Nature vs. Super-Nature: Are Science and Faith Mutually Exclusive?

I happen to agree that faith is an essential component of our existence. The ultimate purpose behind scientific investigation is the discovery of truth. Truth is a concept that has been adulterated and muddled over time into something that many believe is a subjective concept. "What is true for you, may not be true for me." I believe that truth is actually objective and ablsolute. It is out there to be discovered through honest and objective inquiry. Once discovered, it is to be embraced and explored so that we can more fully understand the universe around us. The factor that I believe limits most people's understanding is the idea that man himself is the ultimate culmination of all that we can now percieve and that we need to continue to try to accelerate our own development in order to bring about the future that we desire. Given the nature and scale of the universe, I think that common sense (which seems less common these days) demands that we look beyond ourselves for the ultimate meaning and purpose of our existence.

"Truth is a concept that has been adulterated and muddled over time into something that many believe is a subjective concept. "What is true for you, may not be true for me.""

I too have experienced this twisting of the truth (pun intended). I have adopted the view that truth is philosophical and reality is scientific. I often say perception is truth, not reality. Reality is that which can be repeatably confirmed by independent observers. Reality is what you can prove, truth is what you know. I know this doesn't jive with the rest of what you wrote about truth, but it seems to help me avoid arguments over a simple semantic.

God is the greatest scientist of them all!!!

I absolutely believe that science and faith are not mutually exclusive. A perfect example is the whole creationism vs. evolution debate. It absolutely baffles me how many people insist that it has to be one or the other.

As far as faith being essential, it is for me, but I can't claim that it should be for everyone. Until someone can show me how the perfect balance and unfathomable complexity of the universe could be accomplished by random accident, I will continue to believe in a higher power.

CSM Engineer wrote:

I absolutely believe that science and faith are not mutually exclusive. A perfect example is the whole creationism vs. evolution debate. It absolutely baffles me how many people insist that it has to be one or the other.

---

I too have wondered why many religionists (my term for those who believe in a supernatural creator of the universe) object to the theory of evolution. If a person believes that God created the universe, why worry about the precise mechanistic details of how it happened? God could have designed the laws of physics to make evolution of intelligent life inevitable. And where do we get the nerve to place limits on God's choices on how to create? Many would answer that Genesis specifies "exactly" how humankind came into the world, but why do some people insist that the vague wording there equates to a literal description of events when most theologians admit that the Old Testament contains many metaphorical passages? What about the fact that other religions give different creation stories? (which shifts the debate to which religions has the "monopoly" on truth). And should we believe that life only exists on Earth since the Bible does not mention other habitable planets? (modern science seems to predict that countless billions of habitable planets should exist throughout the universe). Reasonable people should realize that, even if God created the universe, we cannot rely on religious scriptures to give a scientifically accurate account of our origin.

"Faith?"

As in, "I have faith in Kepler's Third Law?"

If I accept anything without self-witnessed empirical evidence, am I not accepting it on "Faith?"

I see no conflict between religion and science. The motives of those who encourage this dissension present nothing more than simple evidence of a common denominator in man's primitive psyche. Perhaps one in which religious and ethical values have played a significant role in moderating.

Can Jim Jones and Osama Bin Laden be called as common examples of religious men? Hardly.

Can the designers of the Holocaust gas chambers be called common examples of scientists and engineers? I would hope not.

The "leaders of dissension" are serving who? Leading us to what? Enlightenment? Salvation? Knowledge? Wisdom? or a dictated path of belief and values?

Is a Grand Creation mutually exclusive of Evolutionary Process? I think not.

Will the rejection of the altruistic values taught us by the prophets and inculcated in religious doctrine divert us from a successful evolutionary path. Most assuredly.

If I may rephrase the question - "Given the beast in man's nature, can a successful evolutionary path exclude the values and ethics inculcated in religious doctrine?"

Gavilan

Nor do I have a conflict, but when you introduce faith as a means to a scientific end you violate one of the fundamental rules of the scientific method.

Faith is believing in something that can not be proved. Kepler's Laws are not faith based, but proven scientific laws as defined by the definition of a law in science.

So, your definition of faith is a little shaky. Laws can be proven, even if you do not personally know or understand the proof. They are repeatable every time you test them and behave as predicted.

