will one future day provide all of the answers, or that science might one day provide all of the answers. Such a feeling is based on a faith that science will, in fact, provide all of these answers, but such a faith in science is as unprovable as any theistic faith.

Thoughts?

[trotsky]

1. This notion is responsible for a lot of blood spilled in Christianity's name.

You should be ashamed to promote it here.

SHOULD BE.

[guillaumeb]

2. Ah yes, the undefined "this notion" argument. eom

[PJMcK]

3. Science doesn't provide answers

The purple of science is to ask questions. Discoveries lead to more questions. Science is really about discovery and definition of the Universe.

The lesson of Matthew 13-- like many other Biblical stories-- is to instill ethics into peoples' lives. It's a wonderful parable and your paraphrase of it is eloquent.

Incidentally, there really isn't any "faith" in science, only observable facts. Skepticism is a critical part of the scientific process including self-skepticism. Until something is repeatable and peer reviewed, it isn't accepted as fact. Usually such a process ends up asking more questions leading to more discoveries.

Lastly, there are many scientists that have religious faith, however, their faith does not interfere with their pursuits with the scientific process.

[guillaumeb]

4. My comments referred to how some people view science.

And their faith that science will provide the answers.

And I also have pointed out that faith and science are not incompatible, they deal with separate areas of thought.

[Voltaire2]

5. the assertion that science and religion are non-overlapping magisteria

is a fig leaf to paper over the reality that religion keeps insisting that it has knowledge about the material world, for example that some deity or other created the universe, intercedes in this universe, etc.

In practice religions interfere in the realm of science all over the world.

[guillaumeb]

6. Science and religion deal with separate areas.

In theory, all are created equal under the law. In practice, that is not so.

[Voltaire2]

7. except that they don't.

Religion insists that it is describing facts about material reality.

[Lordquinton]

8. Religion is what you get

when you take your fan fic too seriously.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. Science has managed to provide more and more answers

while religions stagnate, or con people. There is far more reason to think science will continue to provide answers in the future than that religion will start doing so.

[guillaumeb]

10. And if that philosophy works for you....................eom