Is the following unreasonable?

Skeptisch · #1 12-15-2009, 04:45 PM

A person of faith seems to prefer comfort over truth while science is all about finding the truth. The scientific method will find the closest approximation to the truth. In science there is no pretension of knowledge just knowledge itself, knowledge of the natural world around us.

So how can we find common ground if one side goes by the laws of nature and physics while the other side claims to be able to suspend these laws with faith and beliefs? Many religions promote their own special reality full of paranormal and supernatural events.

Remember Richard Feynman? Many consider him one of the leading minds on quantum physics. He said: “It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong”

Another great man said this:
“The enlightenment is under threat. So is reason. So is truth. So is science, especially in the schools of America. I am one of those scientists who feels that it is no longer enough just to get on and do science. We have to devote a significant proportion of our time and resources to defending it from deliberate attack from organized ignorance”.

“Organized ignorance” might be a little harsh but shouldn’t we familiarize ourselves with the laws of nature before claiming their suspension. And if we honestly believe we can suspend and override these laws with faith, wouldn’t it make sense to post some examples so we can expose them to the scientific method?

ftv1975 · #2 12-15-2009, 05:17 PM

is there a conflict between science and religion? The answer to this basic query depends entirely upon what is meant by and accepted as science and as religion. it is common to say there is no such conflict, neaning between true science and true religion--for one truth never conflicks with another, no matter what fields or categories the truths are put in for purposes of study. But there most certainly is a conflict between science is meant (for instance) the theoretical guesses and postulates of some organic evolutionists, or if by religion is meant the false creed and dogmas of the sectarian and pagan worlds.
"Oppositions of science falsely so called" were causing people to err "concerning the faith" even in the days of Paul. (1 Timothy 6:20-21)
There is, of course, no conflict between revealed religion as it has been restored in our day and those scientific realities which have been established as ultimate truth. The mental quagmires in which many students struggle result from the acceptance of unproven scienctific theories as ultimate facts, which brings the student to the neccessity of rejecting conflicting truths of revealed religion. If, for example a student accepts the untrue theory that death has been present on the earth for many of thousands or millions of years, he must reject the revealed truth that there was no death either for man or animals or plants or any form of life until some 6000 years ago when Adam fell.
As a matter of fact, from the eternal perspective, true science is a part of the gospel itself; in its broadest signification the gospel embraces all truth. when the full blessings of the millennium are poured out upon the earth and its inhabitants, pseudo-science and pseudo-religion will be swept aside, and all supposed conflicts between science and religion will vanish away.

written by Bruce R. McConkie

Seyorni · #3 12-15-2009, 05:53 PM

You're comparing apples and radios.
As SJ Gould said: "The net of science covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory), and the net of religion extends over questions of morality, meaning and value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry..."

Skeptisch · #4 12-15-2009, 05:56 PM

Quote:

“---for one truth never conflicks with another, no matter what fields or categories the truths are put in for purposes of study”.

Wouldn’t a “truth” that is not true conflict with one that is closer to the truth?

sonofskeptish · #5 12-15-2009, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptisch

And if we honestly believe we can suspend and override these laws with faith, wouldn’t it make sense to post some examples so we can expose them to the scientific method?

Perhaps Deepak Chopra can arrange some spoon-bending demonstrations.

Skeptisch · #6 12-15-2009, 06:08 PM

Seyorni and ftv1975, do you guys have an opinion on telekinesis?

Telekinesis - the power to move something by thinking about it without the application of physical force

Seyorni · #7 12-15-2009, 06:12 PM

Opinion on telekinesis? No. Why do you ask?

ftv1975 · #8 12-15-2009, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptisch

Wouldn’t a “truth” that is not true conflict with one that is closer to the truth?

are you talking about what is currently to be true and what truth might change in the future? truth doesn't doesn't change. closer to the truth is not truth (IMO). i haven't thought much about telekinesis. Although Moses has shown proof of a similar ability.