|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 06/01/2007 : 10:24:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dv82matt
Even if science does not try to destroy faith it often does so. Whether it is intentional or incidental is beside the point. |
No, it is exactly my point, because Brownback's obvious intent is to portray "materialistic" science as actively denying faith.| Since the religious, for the most part, do not relinquish their place at the science table, it seems that you are tacitly admitting that there is in fact a conflict between science and religion. |
For those who demand that poor logic and poor evidence be considered to be "science" it is their faith that actively opposes science. Not the other way around, although they attempt to make it look like that.| So in fact these Protestant geologists had their faith of the Bible story of Noah's Flood, destroyed. This would seem to show that science can indeed damage religious faith. |
Few of them required the story of Noah to be true in order to maintain their faith in Jesus' sacrifice, Matt. How much more clear could I have been on that? Those whose faith was actually "damaged" needed more than the simple faith taught in the New Testament.| I'm not sure why you make an allowance for faith in the Resurrection but not for the Flood. Science can't deny anything absolutely but I don't think that Jesus being the son of God, dying for the sins of the world and rising again on the third day is any more plausible than the story of the Flood. Both require faith in an omnipotent god that "works in mysterious ways" and if you believe that then there's no reason not to believe in Noah's Flood. |
Believing in Noah's Flood is not sufficient to make one a Christian, Matt. To be a Christian, you have to believe in the central tenets of Christianity - that Christ was God in human form, that he died for your sins, and that he was resurrected and then went on to Heaven. The people who - today - claim that denying Noah's Flood denies the glory of God are people who aren't actually followers of Christ, but instead followers of a book.| The analogy emphasises the incompatability between science and religion but glosses over the point that the success of one is often to the detriment of the other. Science does not need to explicitly seek the destruction of religion in order for this to be the case. |
How does successfully removing a dent in a car door with a hammer cause any detriment to screws? How does using a screw to hold a circuit board in place inside a computer cause a problem for a hammer?| Incidentally the analogy is also marred by not comparing like with like. Hammers and and screws have seperate functions. |
As do science and religion, which is part of my point, which is why the difference is necessary for the analogy to work. Far from marring the analogy, that aspect of it is required. Science is to a hammer as religion is to a screw. That's the analogy.
Perhaps you're thinking I should have compared screws to nails, or hammers to screw drivers, but either one would make the analogy fail when applied to science and religion, because trying to prove one's faith using science (which people do all the time) isn't at all like trying to drive a screw with a nail, nor is it like beating on a screwdriver with a hammer. Plus, science can do more than just drive nails, and there are aspects of religion which aren't tool-like ("tool" in the common sense of the word). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2007 : 14:07:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
No, it is exactly my point, because Brownback's obvious intent is to portray "materialistic" science as actively denying faith. |
Your point was clear and I understood it. Only faith in the unfalsifiable is outside the realm of science, other than that science does actively deny faith.
| For those who demand that poor logic and poor evidence be considered to be "science" it is their faith that actively opposes science. Not the other way around, although they attempt to make it look like that. |
When faith is in opposition to science then science must either capitulate to it or oppose it.
| So in fact these Protestant geologists had their faith of the Bible story of Noah's Flood, destroyed. This would seem to show that science can indeed damage religious faith. |
Few of them required the story of Noah to be true in order to maintain their faith in Jesus' sacrifice, Matt. How much more clear could I have been on that? |
You missed the point, which was that it serves as an example of science destroying a particular faith based belief.
But since you brought it up, if the story of Noah's Flood were central to Christianity would science cease opposing it?
| Those whose faith was actually "damaged" needed more than the simple faith taught in the New Testament. |
Most Christians don't actually believe that faith negates evidence. Hence the conflict.
| Believing in Noah's Flood is not sufficient to make one a Christian, Matt. To be a Christian, you have to believe in the central tenets of Christianity - that Christ was God in human form, that he died for your sins, and that he was resurrected and then went on to Heaven. The people who - today - claim that denying Noah's Flood denies the glory of God are people who aren't actually followers of Christ, but instead followers of a book. |
So is it fair to say then, that science opposes the faith of those who believe that the Bible is infallible?
| How does successfully removing a dent in a car door with a hammer cause any detriment to screws? How does using a screw to hold a circuit board in place inside a computer cause a problem for a hammer? |
Indeed it doesn't, but that just serves to point out a failure in the analogy.
| As do science and religion, which is part of my point, which is why the difference is necessary for the analogy to work. Far from marring the analogy, that aspect of it is required. Science is to a hammer as religion is to a screw. That's the analogy. |
Well it's malformed. You should at least complete the set. If religion is the screw then is faith the screwdriver? Likewise if science is the hammer then is knowledge the nail? Otherwise you might as well just compare trees to underpants.
