If you love science, or you love your faith, how do you help set them free?

[Jim]

If you love somebody, if you love someone,
If you love somebody, if you love someone set them free.
(Free, free, set them free.)
Set them free.
(Free, free, set them free.)
Set them free.
(Free, free, set them free.)
Set them free.
(Free, free, set them free.)

If you see anything holding back science from doing all the good it can do, or if you see anything holding back your faith from doing all the good it can do, what do you think that you or anyone else can do, in our everyday lives, to help free it from whatever is holding it back?

 

[Deeje]

If you love science, or you love your faith, how do you help set them free?

First of all, you reconcile these two so that one does not take anything away from the other.....that is the beginning of true freedom IMO.

In this world, science is at the whim of the commercial system and dependent on it.....the churches appear to be locked into the same format.....what a pity. Greed seems to be the only thing that stands in the way of setting anything free if we have to rely on human efforts.

But for Bible believers, a better future is promised.....not reliant on humans at all. This is what I look forward to.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you see anything holding back science from doing all the good it can do, or if you see anything holding back your faith from doing all the good it can do, what do you think that you or anyone else can do, in our everyday lives, to help free it from whatever is holding it back?

For science: let the process do its thing. Don't try to steer towards a particular conclusion.

IOW: practice skepticism.

 

[osgart]

Well science can let the facts speak for themselves by honestly reporting facts without all the philosophical positioning.

Let the public make up their own minds when presented with factual knowledges.

All the religions of the past need to be approached with skepticism, and objectivity. To me the future of religion should be to question more than assume knowledge.

Science should discover and report facts, not interpret things for you otherwise.

Religion should be a branch of philosophy that is more investigative and far less dogmatic.

Humans can flourish and be better served to admit when they dont know, versus protecting their philosophies by cherry picking results.

Anyway how knowledge is presented to the public is the key to opening hearts and minds, and giving common people means to grow by learning genuine facts.

Its amazing that we have television, and how little of it is seriously educational. Instead people watch piles of entertainment garbage to pacify themselves.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

If you see anything holding back science from doing all the good it can do, or if you see anything holding back your faith from doing all the good it can do, what do you think that you or anyone else can do, in our everyday lives, to help free it from whatever is holding it back?

I would say it would to become the example one sees in their Science or Faith.

There is only one person we can change and that is our own selves. God gifts change and Faith to whoso God chooses.

Regards Tony

 

[Jim]

One of the ways I see to help set science and faith free is by growing genuine heart-to-heart friendships across all the widest ideological divides.

 

[Quintessence]

All things have limits. It is wise to recognize what those are, or what they should be with respect to one's values. I am not interested in setting either the sciences or my way of life (which overlap considerably) free. Doing so would be nothing short of a disaster for everyone who doesn't agree with my values. What one person calls "good" is not another's. Not even pluralism - a love of diversity - is something that all find favor in.

 

[Cleary]

I love the recent discoveries about how DNA points to embedded code / language / information
which is not the result of random chance, but rather an intelligence / designer ... just as
the arrangement of letters, spaces, punctuation in this post convey a message ... Indeed Science points to God

< enjoy

 

[siti]

Well, as a practicing Christian - which I used to be - and a practicing scientist - which I still am, I always used to a bit miffed that I often seemed to be required to choose one in favour and to the exclusion of the other. I searched for ways to reconcile them but always seemed to fail. I ended up writing these few paragraphs several years ago (a bit of a compromise I suppose and I'm not sure I still agree with myself - but that happens to me all the time) - I don't mean to hijack your thread, so forgive the length, but I did think it fits nicely with your topic and as a contribution to an interfaith discussion. (Note I talk about scripture, specifically the Bible, and you are talking about religion - certainly not synonymous - but close enough to be relevant I think).

Consider the following verses. Do they suggest that faith in God should require us to reject scientific knowledge as it emerges?