The only conflict that arises is when you insert faith in between the scientific method and call it science. It is not science and should be rejected as such.

You all know wher I stand...so

I'm out.

Del

That's a pity.

I'm out too. I see no point in having this discussion because I know that I cannot move anyone's opinion. The normal facilities of science, reason, and logic will eventually loose all weight and important semantic differences will not allow agreement on even the simplest "truths".

Just my opinion.

Thanks
- Mark

Okay, my position. Without faith in God, science cannot exist at all.

Science inevitably rests upon an article of faith, the idea that the universe is knowable. This idea can be simply stated "if A plus B equals C here, then A plus B will equal C everywhere else in the universe." This idea seems so self-evident to us that we accept it without question. So necessary that in their arguments over Quantum Mechanics, Albert Einstein once roared at Nels Bohr "God does not roll dice!" Of course Bohr roared right back "Stop telling God what to do!"

So, the question is, why do we believe that the universe is knowable? C.S. Lewis argued that this idea agreed with our "sense of the fitness of things," that an orderly universe makes sense to us, but then poses the question, why should this be so? What possible reason can anyone give for believing that the universe is orderly, when there is no evidence whatsoever to support this position?

In fact, the idea of an orderly universe derives from faith in a creator Who orders things. Otherwise, what possible reason can we have or give for assuming that the universe is orderly?

Thus, without faith, science itself cannot exist.

So, there is more to this question than initially meets the eye. More than most of us will ever consider, since it seems so self-evident to us that further consideration seems unnecessary.

"what possible reason can we have or give for assuming that the universe is orderly Thus, without faith, science itself cannot exist."

We know this by the fact that proofs are repeatable. If under the same identical conditions things behaved differently we would know that there is not order.

I think that your point, while well written, is not substantiated by your argument. Science is simple in that its rules preclude faith and "now a miracle occurs here" as part of the proof. Science must be grounded in repeatable immutable facts that can be tested. Theories are not faith-based estimates, but grounded in scientific principles and laws, but yet unproven scientifically.

Faith can be based on science, but science can not be based on faith or it violates the definition of the scientific method. First we observe, then we postulate, then we prove it true or false.

There is no issue with a person of Faith acting as a scientist. Gregor Mendel did just that with his famous experiments with peas, thus laying the foundation for genetics. However, his work was based on the scientific principle.

Sir, the contention is that we have no empirical evidence to support the notion that the "natural" conditions obtaining here, in our little corner of the universe, which (I agree) seem to be so self consistant and repeatable, will be the same conditions obtaining in some other corner of the universe.

Yes, proofs are repeatable. Given the exact same set of conditions, A plus B will always equal C. But. How do we know that the exact same set of conditions will be available in some un-named star-system in the Andromeda galaxy, more than a million lightyears away? How can we possibly know this with any assurance? Has anyone gone there and conducted experiments? How can we know even that our constants will remain constant?

More importantly, how could the discoverers of the scientific method have possibly known this? In fact they did not and could not. They simply assumed that the Creator who said "Prove all things" had arranged matters such that they could do so.

So, I do not ask you to accept miracles (a completely different discussion, surely) or "faith-based estimates", but merely to accept that science itself rests upon an assumption which has not been proven, an article of faith.

'but merely to accept that science itself rests upon an assumption which has not been proven, an article of faith. '

Nonsense!

Science isn't alway right..but it is right as far as available evidence allows. It is therefore capable of being proved or disproved.

To use your example...eventually we can travel to Andromeda and test if our 'science' still holds true. To assume that it actually won't is somewhat contrary, as the body of available evidence so far indicates it will.

But if you feel that this contrary view should be given credence, that's fine. However it can't be proved yet either way...however to extend this contrariness even further to propose it is all created by a supernaturally being for which there is no body of evidence whatsoever seems to be taking contrariness to extremes.

To sumarise, Religion and science can obviously exist in the same persons mind..but they need to be kept apart. There is certainly no place for religion in scientific or Engineering work.

Let's build this inadequately designed structure and pray it won't collapse...hmmm.

This guest seems to believe that I wish to dispute the consistancy of the universe. In fact I do not. I agree that the universe may be known, that if A + B = C, then A' + B' = C'. I do not contend that conditions in one corner of the universe will be fundamentally different from another corner, only that we cannot in fact know that this is or is not true. We assume that it is true, and this fundamental assumption is the bedrock upon which science rests. Any assumption, by definition, is not something that is proved, but simply accepted, by faith if you will.

