Reconciling faith and science.

[guillaumeb]

In my view, it is quite easy to reconcile faith and science. Both involve a search for answers. Answers to different questions, to be sure, but a search all the same.

This fragment from a longer article describes on such method of reconciliation:

Q) What can you tell us about Lemaître’s approach to the intersection of science and faith, and what can we learn from it nearly a century later?

A) His conception of the relationship of science and faith was rather circumspect, carefully delineating their roles as ways of knowing. Science for him was the methodology for understanding the physical cosmos; revealed religion taught truths important for salvation. He was quite content to observe that the findings of science were in no way discordant with scriptural revelation, and vice versa, but neither should overreach. If Lemaître has a lesson for the science-faith discourse today, that would probably be it.

https://www.americamagazine.org/content/all-things/faith-and-science-georges-lemaitre-11-questions-dr-karl-van-bibber

Many of us recognize this as the NOMA solution, the idea that the 2 fields are non-overlapping, each with its own methods.

I would also say, as my personal opinion, that each involves a search for truth, and in that search for truth, each can lead to the Creator.

I do not mean to imply that any, or all, or most scientists are inevitably led to an awareness of the Creator, but that the Creator, as the one who figuratively lit the spark of creation that was the Big Bang, inevitably values knowledge and any expression of the sentience that is referred to in the phrase from Genesis, 1:27, where it is said that the Creator "created mankind in the image and likeness".

So to my mind, seeking knowledge is growing closer to the Creator.

[Ferrets are Cool]

1. I have faith IN science and I can prove it. nt

[guillaumeb]

2. A nice observation.

I too have faith that science can provide many answers about the nature of the physical universe.

And, having dropped many things while on ladders, some force invisible to the naked eye makes each thing that I drop fall downward.

(Speaking of the naked eye, what would a clothed eye look like?)

[marylandblue]

3. A clothed eye looks like this

[guillaumeb]

4. Thank you.

[Girard442]

5. Religion doesn't conflict with other human areas of endeavour when it takes care not to.

Otherwise, when it gets full of itself, it does. I decided on my way through life that that is not my problem.

[uriel1972]

6. But...

If there is no creator, then aren't you being a little self-delusional? Perhaps you should be open to the question, Is there a creator?
I don't think there is one,because I have encountered no reliable evidence of one. I don't know there isn't one, because there is a lot yet to be discovered and parsed.
It's a very important nuance, the difference between "Think" and "Know" one is open and the other is closed.

[guillaumeb]

10. My personal opinion. Identified as such.

And based on faith. But I do not claim it as the only choice.

[trotsky]

7. "a search for answers"

In religion, how do you know if you've found an answer? How do you know if you are "closer to the creator"?

[Mariana]

9. It helps if you know some of its traits.

For example, The Creator™ "inevitably values knowledge and any expression of the sentience that is referred to in the phrase from Genesis, 1:27." Add that to the list of things that Gil knows about The Creator™.

Although we have a change in one item on the list. Now, The Creator™ is "the one who figuratively lit the spark of creation that was the Big Bang". I'm not sure if a creator who figuratively lights a spark is figuratively a creator, or if it is actually supposed to exist. That isn't clear. Please mark that down as requiring further study.

[guillaumeb]

13. The modifier "figuratively" refers to the expression "lit the spark".

Thus my use of the expression lit the spark is a figurative one.

[Mariana]

20. Thank you for clarifying, Gil, but I understood that.

You can express yourself clearly, when you choose to do so.

[guillaumeb]

24. Perhaps.

And at times, certain readers can choose to misread, or legitimately misread.

[marylandblue]

56. But did a literal Creator figuratively light the spark, or was it a figurative Creator?

[guillaumeb]

60. My faith tells me that the Creator is real.

[Bretton Garcia]

65. Faith by definition can never verify that anything is real

[trotsky]

76. Dude, he said the magic word.

Faith.

Can't ask any more questions after that. He wins again.

[guillaumeb]

84. Not a part of my claim.

Thus the need for faith.

[marylandblue]

98. It's an essential part of all your claims for faith

What ever you have faith in, is your opinion and therefore true for you, and requires no backing, brooks no argument and cannot be challenged by any requirement for evidence.

My opinion.

Magic words.

