NationStates Jolt Archive

Today (Easter Sunday), while looking through my copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I found the following paragraph on the topic of Faith and Science:

Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth. Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.

It is a great shame that this above-mentioned truth is not often enough brought to light here on NS General. Too often individuals and groups engage in conflict under the opposing banners of "Science and Reason" versus "Religion and Faith". This is a ridiculous state of affairs. Faith is a fantastic thing, but Faith when it means clinging to theologies that became obsolete two-to-three hundred years ago is misguided at best:

Religion will not regain its old power until it can face change in the same spirit as science. Its principles may be eternal, but the expression of those principles requires continual development.

-A.N. Whitehead, Science and the Modern World

The religion that is afraid of Science dishonours God and commits suicide.

-R.W. Emerson, Journals

I suppose my reason for adding one more religious thread to the pile is to try my hardest to dispel the common misconception that Science and Religion are opponents. If religious individuals do not want to believe scientific theories on the principle of Faith, that is fine, but understand that these theories are not a contradiction of religion, especially in the case of Christianity. Conversely, I would ask certain Atheists to wake up from the illusion that modern scientific theories render Religion invalid or useless:

Science without Religion is lame, Religion without Science is blind.

-Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years

... but understand that these theories are not a contradiction of religion, especially in the case of Christianity.

Why especially Christianity? Religion, especially Christianity I suppose is about faith, so if some individuals percieve scientific theories as a threat to the validity of their faith it could be said they are of little faith. If they want to get really pissy about it, who should care?

"Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith..."

If you have already formed a conclusion (faith) then you cannot investigate something in a, "truly scientific manner."

Why especially Christianity? Religion, especially Christianity I suppose is about faith, so if some individuals percieve scientific theories as a threat to the validity of their faith it could be said they are of little faith. If they want to get really pissy about it, who should care?

If a person is considered of little faith or not by giving thought to scientific evidence is up to that person mostly. Faith is a very personal thing. It varies in definition, application, and restriction from person to person. One person might invest in deep thought about Darwin's theories and still feel entirely faithful, another might feel defiled if on page of Popular Science were but to touch his finger. Religious people vary on what kind of role science plays in their faith.

On CBS Sunday Morning today there was a interview with a child who wanted to take communion but is allergic to wheat. Her mother tried to covince the Church that they could allow her to use a rice wafer instead. The Church has so far refused to allow this. In contrast I offer the following from the Baha'i Faith. What the Catholic Church decides to do is their business. But it does offer contrast to what other religions pratice.

There is no contradiction between true religion and science. When a religion is opposed to science it becomes mere superstition: that which is contrary to knowledge is ignorance.

How can a man believe to be a fact that which science has proved to be impossible? If he believes in spite of his reason, it is rather ignorant superstition than faith. The true principles of all religions are in conformity with the teachings of science.

The Unity of God is logical, and this idea is not antagonistic to the conclusions arrived at by scientific study.

the Bahai Faith
(Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, p. 141)

while that is a very comforting thought, einsteinian, it only represents the teaching of the catholic church. i assume that other sophisticated sects think the same thing.

there are many of the more fundamentalist types, however, that stubbornly believe a kind of theology that is blatantly anti-science. they take their own interpretations of the bible as the only possible literal truth no matter what scientific discoveries might made.

Islam isn't too far off from science. In fact, Islam encourages science so long as it doesn't bring anyone to harm. The everlasting search for knowledge is one of the reasons why we are put on this Earth.

"Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith..."

If you have already formed a conclusion (faith) then you cannot investigate something in a, "truly scientific manner."

The point is that Faith and Reason should not contradict each other anyway.

The point is that Faith and Reason should not contradict each other anyway.
True! The unexamined faith is actually no faith at all, so anything science discovers to be true should be the starting point for a rexamination of faith, or at least that portion of faith which addresses the scientific discovery.

True! The unexamined faith is actually no faith at all, so anything science discovers to be true should be the starting point for a rexamination of faith, or at least that portion of faith which addresses the scientific discovery.

Precisely. What really irritates me on these forums is those people who believe that faith is a static thing. It should be dynamic, always being updated, like science. As I quoted before:

Religion will not regain its old power until it can face change in the same spirit as science. Its principles may be eternal, but the expression of those principles requires continual development.