What is the definition of Faith

As I have stated before and before, the definition of Faith is critical to the argument.

I contend that the original poster's intention was to talk about the relationship of religious Faith, versus the faith one has that their car will start when the key is turned.

They are two different things altogether, but similar. The definition of religious Faith is that which can not be proved.

As I stated before, religion based Faith can be backed up with science, but science can not be substantiated by Faith. Doing so throws the scientific method out the window.

Do you agree?

"There is certainly no place for religion in scientific or Engineering work."

Guest? I have only two immediate and pertinent words in response to your comment.

NOAH'S ARK

Aside from the fact that every Engineer worth her (or his) salt, relies on God given abilities and materials, without God there can be no science. If we endeavour to "keep them apart", could it not potentially be to the detriment of the science or engineering outcome? Just a thought.

Can we not afford each their appropriate allocation and accept the intrinsic value they each contribute to the whole?

LadyBHMoose

NOAH'S ARK ??????????????????

You just gotta be kiddin' yeh?

Hey Mrs Noah try and stop those Lions and Gazelles fighting again..they are disturbing the Sloth

Maybe that's why Sky Blue bailed ...you can't argue with a fairy story.

OK, I dare say at some point there was a flood and some guy built a boat and took his live stock...but so what fishermen have been builing boats for millennia.

Taking the bible literally is ridiculous...it was written by men, translated by men etc.

Its as bonkers a saying....

Just because a wise man came up with 10 good (but pretty obvious) ideas to stop feuding and dressed it up in a bit of theatre by going up a mountain to chisel them on a slab..that these are the words of 'God'.

A lot of believers think that atheist are incapable of morality... on the contrary their morality may be more sincere as they have actually thought about it themselves.

(EG Consider child abuse by Catholic clergy)

Thus, without faith, science itself cannot exist.

I think the opposite statement holds true: science can only exist if it includes no faith. Science operates best when it most strictly adheres to the scientific method, which means proposing falsifiable hypothesis, then testing them against empirical observations. If the hypothesis does not fit the data, then we look for a hypothesis that more closely fits the data. History shows that faith (acceptance of a proposition despite the lack of empirical evidence) actually interferes with the progress of science. Some would argue that scientists have "faith" in the scientific method. But I disagree since scientists only use the scientific method because it has a proven track record of success (note that the Mars rover continue to explore -- just "dumb luck", or yet another successful application of empirical science?). Some may also argue that we have "faith" in our senses. But clearly our senses must convey a fairly accurate representation of reality, otherwise our species would have gone extinct long ago.

Despite what I said above, I do not deny religious faith a meaningful place in life. It teaches morality. It can enhances cultural harmony and cohesion. But don't look for scientific truth in the religious scriptures or the words of religious leaders. If we want to objectively understand the mechanistic details of how nature operates, we need to observe our surroundings without feeling coerced to make our observation fit the preconceived notions handed down from religious and political dogma.

Unfortunately religion poses a real threat to science (especially if religious extremists seize political control). But I don't think that science poses much threat to religion (except where it contradicts specific religious dogma). A common misconception states that science discourages belief in God. But in reality science can make no definite statements either against or in favor of the existence of God (just as my chemistry textbook makes no statement either way). Empiricism can never disprove the existence of a thing (including God). Nor does it seem likely that the empirical approach will ever prove the existence of a being who is by definition supernatural (beyond nature). Therefore, to remain logically consistent, scientists should admit agnosticism. Religion should focus on questions of morality and social harmony. And science should focus on the mechanisms of physical nature. Since they have different goals and methods, we cannot reconcile science and religion into a unified approach. But -- if we can restrain religious and political ideologies from seizing power and imposing totalitarian control -- both science and religion can coexist and thrive.

it depends on which part of science and which part of faith (which everyone has assumed to be religion-based) hence which faith. I always thought religion should be left out of this forum, but since someone else started this, how about carrying out a blood transfusion on a person whose faith states they should refuse? Then yes they are mutually exclusive.

"I personally believe that faith is an essential. Any takers?"

Hi, a belief in God is clearly not essential to the pursuit of science and many would argue that in fact, an atheist would make a more objective/trustworthy scientist.