"God gave Solomon wisdom and very great insight...He described plant life...He also taught about animals and birds, reptiles and fish" (1Kings 4:29-34)

"[God] has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their season" (Acts 14:17)

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities...have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made" (Romans 1:20)

Of course, the Bible cannot be understood as science, but as the foregoing verses indicate, it seems clear that what is written in it has to be understood in the light of science. It is meant to supplement rather than supplant the evidence of scientific observation. The famous physicist Albert Einstein reportedly once said "religion without science is lame, science without religion is dead". We could argue about what he might have meant by "religion" but both scripture and scientist seem to agree that one without the other cannot constitute a "healthful pattern" of knowledge.

What this means for an honest-hearted seeker of truth in the 21st century is that where science and scripture seem to conflict, we are not required to choose one and reject the other. Rather we must try to understand the ancient spiritual truth of scripture in the light of scientific discovery. It is not necessary to abandon faith in order to accept scientific truth, nor is it necessary to disavow science in order to maintain faith in scripture. This has become one of the most divisive errors of both religion and those opposed to it - and especially so in the last century. Hard-line atheists wrongly insist that science proves there is no need for belief in God and Biblical literalists wrongly insist on interpreting scripture so word-for-word literally that they leave themselves no option but to cast scientific fact as heresy.

The Bible, however, teaches the opposite. As the scriptures quoted above clearly show, the wise King Solomon, the Christian martyr Stephen and the Apostle Paul all felt that the creation itself - i.e. observation of the natural world - could give abundant evidence of the true nature of Nature and the qualities of the Creator.

Modern cosmology, particle physics and evolutionary biology all provide evidence of God's "invisible qualities". Of course in view of this we have to read some passages of scripture differently than our ancestors might have done in order to accommodate these newly discovered facts about the world. ​

To do this is not to abandon faith or scripture. Rather it is to allow scripture to speak to a modern audience with the divine authority it had for earlier generations. And to accept scripture is not to abandon science, but rather to permit science to speak in the broader context of the ancient and time-tested wisdom of the scriptural tradition. Two witnesses powerfully attesting to the wisdom of the Creator and the wonder of creation (compare Deuteronomy 19:15).​

 

[Vinayaka]

Free from what?

 

[siti]

Free from what?

Free from the shackles of the other I guess - i.e. science to be freed from the shackles of religious beliefs that limit its capacity for enlightening and enhancing the human condition and vice versa. That was certainly how I saw it when I was a Christian. I know that some religions are far better at this than others. In the west(ern) traditions (by which I include modern and post-modern philosophy as well as revealed religious traditions) there has - over the last couple of centuries or so - been a tendency for religion and science to become increasingly divergent to the extent that towards the end of the 20th century they had been declared "non-overlapping magisteria" (by Stephen Jay Gould). My argument is that fundamentally, both are human attempts to explore the relationship of humans to the greater reality(ies) that exist, and give rise to and envelop them. I can't see how they cannot overlap in that sense. But to set science free from the shackles of inherited religious opinion is vitally important if science is to be allowed to speak (to the hearts and minds of 21st century humans I mean) to the wider questions that religion addresses, and religion must be set free from (its own and its opponents') dogmatic anti-scientific interpretations if it is to remain relevant as science gradually peels back the layers of reality to plain sight.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I love the recent discoveries about how DNA points to embedded code / language / information
which is not the result of random chance, but rather an intelligence / designer ... just as
the arrangement of letters, spaces, punctuation in this post convey a message ... Indeed Science points to God

< enjoy

Pretending it isn't random is not going to change the reality.

There's enough junk DNA and mutations to substantiate on how species morph and adjust to their environments and situations.

But you're not entirely off the mark when it comes to stability. There is a consistency and stability within the genome yet design is something that is just not there. You don't want genetic mutation to be out of control either.

Evolution Is Not Random (At Least, Not Totally)

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If you see anything holding back science from doing all the good it can do, or if you see anything holding back your faith from doing all the good it can do, what do you think that you or anyone else can do, in our everyday lives, to help free it from whatever is holding it back?

Among the many definitions of science are several that may be more applicable to your point. In the 'tool' definition of science as a methodology used for understanding the physical world or the 'body of knowledge, set of theories and logical framework' definition, science is neutral and neither good or bad. Under either of these definitions, it is how science or the results and conclusions of science are used that is good or bad.

