Peaceful coexistence between scientists and theologians

[kowalskil]

Peaceful coexistence between scientists and theologians

I would very much like to know what people on this website think about peaceful coexistence between those who study our material world (scientists) and those who study our spiritual world (theologians). My attempt to write an essay on that subject failed, as you can see at:

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theology3.html

The webpage was prepared to generate a discussion. Those who post comments should refer to specific “contributions,” as numbered (or to specific persons, as numbered at the beginning). This will simplify the discussion.

And let us keep in mind that the main topic is peaceful coexistence. Is it possible? Is it desirable? What should we do promote it? etc.

Thank you in advance,

Ludwik Kowalski, who used to be an atheists (see Google and Wikipedia)
.

[darin]

What about Theologians who are also Scientists? :)

The problem, generally, is when Agenda-driven folk are given a mic.

Scientists who hate religion - in spite of the sometimes-massive amounts of faith it takes to believe their theories - often berate and intimidate.

Some theologians want their doctrine taught by public officials. :(

[Missileman]

What about Theologians who are also Scientists? :)

The problem, generally, is when Agenda-driven folk are given a mic.

Scientists who hate religion - in spite of the sometimes-massive amounts of faith it takes to believe their theories - often berate and intimidate.

Some theologians want their doctrine taught by public officials. :(

I'd say the problem stems more from theologians trying to pass their religion off as science in order to give it more creedence and then in the next breath trying to equate science to religion in order to give science less creedence. Pretty amusing when you really think about it.

[darin]

goes both ways, MM. Plenty of "scientists" require faith and devotion to whatever they make up :)

[Missileman]

goes both ways, MM. Plenty of "scientists" require faith and devotion to whatever they make up :)

You show me a scientist who's making shit up and I'll show you an IDer or a "global warming" nut.

[darin]

pick a scientist who says 'life just magically appeared'. (shrug).

[Missileman]

pick a scientist who says 'life just magically appeared'. (shrug).

I know of no scientist who proposes that magic had anything to do with the origins of life...IDers and creationists however...just sayin!

[Thunderknuckles]

Peaceful coexistence between scientists and theologians

I would very much like to know what people on this website think about peaceful coexistence between those who study our material world (scientists) and those who study our spiritual world (theologians). My attempt to write an essay on that subject failed, as you can see at:

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theology3.html

The webpage was prepared to generate a discussion. Those who post comments should refer to specific “contributions,” as numbered (or to specific persons, as numbered at the beginning). This will simplify the discussion.

And let us keep in mind that the main topic is peaceful coexistence. Is it possible? Is it desirable? What should we do promote it? etc.

Thank you in advance,

Ludwik Kowalski, who used to be an atheists (see Google and Wikipedia)
.

By the looks of the content of your web site, people seem to be debating whether or not to mix science and religion and not debating whether or not they can peacefully co-exist.

There is no reason why any ideologies cannot peacefully co-exist. It's up to individual believers of a given ideology that determine whether or not they can peacefully co-exist with others.

In any case, there is nothing incompatible about a supreme creator and science as we currently understand it.

(Note that I said supreme creator which is not necessarily the same as "God")

[Abbey Marie]

goes both ways, MM. Plenty of "scientists" require faith and devotion to whatever they make up :)

Below is an example of science going on a certain amount of faith, and calling it fact. Has the Big Bang been proven scientifically, and I missed it?


This image of the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field is a small part of the deepest infrared image ever taken of the universe. The small blue box outlines the area where astronomers found what may be the most distant galaxy ever seen, 13.2 billion light-years away, meaning its light was emitted just 480 million years after the Big Bang. It is small and very faint and is shown separately in the larger box.
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Hubble_Sees_Farther_Back_In_Time_Than_Ever_Before_ 999.html

[Missileman]

Below is an example of science going on a certain amount of faith, and calling it fact. Has the Big Bang been proven scientifically, and I missed it?

l

I suppose it's true IF you redefine faith. The Big Bang, like evolution, is still a theory, but hardly a matter of faith. Neither has been disproven scientifically.

[Abbey Marie]

I suppose it's true IF you redefine faith. The Big Bang, like evolution, is still a theory, but hardly a matter of faith. Neither has been disproven scientifically.