However, I believe that the concept of "faith" does have relevence for the development of technology arising from advances in science. Specifically, it may be argued that the transhumanist movement to augment the human body is ultimately driven by a fear of death - something that may not bother those with "faith" too much. Commercial exploitation of the wealthy "faithless" may result in the development of technologies that consume increasingly limited resources, to the detriment of the wider population.

"an atheist would make a more objective/trustworthy scientist."

Atheists believe in the absolute absence of any god - a faith-based belief, since the absence of god is just as unprovable (perhaps more so) as the existence of god. How does trading one faith-based belief for another increase a scientist's objectivity or trustworthiness?

If a belief in God is not essential to science, then a scientist unencumbered with such a belief might be perceived to be "less distracted" than one who ponders "God's Purpose". If we cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, then surely keep things simple. The comment about objectivity and/or trustworthiness relates to the possibility that experimental design and/or data interpretation may, however unlikely, be biased to support some revered religious text.

Or biased against in the atheist's case. Why is one approach better than the other? Is not the purpose of independent verification of results to remove the effects of any such unintentional bias thereby rendering personal beliefs a non-issue to the experimental results?

"Why is one approach better than the other?"

Simply becaused of the absence of influence of a revered religious text.

I would argue that atheists are just as influenced by the text, only biased against, not for. Again I ask, how is that better? It is still a faith-based belief that colors their perception of the universe.

I would imagine that an atheist scientist would simply ignore/disregard any such text rather than show bias against it. At this point I think we may have to agree to differ as I anticipate this may soon descend into a discussion of the semantics of "faith". Please feel free to have the last word

Don't abandon the discussion now...I think we're starting to get to the core of the issue!

I don't think our disagreement is over the definition of "faith" but of "atheist". My personal experience with atheists is that they are often more familiar with scripture than most believers. They have reviewed the writings and come to the firm conclusion that god does not exist. Still, I ask, what makes an atheist better able than a believer to put aside their preconceptions at the lab bench?

For what it's worth, I think that the discussion is completely on the wrong track. There is disagreement over who believes what, but the real question is what can we agree on. More specifically, instead of starting with trying to resolve a debate, why not find some common ground from which to start?

For instance, who could honestly say that they are always completely objective, completely truthful, and totally unbiased in everything they say and do? No one. Now assuming that one can admit to being fallible, let's begin by determining the cause of that fallibility. Many have stated that it has to do with what we were taught as children about how to view the world around us and what the proper response is to our specific circumstances. If that is true then let us go back to who we learned our fundamentals from, and who taught them, and so on. Ultimately we would get back to the original source of the error. OOPS! Even in trying to find out why we are imperfect we make mistakes and come to wrong conclusions due to our inherent imperfections. It becomes obvious that we need guidance and direction from an outside source. There is no way that mankind, either individually or corporately will ultimately achieve harmony and peace, let alone perfection, on our own. All one has to do is take a look at the state of the world around us to plainly see this is the case. Throughout history man has always worshiped. If there was no god that had been shown to him by another person then he made his own. (Nowadays our gods do not necessarily take the form of statues of birds, animals, or some supernaturally empowered ancestor, but maybe our cars, or our homes, or our work, etc.) The knowledge of a Creator is instinctive in man because the desire to seek the Creator is placed there by our Creator. Our entire purpose is to glorify Him and all our scientific knowledge has but one purpose, to help us to understand better how we are to serve Him and glorify Him. The catch is that we are to do this voluntarily. He will not force us to love Him. It wouldn't be love if it was forced. Not a very "scientific" post, I'll admit, but you have to start with the basics.

There is no way I expect an athiest to really understand what I'm talking about. It's impossible without the Spirit of God, to understand the things of God and His truth. They must first choose to believe. My prayers and my witness are to that purpose.

Why is it that when I express my opinion I am called "arrogant"? Just because I believe in something doesn't mean that everyone else has to. Please don't read into what I write something that I didn't say. What I believe is what I believe. If you want to disregard my opinions as silly, feel free, but don't presume to draw conclusions about how I think based solely on a few sentences of opinion. Admittedly, I am not very eloquent, but if you have enough patience with me I think I could eventually convince you that I am no threat to anyone or their particular beliefs. I am who I am and, as far as I'm concerned, you are free to be who you are. How is that arrogant?