[guillaumeb]

99. No, it is not what I responded.

[marylandblue]

102. It was the response to you, and if answered it other than by reasserting faith

I did not see it.

[trotsky]

19. Wow, gil sure makes some interesting definitive claims about his creator.

I wonder how he knows they are true, and that everyone else's claims are false?

[guillaumeb]

11. That can only be answered by the one looking.

If you have an answer that works for you, you have your answer.

[trotsky]

16. Oh, so Pat Robertson's answers are just as good as yours?

Thanks for confirming.

[guillaumeb]

23. Not actually what I said.

But thanks for confirming. Again.

[trotsky]

26. No, but it is an inescapable consequence of what you said.

Maybe someday you'll understand.

[guillaumeb]

28. Thanks for reconfirming.

[trotsky]

29. You are very welcome.

I am always willing to confirm that you don't understand what you're talking about.

[guillaumeb]

30. You are confirming many things.

Many, many things.

[trotsky]

68. Again, I am so happy to help you understand!

Anytime!

[Act_of_Reparation]

8. So to my mind, you should stop bringing up NOMA in conversation.

Because you clearly don't buy into it.

That's not a bad thing, by the way. I think anyone with a modicum of intellectual honesty would admit it was a shit idea, hinged completely upon trusting religion to stay behind a line it seemingly cannot help but cross.

[NeoGreen]

12. The real problem they have...

...is that they just recently realized that Science will forever push the line back.

They're already left with not much more than a gap, and they're beginning to see that it can be closed too.

They're fighting back to prevent the extinction of their theosophy.

Fortunately, theirs was a lost cause before they re-engaged, it is already over except for the tears.

[guillaumeb]

15. I understrand that this is your own belief.

This faith that science will prevail.

[NeoGreen]

17. Correction: Science has already prevailed.

[trotsky]

18. "...faith that science will prevail."

Can you name ONE thing for which we used to have a scientific explanation, but have abandoned that for a religious one?

[Act_of_Reparation]

21. But according to NOMA, the gaps aren't relevant.

It's not what we don't know that determines the magisterium, but rather the nature of the question. If you're making a claim about the physical universe—whether there's a sentient teapot orbiting Saturn, or whether everything we know was created by an invisible father figure obsessed with guilt trips and foreskins—then your claim falls into the scientific magisterium, regardless of whether or not science has currently taken a stand on such issues.

Gould figured he could reconcile science and religion by relegating science to the physical universe and religion to questions of morality. The problem is religious types, like the esteemed author of the OP, took this to mean that scientists could only talk about what they know for certain while religionists have free reign over everything else.

[guillaumeb]

14. Thank you for enlightening me as to my true beliefs.

[Act_of_Reparation]

22. No problem.

You contradict yourself so often it's difficult to tell whether you're doing it on purpose or just don't realize it. Glad I could help.

[Brainstormy]

104. NOMA IS a shit idea. n/t

[edhopper]

25. The only way it seems

is to completely accept everything science answers and constantly updating ones faith to get in line with science.

To try and reconcile science with faith is a fools errand.

[guillaumeb]

27. It is easy to reconcile the 2 if one understands that their roles

are separate.

[marylandblue]

31. What do you view as their respective roles?

[guillaumeb]

32. From the original article:

Science for him was the methodology for understanding the physical cosmos; revealed religion taught truths important for salvation.

[marylandblue]

33. What if you don't feel the need for salvation?

[guillaumeb]

34. Ignore the part about faith.

[marylandblue]

35. So if you don't feel the need for salvation

religion has no role at all?

[guillaumeb]

36. It might, for people who are searching for a moral code.

[marylandblue]

39. So now religion has two magisteria

Salvation and a moral code. Any other areas where religion might be useful?

[guillaumeb]

40. Each believer decides which areas prove useful for them.

[marylandblue]

41. So NOMA is really just a suggestion, not a truth?

And furthermore, each believer, as well non-believer, decides for themselves when they have followed NOMA or not?

[guillaumeb]

42. Define truth in a philosophical sense.

[marylandblue]

43. I'll rephrase my question.

So NOMA is really just a suggestion? And furthermore, each believer, as well non-believer, decides for themselves when they have followed NOMA or not?

[guillaumeb]

45. In its application, yes.

NOMA is a concept. Freedom is a concept. Equality is a concept.