-A.N. Whitehead, Science and the Modern World

Precisely. What really irritates me on these forums is those people who believe that faith is a static thing. It should be dynamic, always being updated, like science. As I quoted before:
You are not far from wisdom, grasshopper! :D

The problem is that alot of people have taken the term "blind faith" and shortened it to read "faith". Alot of people have forgotten what faith really means and have transformed the definition of blind faith into the definition of faith proper. True faith comes through understanding, not from believing without ever knowing why. Most christians seem to know this, but most atheists seem to be unaware. The confusing part is that most christians seem to be unaware that atheists are unaware and they talk as if atheists understand the meaning of the word faith. But sadly, they do not, they think faith = blind faith.

The problem is that alot of people have taken the term "blind faith" and shortened it to read "faith". Alot of people have forgotten what faith really means and have transformed the definition of blind faith into the definition of faith proper. True faith comes through understanding, not from believing without ever knowing why. Most christians seem to know this, but most atheists seem to be unaware. The confusing part is that most christians seem to be unaware that atheists are unaware and they talk as if atheists understand the meaning of the word faith. But sadly, they do not, they think faith = blind faith.
Excellent point! Faith in almost all belief systems was never intended to be "blind" and unreasoning. To use the Christian belief system as an example ( simply because it's the one with which I am most familiar ), the Bible repeatedly makes reference to the relationship between mind and faith:

"Study to show thyself approved of God."

"God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but has given us a spirit of power and of love and of calm and well-balanced mind and discipline and self-control."

"For with the mind man believes."

It is a great shame that this above-mentioned truth is not often enough brought to light here on NS General. Too often individuals and groups engage in conflict under the opposing banners of "Science and Reason" versus "Religion and Faith". This is a ridiculous state of affairs. Faith is a fantastic thing, but Faith when it means clinging to theologies that became obsolete two-to-three hundred years ago is misguided at best:
Blame the young earth creationists.

If religious individuals do not want to believe scientific theories on the principle of Faith, that is fine, but understand that these theories are not a contradiction of religion, especially in the case of Christianity.
This I don't understand. For one thing, Bahai is more accepting of science than anything. For another, Buddhism has no creation story, no conflicts with science, indeed scientific studies seem to be confirming the effects of meditation as practised as buddhist monks. Christianity does have a creation story... and scientific theories do dispute the order of occurance of the events described in this story... so there's no reason that christianity is especially exempt from being contradicted by scientific theory except for your own biases.

Blame the young earth creationists.
Difficult to disagree with that.

This I don't understand. For one thing, Bahai is more accepting of science than anything. For another, Buddhism has no creation story, no conflicts with science, indeed scientific studies seem to be confirming the effects of meditation as practised as buddhist monks. Christianity does have a creation story... and scientific theories do dispute the order of occurance of the events described in this story... so there's no reason that christianity is especially exempt from being contradicted by scientific theory except for your own biases.
In fairness, the vocal Christians on NS are very atypical of my experience of Christians IRL, in so far as they seem intent on taking the Bible literally, particularly the creation. Just about all the Christians I know are happy to treat the Old Testament as metaphorical or contextual background as best. My elder brother is both a maths graduate and a minister, and he sees no conflict between science and his faith. Science and reason give him historical and philisophical truths, faith gives him spiritual truths.

In fairness, the vocal Christians on NS are very atypical of my experience of Christians IRL, in so far as they seem intent on taking the Bible literally, particularly the creation. Just about all the Christians I know are happy to treat the Old Testament as metaphorical or contextual background as best. My elder brother is both a maths graduate and a minister, and he sees no conflict between science and his faith. Science and reason give him historical and philisophical truths, faith gives him spiritual truths.
Yes, I know the idiots are more vocal online. I too know very few christians who think that life is exactly how it was when the earth was first created (I remember one yelling at me in highschool saying she didn't believe in evolution when I asked her "wouldn't it be neat to have opposable big toes" [someone was giving a presentation on comparitive anatomy])

But there's still no reason to say that christianity is more receptive and less contradicted by scientific theories than any other religion.

But there's still no reason to say that christianity is more receptive and less contradicted by scientific theories than any other religion.