That wasn't my post, but, since you asked...

"The knowledge of a Creator is instinctive in man because the desire to seek the Creator is placed there by our Creator."

"Our entire purpose is to glorify Him and all our scientific knowledge has but one purpose, to help us to understand better how we are to serve Him and glorify Him. "

"It's impossible without the Spirit of God, to understand the things of God and His truth. They must first choose to believe. My prayers and my witness are to that purpose."

and, while we're at it...

"Jesus is LORD. Praise the LORD. "

Someone might consider these arrogant because they do not leave room for other opinions... it looks like yours is the only point of view that can be compatible with these statements, and people don't like to be told, flat out, that their point of view is wrong, wrong, wrong (and will likely send them to a bad place for all eternity).

Evangelism, which is what this looks like to me, comes from a place where you are right and I am wrong. Period. Faith requires you to be resolute, and that means fixed and unchanging in the face of opposing views. Anyone who thinks that they are truly right is necessarily saying that others must be truly wrong.

I feel this way about any person or group who thinks they are 100% right, or that any issue is a clear black & white... it is not something I limit to religious beliefs.

Thanks
- Mark

Thanks, Mark.

Yes, someone who states that "Jesus is Lord" seems to imply that all other religions must be wrong. I can see how someone (especially the non-Christian majority of the world's population) might find that arrogant. Now if we should not consider that statement arrogant, then I guess Christians should not consider statements like "Allah (or Krishna) is the only way". I suggest that all of the world's religion contain both truth and error -- just like every other field of knowledge involving imperfect human beings. Some people may argue (maybe correctly) that their specific religion contains a higher ratio of truth, but they should still have the humility to admit that the other religions might also contribute something of value. And theists should also try to understand that the scientific method offers the most reliable way to study *physical* nature.

Even in trying to find out why we are imperfect we make mistakes and come to wrong conclusions due to our inherent imperfections.

It becomes obvious that we need guidance and direction from an outside source.

This leap from the first sentence to the second has no validity...maybe it's just a leap of faith?I also totaly contradicts your first post ..where you say..

truth is there to be found 'through honest and objective inquiry'.

(_{OK It's Del really, but don't tell})

LOL... spot on excellent!

Your'e right. After pondering this for a day or so, I realized that I am not any more objective than anyone else. I have actually chosen to believe what I believe. It's not as if there are not other viewpoints. There are literally thousands of them. I have made the best choice I am able to given my experience and intellect. In that regard I am like everyone else. We have all chosen what we believe or disbelieve based on what we have experienced. So far, I haven't run into anything, since coming to my decision, that is convincing enough to change my mind. I have had things that caused me to doubt, but after further investigation, they just are not as convincing. They don't explain things better than what has already been given to me. I'm just working with what I've got like everyone else. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

Maybe someone could explain how morality and ethics developed in the context of the evolutionary origin of man....?? While your'e at it, why are there still monkeys if they were part of the evolution of man? Seems to me that if life is undergoing constant improvement through evolution, the more primitive forms would be obsolete and be superceded by the latest forms.

"Maybe someone could explain how morality and ethics developed in the context of the evolutionary origin of man....??"

My take on that (me as scientist, not me as theist) is that morality and ethics are a necessary part of a cooperative society. As soon as small groups started sharing the same cave and other resources, some code of reasonable conduct had to develop, simply as a matter of continued survival and success.

"Seems to me that if life is undergoing constant improvement through evolution, the more primitive forms would be obsolete and be superseded by the latest forms."

The lower forms still serve a vital role in the overall ecology. Higher forms (for all of their supposed superiority) require their existence for survival. Those forms that do not serve a purpose, do go extinct. (Again, from the scientific view.)

Maybe someone could explain how morality and ethics developed in the context of the evolutionary origin of man....??

Evolutionary psychology proposes an explanation. Ethics developed because, by encouraging cooperation within groups, it enhanced the survival of those groups, thereby increasing the presence of ethics-conducive genes in the general gene pool. Of course cultural influences (with or without the involvement of a deity) also help foster cooperation.

When I openned this thread, I restrained myself from asking that commentators refrain from attacking one another. I see now that this was a mistake.