[marylandblue]

48. Concepts are all just suggestions then?

Freedom is no better or worse than slavery? And any discussion about them is as subjective as comparing vanilla vs. chocolate ice cream?

[guillaumeb]

49. You went too far.

I did not equate them or prioritize one over the other.

[marylandblue]

50. Then what did you do?

[guillaumeb]

51. I put them in the class of things called "concepts".

Atheism is a concept. Theism is a concept.

[marylandblue]

53. I don't see how classifying them as concepts answers my question.

You said that each believer decides what is useful for them. So if a believer finds NOMA useful, it's useful. If they find it not useful, it is not useful. Likewise for nonbelievers.

Sounds like a suggestion to me, the way I might suggest you visit Tahiti. You might find Tahiti enjoyable. You might not. What else is there to say about it?

[guillaumeb]

57. Some concepts help us in life.

Some concepts are what we use to understand things.

[marylandblue]

61. So if the concept of slavery helps me in life, that's ok for me and my slaves?

Or if my god tells me it's ok, it's ok? I realize you may not like it, but my faith says it's ideal for me to have slaves and fulfills the creator's intent. My slaves may not like it either, but my faith also told me they aren't people, they are property, so it doesn't matter what they think anyway.

[guillaumeb]

83. Where did I say it was OK?

[marylandblue]

87. I didn't say you said it was OK.

I asked you if a concept works for me, is it okay for me, even if you or other people don't like it.

[guillaumeb]

88. Ask the slaves.

The concept, or the philosophy, might represent your own views, so the philosophy applies to you but not necessarily to your behavior.

[marylandblue]

89. I realize it probably doesn't work for the slaves

But the concept works for me, and to paraphrase the Bible, "Concepts without works are dead."

[guillaumeb]

90. To paraphrase further: "do to others..."

[marylandblue]

95. Now that I think about it, maybe it will work fine for them

I don't think I would mind it that much, so it's probably okay. As long as I wouldn't mind if I were a slave, it's okay for me to keep them, I think.

[Major Nikon]

62. Nothing like getting your moral code from an instruction book for selling your kids into slavery

[Act_of_Reparation]

37. The problem is his assumption the two are divisible.

You simply assert that they are, arbitrarily drop the line where it conveniences you do to so, and act like you don't need qualify your assertions because you've unilaterally decided where in the NOMA they rightfully belong.

This is part of the reason NOMA is a shitty idea. These are not two sides separated by a vast no man's land. They ride up against each other like angry fault lines.

[guillaumeb]

38. He believed that they were divisible. I agree.

Do science concern itself with morality?

[marylandblue]

44. It can.

Scientists study things like what social conditions lead to violence. They also study religion and determine if religion (or a given type of religion) does what it says it does and whether that leads to better outcomes.

[guillaumeb]

46. Social science.

Did the scientists who developed napalm or nuclear weapons or weaponized anthrax think of the moral implications?

[marylandblue]

47. The one's who developed nuclear weapons actually did

Several of them tried to convince Truman not to use it. One of them gave atomic secrets to the Russians so there would be a balance of power. I don't know who developed napalm or weaponized anthrax so I don't what they thought about it.

And social science is still science.

[Act_of_Reparation]

69. The question is: Does religion concern itself with the physical cosmos?

The answer is yes.

[guillaumeb]

85. We live in the physical cosmos.

[TomSlick]

52. My dear guillaumeb:

I have no difficulty reconciling science and faith. Faith tells me who and why. Science tells me how and when.

As long as I keep the two authorities in the area in which they are competent, there is no conflict.

[guillaumeb]

58. I agree.

[marylandblue]

64. Why is faith competent to tell you who and why?

[TomSlick]

82. Because that is the nature of faith.

For those with faith, the answer is clear. For those without faith, no explanation will satisfy.

My faith tells me that there is a Creator who is responsible for everything studied by science. My faith tells me that the act of creation and all that follows is result of the Creator's will.

[Voltaire2]

54. And you immediately violate the separation.

You insert old sparky into the realm of science claiming, without a shred of evidence, that sparky must have started the Big Bang.

[MineralMan]

55. There's just the initial overlap.

NOMA no more...right from the get-go.

[guillaumeb]

59. I gave my religious belief, faith based opinion.

And faith, requiring only belief, is satisfied.

If, however, I wrote a science textbook explaining my opinion, that would be crossing over.