I would posit that all things unproven but believed, are per se taken on faith. Not necessarily "religious" faith, but faith nonetheless.

[texastom]

You show me a scientist who's making shit up and I'll show you an IDer or a "global warming" nut.
Considering most scientific theories start with an "idea"'; isn't that the definition of making stuff up?

[revelarts]

Considering most scientific theories start with an "idea"'; isn't that the definition of making stuff up?

Yep.

Scientist dress their made up stuff in real jargon and sprinkle it with math and a Hypothesis (guess), create a model and bingo you have a Plausible Scientific Theory for something.
As long as you ignore any evidence to the contrary. those facts aren't considered "relevant" or "significant". Or will be filled in later, just bedraggled details.

I'm describing science on the edge, not stuff that's testable and repeatable, which is hard science.
Hard science and (Christian) faith have no conflicts, aside from a very few moral issues.

It's where science starts predicting the future and surmising about things long pass and processes they can't duplicate and when they go about their research without moral compunction or regard for the sacredness of human life is where there's conflict and will be.

However there are 1000's of scientist who are Christians that find both science and faith compatible and as a matter of science history, many if not most of the founding lights of modern western science where serious Christians. "God created an ordered world that allowed for study". Newton, Kepler etc etc etc. Many of the scientist of the middle east where math and western astronomy was gleened where Muslims. In India the scientist there where Hindu according to Vedics (sp I think) writings. Not to mention the Egyptians etc.. None of them had issues with studying the world and marking it's functions, cycles and processes. That is science.

It's a modern misconception that religion and science are antithetical. And if you look at the history of science you'll find REGULARLY stories of atheist scientists and the scientific community in general not accepting "new" scientific facts becuase they don't fit with the old scientific paradigms. that an issue with human nature not religion specifically.

[BoogyMan]

I know of no scientist who proposes that magic had anything to do with the origins of life...IDers and creationists however...just sayin!

The science only crowd speaks of "theory" as fact and then runs and hides behind the use of the term "theory" to claim that they don't. Duplicity at it's finest.

[Missileman]

Considering most scientific theories start with an "idea"'; isn't that the definition of making stuff up?

As far as I know, theories start with an observation not an idea.

[Missileman]

I would posit that all things unproven but believed, are per se taken on faith. Not necessarily "religious" faith, but faith nonetheless.

Again, only if you redefine faith to something other than "belief in something in the absence of evidence".

[texastom]

As far as I know, theories start with an observation not an idea.Theories spring from all sorts of ideas as much as they do from observations. Some are eventually proved, some are eventually disproven and some remain theories.

[texastom]

Again, only if you redefine faith to something other than "belief in something in the absence of evidence".Evidence indicates fact and once something becomes factual, it is no longer a theory but is instead scientific fact. Absent facts, the theory remains nothing more than a belief.

[Missileman]

Theories spring from all sorts of ideas as much as they do from observations. Some are eventually proved, some are eventually disproven and some remain theories.

Perhaps you can share a few theories that started with an idea and not an observation...I can't think of any.

[Missileman]

Evidence indicates fact and once something becomes factual, it is no longer a theory but is instead scientific fact. Absent facts, the theory remains nothing more than a belief.

No, evidence either supports or disproves a theory. Once a theory is disproven, it is discarded.

[avatar4321]

Did I miss something? When did Theologians and Scientist become violent toward each other? And what do those religious scientist do?

[fj1200]

Did I miss something? When did Theologians and Scientist become violent toward each other? And what do those religious scientist do?

I was going to call for open warfare between the two groups but then I happened upon this thread...

[logroller]

Did I miss something? When did Theologians and Scientist become violent toward each other? And what do those religious scientist do?

Find sources of tax-free funding!:laugh:

[logroller]

As far as I know, theories start with an observation not an idea.


A theory is an interrelated group of propositions pursuant to a cohesive explanation of a breadth of observations within a class of phenomena.

A hypothesis is specific in nature, so as to easily falsifiable, rather than broadly interrelated phenomena, to which testing would be inherently more difficult. Though theories often include many hypotheses, the rejection of a specific hypothesis doesn't reject the theory, but rather improves, scientifically, its ability to explain -- this being the goal of science.