We each of us have convictions which help to guide us in our day-to-day lives, and these convictions do color our understanding. But, who is to say which of us is right and which of us is wrong? In my military career (I am retired Navy) we use to say "I will defend to the death your right to have your own opinion." That is in fact a large part of what freedom is about.

For myself I am a theist, as opposed to an atheist. Moreover, I am that most dispised of theists, a believer in Jesus of Nazereth. I believe in Him, I believe in the Bible as literal truth (every single Word), I believe in YWHW (pronounced Yahweh and translated "I AM that I AM"). When confronted with a scientific result that doesn't agree with my preconceived notions, I simply remember that the Big Guy knows more than I do, and that this result will eventually be shown to fit in with everything else. Therefore, my faith does not in any wise intrerfere with scientific inquirey, nor does it cause me to "cook" my results to fit scripture.

As to my primary contention within this thread, let me say this one more time. Science itself rests upon a single, simple assumption, that the universe is orderly, and therefore may be understood by the mind of man. That idea is an assumption, an axiom even, which is accepted without proof as all assumptions and axioms are. We do not demand that it be proven, because it seems so self-evident. Never-the-less, it is still an assumption, and to accept it as such is an act of faith, of one kind or another.

I would once again point out that the discoverers of the scientific method, people like Galileo and Kepler and Newton to name but a very few, were devout, god-believing men and women who accepted this assuption because they believed that the Almightly God was a god of order, and had created an orderly universe that could be aprehended by the mind of man. And of course, this assumption has held good ever since.

Regarding the mention of Noah's Ark, the point was simply that the proportions of the ark, 300 long by 50 wide by 30 high, have been proven out by naval architects world-wide as the most perfect proportions for a stable and seaworthy vessel. Thus, this is indeed Biblical engineering.

I would remind you all that science as a way of thought tells us to disregard what seem to be irrelevant details. Consider the cow as a sphere, as one author has commented. Philosophy on the other hand, requires that we disregard nothing, carefully examining all of our assumptions.

With this I shall withdraw from this thread and prepare to pose my next question in this series. I hope you will all join me there. And please, no personal attacks. Just because you don't agree with someone does not mean that he or she is stupid.

Well if he's leaving there's no chance to reply!

Noahs Ark...

If I suddenly have a good idea at work say..'Hey lets use 2 micro processors and make the board 50x500' I don't need to ascribe this to a devine revalation...

Mind I might if I was trying to dress up the story or convince a bunch of people to treat me as a prophet?

I fail to see how anyone can believe every literal word of the bible?????

It is a arbitary collection of works from a variety of sources...there are many 'books' not included and there have been many translations. It was all written by man often many many years after the events portrayed. I could maybe uderstand someone of sufficient faith believing the gospels, after all a good deal is known about Jesus' life.

It would also apear that DrMoose has a pretty low threshold of what he considers an 'attack' .....I think he'll find some rather more vicious attacks in the bible.

Even Jesus was faily brusque with the money lenders in the temple

Hey ho...this thread was doomed at the start....maybe that answers it's own question as to why science and religion shouldn't be mixed?

By all means hold any view you like ...but keep 'em to yourself?

I am a theist.....

Science itself rests upon a single, simple assumption, that the universe is orderly, ..... We do not demand that it be proven, because it seems so self-evident.

NO! We DO demand it be proven, and it has been on every occaison since man began to contemplate the stone in his hand. Cause and effect have consistently followed science .. because if it doesn't the theory is thrown out, until we reach the modern day where much is known and (certainly on the macro scale) cause and effect are fairly predictable.

Compare the body of science with that of theism.

How many deities have there been? how many cultures based on 'Gods' how well have these survived? Have the deities ever actually accomplished anything? Did the Aztecs acieve anything sacrificing thousands to their gods?

So on track record I think science does somewhat better than any theology.

As to my primary contention within this thread, let me say this one more time. Science itself rests upon a single, simple assumption, that the universe is orderly, and therefore may be understood by the mind of man. That idea is an assumption, an axiom even, which is accepted without proof as all assumptions and axioms are.

No, we accept that nature has order (laws of physics) because we can empirically observe the orderly behaviour. Furthermore, based on the patterns we have deduced from past observations, we routinely make accurate predictions about how the world (parts of it) will behave in the future. I would consider this as very convincing direct proof of nature's order. After all, our complicated technology works so well becuase it is based in true understanding of reality, not because of dumb luck. Current scientific theories still have some room for improvement, but it is simply incorrect to claim that they have no evidence (as if science is just another faith-based religion).