I think they were specifically referring to the part of Catechism that states that science is not contradicted by faith as a reason that Christianity itself should not try and discount science.

What a lot of the "faithful" (including those that place faith on Scientific Hypothesis) fail to realize, is that Science is only useful for telling us how a mechanism (Whether a computer, or the evolution of a species) is accomplished, not Why in the larger sense it was necessary to do so.
In other words, Science tells us how the world works. (Like dismantling a clock to see how it works)... Science tells us Nothing about Who made the Watch, or what their ultimate purpose was in making it.

The Why question is the realm of Theology, and Philosophy. Atheists are as guilty as the most rabid short-term Creationists of being bigoted, and placing these two things (Science and Faith) in the wrong places.

"In the Beginning, there was Void".

Okay, "Let There Be Light".

the Big Bang.

Now, since the Creator is Eternal in most current, modern, religions, from his perspective, what is a work-day?

Yah... it's as long or short as the Creator (god or Goddess) wishes it to be.

Further, "The Creator Is Perfect" is a doctrine of Christianity. The world works according to physical laws, we see this every day.
If the Creator is perfect, then obviously, he or She is not going to do sloppy work that must be interfered with. Many of the 'miracles' in the Bible are explainable through geophysical, Astronomical, and General Scientific means. Instead of these explanations bieng an attack on Faith, they further reveal the truth of it. God need not 'play dice with the universe' (to misquote Einstein), because the Universe was built correctly in the first place.
A hint, a nudge, a suggestion to a 'prophet' at the correct time, and you have a 'miracle'. (Parting the Red Sea, the Plagues of Egypt, Sodom and Gamorrah... Miracles not because of the event, but the timing of the event, and the presence of witnesses to the timing of the event.)

What is funny and pathetic about short-term Creationism, is that it tries to place Limits on God's Work. Tying HIM down to a 24 hour day, restricting the CREATOR to Human-scale limitations while exalting HIM as an Omnipotent and Omniscient being... even assigning a Gender to that which we can not, in the end, comprehend. (Imagine Infinity.)

Similarly, the Atheist "Science Worshipper" presumes that all is known-that there can BE no Infinite, no Eternal...nothing beyond what can be understood easily by man today, Science AS Religion does not work either. It's like assuming the clock-gears and springs forged themselves out of nothingness by random chance. (This is nearly totally improbable... Infinity plus one.)

IF you believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful, god, then you must, by definition, be willing to understand that you CAN NOT understand this being, or their works, or abilities. Human beings are finite creatures, geologically speaking, we exist in an eyeblink, our power is miniscule, our impact virtually impossible to calculate in its total inadequacy compared to the forces that shape the universe (or even the planet.)
The odds of our evolving as we have, the way we have, are likewise implausibly slim.

to misquote someone else, (can't remember the name), "...it is better to pay homage through reason than all the blind and toothless faiths."

Put another way, if god wanted us dumb, he wouldn't have granted us the intelligence to look at the world, and wonder how, or why, or what it is.

What a lot of the "faithful" (including those that place faith on Scientific Hypothesis) fail to realize, is that Science is only useful for telling us how a mechanism (Whether a computer, or the evolution of a species) is accomplished, not Why in the larger sense it was necessary to do so.
In other words, Science tells us how the world works. (Like dismantling a clock to see how it works)... Science tells us Nothing about Who made the Watch, or what their ultimate purpose was in making it.

A lot of "faithful" also fail to realize that the exact mechanism does not have to be an aspect of their "faith." Knowing that God created the world *somehow* is enough for faith. From a spiritual standpoint, it doesn't matter if evolution was the mechanism or God just said "blah" and it went "poof". Like you said, science describes the way the world works, the very idea of an ultimate power behind it is outside the realm of science.

Miracles not because of the event, but the timing of the event, and the presence of witnesses to the timing of the event.
Amen!

What a lot of the "faithful" (including those that place faith on Scientific Hypothesis) fail to realize, is that Science is only useful for telling us how a mechanism (Whether a computer, or the evolution of a species) is accomplished, not Why in the larger sense it was necessary to do so.
In other words, Science tells us how the world works. (Like dismantling a clock to see how it works)... Science tells us Nothing about Who made the Watch, or what their ultimate purpose was in making it.