[Major Nikon]

63. So long as you arent published you didnt contradict yourself?

[guillaumeb]

86. Read it again.

Focus on the words science textbook.

[Major Nikon]

91. Your words are making complete sentences

Beyond that, incoherence to everyone but yourself at best.

Seems to be par for the course when asked to rephrase something you wrote, you simply refuse.

Very telling that.

[guillaumeb]

92. Revealing is your misreading.

[Major Nikon]

94. Sure, because Im the only one who has no idea what you are saying

[guillaumeb]

93. To help you:

Here is the entire text:

guillaumeb (23,064 posts)
59. I gave my religious belief, faith based opinion.

And faith, requiring only belief, is satisfied.

If, however, I wrote a science textbook explaining my opinion, that would be crossing over

[Major Nikon]

96. Since you put it that way...

It sounds even more incoherent.

I would try to rephrase your comment to reveal what it sounds like in the interest of providing communication feedback, but you’d just ascibe some other half-fast motivation to it. So I’m just content in the belief you have no real interest in substantive discussion.

[guillaumeb]

97. Apparently you are convinced of something.

[Major Nikon]

100. True

I’m convinced you simply wish to express an opinion without reasonably supporting it. I’m further convinced you are capable of providing a near infinite number of excuses for not supporting it.

The lesson here is that had you asked what I was convinced of, I would have given you a direct answer.

[guillaumeb]

101. The lesson is that you apparently misread my response.

Faith and science are separate fields.

[Major Nikon]

103. Your assertion contradicts that notion

You’ve been asked about that glaring contradiction a number of times and you are no closer to explaining it. At some point one can safely assume you won’t or can’t.

[guillaumeb]

105. No, it does not.

But I accept that you have convinced yourself.

[Major Nikon]

106. If reason, logic, and literacy dont matter you may be on to something

For some those are significant obstacles. Others, not so much.

[Voltaire2]

66. Wtf?

[trotsky]

70. Allow me to translate.

"I can say whatever I want - even directly contradicting myself - without having to explain a thing as long as I say it's backed by faith. Additionally, you need to shut up."

[MineralMan]

71. So, do you think your opinion is superior to the opinions

of others for some reason? Do you think others should not publish their opinions in this forum? You are publishing your opinion, but not in book form. The Internet is the new Samizdat, you know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samizdat

[marylandblue]

73. Since his opinions violate the 11th commandent

Shouldn't we send him to the Gulag? Or is stoning a more appropriate punishment?

[Mariana]

74. He'll just "interpret" his 11th Commandment

to mean the opposite of what it says, when it's applied to him. Many Christians have plenty of practice doing exactly that with Bible passages that contain clear and direct instructions from Jesus to his followers. We frequently see it in this group.

[marylandblue]

79. Nothing a "chat" with the Grand Inquisitor can't fix

[Act_of_Reparation]

72. No.

The question determines the magisterium. "From whence came the universe" is a scientific question. In providing your "religious belief, faith based opinion" to a scientific question you promptly violated NOMA right after you'd finished extolling it.

You "crossed over" miles back.

[Voltaire2]

75. He could have left it at sparky created the universe

and claimed that was only a theological statement.
Instead he inserted sparky directly into a physical event. His godlet starts the “Big Bang”. That violates NOMA.

[trotsky]

77. And that's exactly what NOMA ends up being.

"Science, you stay over there in your box. Meanwhile, I get to decide where my religion steps in that box from time to time."

[Act_of_Reparation]

78. Even that is questionable.

Is, "God created the universe" a scientific or religious question, according to NOMA? I'm inclined to believe it would fall under magisterium of science because we're talking about something producing an effect on the physical cosmos.

[Voltaire2]

81. It could be either.

I meant he could have defended it is a purely theological claim.

But he didn’t. He deliberately plopped sparky right smack into the physical universe.

[NeoGreen]

67. There is nothing, in reality, to reconcile...

...between a "magisterium" based on reality and a "magisterium" based on fantasy.

Science doesn't have to reconcile whether Gandalf could have resisted the power of the One Ring and saved Middle Earth from Morgoth's minion.

[uriel1972]

80. Squaring the circle...

Like reconciling 2+2=4 and 2+2=3. There is no need to reconcile the incorrect answer with the correct one, I fear