Well said...

Morning Sickness
By Harold McCurdy

The Hubble telescope
Has brought Immensity near.
Now let delusive hope
Yield to wholesome fear.
For what are we, conducting
Our little human affair,
With all that star-eructing
Going on out there?
Black pregnant hydrogen clouds
Trillions of miles high
Dwarf the giant crowds
Of suns thronging that sky.
Our house of dreams recoils
Into its fossil rocks;
Above it, terror boils
To a huger music than Bach's.
Our future, ground between
Two vast millstones, is dust,
Paltry, pathetic, and mean.
For God is God, and just.

Hey nice poem... (Shame about the last line!)

That's what puzzles me...why don't people get it? We are totally insignificant....

the sun will go cold we will die....There is no need for a god to be more interested in us than any other creature, because in geological terms we are barely a blip in the life of the planet.

Now just get on and live with it!

One Guy on the this or a similar thread said he believed every word of the bible literally... I could never believe in a God that asks a Father to kill his Son to prove his faith, that is just sick! (can't remember which characters they are, but we all know the story from our childhood...it rather puzzed me even then!) And this is a God that refuses to prove his existence...I know I tried!

Experiment 1. Science vs theism.

Place a small pebble on a flat surface.

a) Apply horizontal force to pebble, it moves.

b) Ask each deity in turn to move pebble, observe pebble, it doesn't move.

(Maybe you'll hit lucky on an earthquake day )

Conclusion:- Draw your own.

Del

Please provide a reference(Book;Chapter&Verse).

Actually, the Old Testament contains multiple passages recommending the killing of a disobedient child. The New Testament also contains such a passage.

-----

"And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die." (Deuteronomy 21:20-21)

"And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death." (Exodus 21:15)

"And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:17)

"For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)

"For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death." (Mark 7:10)

-----

Source: Holy Bible, King James version

http://bible.christianity.com

Ouch!

Del

b) Ask each deity in turn to move pebble, observe pebble, it doesn't move.

In the Old Testament (1Kings 18:36-38) the prophet Elijah didn't seem to have that difficulty.

Can I assume that you didn't actually try the experiment?

Why not didn't you have faith that it would move?

I think Harry Potter moves things too if you want to beieve a book writen by man.

Seems to me too many people look for the celebrity God, the one that comes and talks to them and brings Xmas presents.

There are of course two ways of looking at the world. One is, wow this is amazing! And the other is, where's the next better life?

A broken heart and some severe beatings, business failures, and back pain.

Really I don't have much to complain about.

Just because you believe in something, it is not necessarily true.

Faulkner in his book A Fable has a line that sticks with me: "He was too young to be trusted with the knowledge that the truth is not necessarily the facts."

If God gives us any hope, it is to know what we need to know, when we need to know it.

Fact is, I as an individual am fated to die, and I would be happier if I accepted that this life I now have is enough evidence of God to qualify for some serious work at making myself and others happy and healthy.

The thing that goes on with the big questions about the universe for mankind, as I see it, is that there is the slim chance that we could move to another universe though a full understanding of the facts.

You can chose to believe in God, or you can chose to not believe in God.

The problem with the world that exists, that is awesome and interesting, is that some things happen that suggest there is a Devil.

One fact of the history of mankind I find interesting is that the Romans had a multiplicity of Gods, but were not impeded in any way I know of,from being great engineers.

In the commons I believe in Ethics over Morality, regardless of what name you give your God. Morality supposedly come from God, has been too often unethical for me to support, and I consider Ethics more proof of God than Morality, as if the good Athiest is a better man, than the murderous "believer".

Absolam Absolam, also by William Faulkner is about the greatest tragedy, which is to live according to incorrect ideals.

The answer to the question is no, by the way, but what God you believe in you ought to be careful to marry since, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." and in this case the thing can be right and wrong at the same time according to how you see it, and much more dependent on choice than the facts.

P.S. After post to Thread after reading most all comments I re-read your original Thread Kick off question. I want to make clear that I do not think faith is essential. For the scientist abstract thinking may be what you are calling faith.