Thats the thing, there is no why. Why only applied to humans, as they have motives. The universe does not have consious, therefore, there is no why and how is all that matters.

If you don't mind my chipping in, I find that as I learn more about science, I'm ever more awed by the work of the creator. I feel that the more of science I know, the closer I am to the hand of God or whatever you want to call him/her/it.

As a Jew, it's my personal opinion that the Messiah will be whomever develops a workable Unified Field Theory simple enough for the masses to understand.

If you don't mind my chipping in, I find that as I learn more about science, I'm ever more awed by the work of the creator. I feel that the more of science I know, the closer I am to the hand of God or whatever you want to call him/her/it.

Good to know I'm not the only one. =)

Similarly, the Atheist "Science Worshipper" presumes that all is known-that there can BE no Infinite, no Eternal...nothing beyond what can be understood easily by man today, Science AS Religion does not work either. It's like assuming the clock-gears and springs forged themselves out of nothingness by random chance. (This is nearly totally improbable... Infinity plus one.)


Tsk, tsk tsk, your working on the induction not only that atheists are some giant homogenous group. imagine if i were to say all theists where the sane.

When i look at a watch a its gears, i say yes perhaps this is the product of as you call it 'randomness' (frankly an inappropriate word) or the proper word probability, lets look at it logically shall we.

The watch exist, yes i know this because it sits in my hand, complex gears and all, therefore the probability of this watch existing is above 0, because quite simply if my mind is not deceiving me it is there sitting in my hand.
Now take an universe nay omniverse (as modern astrology suggests) of an infinite size, infinite age, and infinite energy and put it on a infinite time scale.
(im not going to go into who created this omniverse as the idea of creation of it is a failing in human logic, aka my favourite word on these forums causality)

Now all probabilities of these, physical objects down to the very atoms and subatomic particles appearing out of this energy is above one (as energy creates matter) therefore it is all inevitable, no matter how complex, over an infinite amount of time atoms will appear these atoms will collate them selves in orders that we know as organic compounds. Catch my drift.

Its not randomness, its the expression of probability on a infinite time scale

All, religious ideas can be obliterated by objective logic, now I am merely an amateur at this I do not possess the education to throw weight behind this yet, just know that it can be done.

Thats the thing, there is no why. Why only applied to humans, as they have motives. The universe does not have consious, therefore, there is no why and how is all that matters.


That's your personal faith, and I'm going to try to respect it. Have you ever wondered, however, why it rains?

You're going to tell me because water evaporates from oceans and lakes, condenses into clouds, and then tumbles from the sky when conditions permit. That's the water cycle. But why is our world constructed in such a way as to permit the water cycle to exist? Why is water, the substance that fits the cycle best given the range of temperatures on earth, so plentiful on this planet? Why do water and air have the specific chemical properties that allow the water cycle to take place? Seems to me that that's too lucky to be a big accident.

Aristotle would say that the reason it rains is so that plants can grow. It sounds silly, but I think he's more correct than we realize. Why is this world here?

Islam isn't too far off from science. In fact, Islam encourages science so long as it doesn't bring anyone to harm. The everlasting search for knowledge is one of the reasons why we are put on this Earth.
Ah, Islam encouraged a lot of scientific advancements and discoveries from the 11th to 15th centuries, setting the foundations for modern math and astronomy. But something happened when religious zealots argued that since the truth had been revealed in the Koran there was no more reason for science. And it went downhill from there, very quickly.

So, no religion is exempt from the same dangers. Mostly because religion is a people thing.

I just want to know, do you have the original version of the bible? I mean who knows, maybe they had censors back then too...

I just want to know, do you have the original version of the bible? I mean who knows, maybe they had censors back then too...
Like most "Holy Books" which are largely based on oral tradition, the Bible has undergone many, many revisions, translations and rewrites, both in whole and in part.

As a person who belives most of what the Bible says (there are portions, such as the creation stories that are contradicted by science), I have a real problem with the 'war' going on between creationism and Darwinism. Pesonally, I see no contradiction. As others have stated here, limiting God to six 24-hour days is goofy. Evolution is just the way God did it. In my mind, there is no contradiction.