[Kathianne]

I don't have a problem with science and God. In the beginning, God created. If there was a Big Bang, God created what caused it. With God there are no limits, no matter how man may wish to construe things.

I can't find a way to ignore what God has allowed man to discover, through archeology, anthropology, etc.

Religion doesn't require me to deny science; science does not cause me to lose faith.

[logroller]

Religion doesn't require me to deny science; science does not cause me to lose faith.

And yet, when longstanding religious doctrines have been challenged by science, both in theory and practice, they have been met with fervent opposition.

[Kathianne]

And yet, when longstanding religious doctrines have been challenged by science, both in theory and practice, they have been met with fervent opposition.

And even back with Galileo the educated knew better, they feared the masses and their reaction. They acted badly, but did know better. Nope, scientific method is the way to enlightenment. Enlightenment is the way of faith.

[kowalskil]

Evidence indicates fact and once something becomes factual, it is no longer a theory but is instead scientific fact. Absent facts, the theory remains nothing more than a belief.

To "prove" is a mathematical term. I would say to "validate."

[revelarts]

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/bxxFh0Kn5Tk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[logroller]

And even back with Galileo the educated knew better, they feared the masses and their reaction. They acted badly, but did know better. Nope, scientific method is the way to enlightenment. Enlightenment is the way of faith.

One of the most profound statements I've ever heard. A distinctly eastern philosophical perspective. Thx Kath, or should I Kathianne-fu-tzu; rep points cant deliver upon what is deserved.

You have addressed Marx's critique "
It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering.Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

[Noir]

Each is by nature corrosive to the other. and to that end I do not believe they van co-exist in a public sphere, though ofcourse privately anyone can believe any on nonsense they wish.

[Noir]

Theories spring from all sorts of ideas as much as they do from observations. Some are eventually proved, some are eventually disproven and some remain theories.

You have no understanding what a theory is. That much is sure.

You are confusing two terms of theory; a theoretically probability and a scientific theory.

[logroller]

Each is by nature corrosive to the other. and to that end I do not believe they van co-exist in a public sphere, though ofcourse privately anyone can believe any on nonsense they wish.

Evidence to the fact:
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2FARDDcdFaQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

WTF is the problem? I used embed code. HELP!!!

[revelarts]

Evidence to the fact:<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2FARDDcdFaQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

WTF is the problem? I used embed code. HELP!!!

no need for the imbed header and footers just post the code as copied from video site

[darin]

Very interesting in history when Christian scientists didn't fear the truth - they only feared the "Church". When christian scientists validated biblical explanations or descriptions (round earth, space, etc), popular secular scientists were enemies, too.

[kowalskil]

Theories spring from all sorts of ideas as much as they do from observations. Some are eventually proved, some are eventually disproven and some remain theories.

The term "theory" means different things to different people. The same is true for the term "proof."

Ludwik

[kowalskil]

I don't have a problem with science and God. ... Religion doesn't require me to deny science; science does not cause me to lose faith.

I wish this were true for everyone.

Ludwik
.

[kowalskil]

Each is by nature corrosive to the other. and to that end I do not believe they van co-exist in a public sphere, though ofcourse privately anyone can believe any on nonsense they wish.

Here is a link to a good description of what a scientific theory is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Ludwik
.

[logroller]

Here is a link to a good description of what a scientific theory is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Ludwik
.

a link to Wikipedia:laugh: Here's a good search engine. http://www.google.com/

Just quote it next time, no need for a wikilink.

[kowalskil]

By the looks of the content of your web site, people seem to be debating whether or not to mix science and religion and not debating whether or not they can peacefully co-exist.

There is no reason why any ideologies cannot peacefully co-exist. It's up to individual believers of a given ideology that determine whether or not they can peacefully co-exist with others.

In any case, there is nothing incompatible about a supreme creator and science as we currently understand it.

(Note that I said supreme creator which is not necessarily the same as "God")

But to most people the term "supreme creator" means God. Assign new meanings to familiar words usually lead to unnecessary confusions.

Ludwik
.

[logroller]

But to most people the term "supreme creator" means God. Assign new meanings to familiar words usually lead to unnecessary confusions.

Ludwik
.

Indeed it does. But using God and supreme creator synonymously, despite ideological or religious differences, leads not just to confusion, but strife.