| Perhaps you're thinking I should have compared screws to nails, or hammers to screw drivers, but either one would make the analogy fail when applied to science and religion, because trying to prove one's faith using science (which people do all the time) isn't at all like trying to drive a screw with a nail, nor is it like beating on a screwdriver with a hammer. |
As it stands I don't see that the analogy indicates anything except incompatability between science and faith. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2007 : 17:26:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dv82matt
Your point was clear and I understood it. Only faith in the unfalsifiable is outside the realm of science, other than that science does actively deny faith. |
Thinking about this more, the question is, why would anyone have faith in something wholly material, like Noah's Ark? I don't think they do. I think they use such things to prop up an otherwise weak faith. Science proving the props to be insubstantial doesn't actually damage the person's faith, since there's so little of it in the first place.| When faith is in opposition to science then science must either capitulate to it or oppose it. |
The conflict comes when people attempt to prove their religious beliefs through the abuse of science and logic. In other words, with regards to Brownback's remarks, "they started it." It is their disappointment, confusion and ignorance which causes the conflict. I don't believe there's any record of any of those 18th-century geologists becoming atheists because they accidentally disproved Noah's Flood. They were more sure of their faith than today's crop of fundamentalists.| You missed the point, which was that it serves as an example of science destroying a particular faith based belief. |
I'm no longer sure it is, really.| But since you brought it up, if the story of Noah's Flood were central to Christianity would science cease opposing it? |
Can we find a central tenet of any religion which is wholly falsifiable? No, really. I'm having a hard time imagining an "Arkian." If there were one, then sure, science would have to say that their faith is wrong.| Most Christians don't actually believe that faith negates evidence. Hence the conflict. |
No, I'm thinking now that they require more than just faith in order to feel fulfilled. If faith is, as Dude defined it, assigning a value of true to things for which there is no evidence, then trying to find evidence to support one's faith is what destroys one's faith. If someone thinks they've proven the Jesus story, then they have no need for faith in it anymore.| So is it fair to say then, that science opposes the faith of those who believe that the Bible is infallible? |
I don't think so, since the belief that the Bible is infallible is a response to the fear that the Bible is wrong about Jesus specifically.
I cede the analogy. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2007 : 13:05:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Thinking about this more, the question is, why would anyone have faith in something wholly material, like Noah's Ark? I don't think they do. I think they use such things to prop up an otherwise weak faith. Science proving the props to be insubstantial doesn't actually damage the person's faith, since there's so little of it in the first place. |
Part of the problem may have to do with the religious overtones of the word. But if faith is "an unevidenced belief" and Noah's Flood is admittedly unevidenced then how can belief in Noah's Flood not be faith?
I think you may be overanalyzing the word "faith".
| The conflict comes when people attempt to prove their religious beliefs through the abuse of science and logic. In other words, with regards to Brownback's remarks, "they started it." It is their disappointment, confusion and ignorance which causes the conflict. |
Well this is a wholly different understanding of the word "opposed" than I am familiar with. By this account one might say that the Allies did not "oppose" the Axis Powers since it was the Axis Powers that "started it" and WW2 was caused by their expansionist ambitions.
| I don't believe there's any record of any of those 18th-century geologists becoming atheists because they accidentally disproved Noah's Flood. |
I don't see why this is particularily relevant, however as you have noted, Noah's Flood is not central to Christianity so it is perhaps not surprising that they didn't abandon Christianity altogether. In addition a lot has happened since then; it is not a given that those 18th-century geologists would have maintained their faith in Christianity today.
| They were more sure of their faith than today's crop of fundamentalists. |
If that is true it is not to their credit as scientists.
| Can we find a central tenet of any religion which is wholly falsifiable? No, really. I'm having a hard time imagining an "Arkian." If there were one, then sure, science would have to say that their faith is wrong. |
It is a trivial matter to render the Flood story unfalsifiable as well so the hypothetical Arkian religion is in the same category as any other faith based belief.
| No, I'm thinking now that they require more than just faith in order to feel fulfilled. If faith is, as Dude defined it, assigning a value of true to things for which there is no evidence, then trying to find evidence to support one's faith is what destroys one's faith. If someone thinks they've proven the Jesus story, then they have no need for faith in it anymore. |
Yeah, if their belief is based on evidence (even faulty evidence provided they reasonably believe it is valid) then I guess they don't need faith in the Jesus story. I find that interpretation difficult to credit though. In my experience when push comes to shove most Christians do admit that fundamentally it's a matter of faith.
| So is it fair to say then, that science opposes the faith of those who believe that the Bible is infallible? |
I don't think so, since the belief that the Bible is infallible is a response to the fear that the Bible is wrong about Jesus specifically. |
I don't see how the second part of your sentence supports the first. Are you saying that the belief that the Bible is infallible is not faith or that science does not oppose it? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2007 : 13:53:20 [Permalink]
|
| I had a huge reply to you mostly typed up, Matt, and then my six-year-old erased it while I was in the bathroom. Argh. Maybe I'll have the urge to type it all in again later... |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Brownback on Evolution