Science can also be carried out in ways that are either good or poor in the sense of the quality of the work. It can certainly be held back and there are many examples where that happens today and not on grounds of the validity of the work either.

While religion may not be of much use within either of former definitions, it certainly has an opportunity to provide influence in how the results of science are used.

In modern society, I see many examples of religious view points holding back science, but since science does not deal with the existence or nature of a deity, I cannot name any examples where it is holding back faith.

There is on this forum, many examples of science being held back by those that cannot reconcile their faith with the findings of science. It is a very lively and ongoing debate and discussion.

In an aside, some 2.5 million scientific publications are being produced each year now and over the last 300 years, there has been approximately 50 million scientific publications produced. The bulk of these are funded by citizens through various government and non-government organizations and the findings are often basic information that has no direct commercial value. While commercial interests have contributed to conducting science, there is no known global corporate conspiracy that is responsible for all of or even the majority of scientific studies.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I love the recent discoveries about how DNA points to embedded code / language / information
which is not the result of random chance, but rather an intelligence / designer ... just as
the arrangement of letters, spaces, punctuation in this post convey a message ... Indeed Science points to God

< enjoy

I am unaware of any scientific studies or reports that indicate anything you claim here.

 

[Jim]

Free from what?

Anything that anyone thinks might be holding back science, or their faith, from doing all the good they could be doing. Some examples for me would be prejudices, delusions, corruption, apathy, feelings of hopelessness and helplessness, global monopoly games, dishonesty and treachery, censorship and repression, people believing whatever they want to believe about what scientific research says or what their scriptures say, and animosities and hostilities across ideological divides. Those are a few examples of what I see holding back science, and all religious faith, from doing all the good they could be doing.

 

[Brickjectivity]

If you see anything holding back science from doing all the good it can do, or if you see anything holding back your faith from doing all the good it can do, what do you think that you or anyone else can do, in our everyday lives, to help free it from whatever is holding it back?

If there is a new and better way to screw in a light bulb take notice and spread it around. Often what happens is people fret about how lightbulbs are screwed in and the need for something better, and they don't look up to see if somebody is already doing it. They focus on the problem. For example "Oh no all the religious people are not getting along" is focusing on the problem and does not lead to a solution. You look for cases where someone has stumbled into a solution and has gotten religious people together, and then you try to recreate the successes. Why does X like to study religions? Why does Y? What is different about them that they prefer doing that? Why aren't they angry? Why isn't Z paranoid about other religions when everyone else seems to be? Find out how that happens and see if it can be duplicated without ruining lives, without wars, without political bejiggering.

 

[Jim]

You look for cases where someone has stumbled into a solution and has gotten religious people together ...

I happen to know a very good example of that.

 

[Jim]

Siti, this looks to me like a good place to try to answer the question you asked me in the “All religions are one” thread. Are you still interested in that? I see now that it was a mistake for me to see the choice of words as the problem. “All religions are one” and “Religion is one” can both be understood, and misunderstood, in the same ways.

Anyways, all that apart, I am genuinely interested in how you make the distinction between "religion is one" and "all religions are one". Are you suggesting that other religions are equally legitimate ways to approach God - or that they are not? Can you see that the distinction could be between true and true, true and truer or true and false - assuming that at least one religion is true?

 

[Jim]

@siti The way I want to try to answer your question is by trying to explain my understanding of what Baha’i scriptures say, that Baha’is equate with “All religions are one.”

In the research that I did recently, I found that the idea of saying “all religions are one” goes at least as far back as 1788, and it might have been circulating in interfaith circles when the Baha’i Faith first came to Europe and North America. That might be why Baha’is started substituting “all religions are one” in the place of “essential oneness of religion” and “the reality of religion is one” from Baha’i scriptures.

My understanding of that is much different today from what it was a few days ago, and it might be much different again in a few more days. I’ll make a first try at trying to describe how I’m thinking of it now, but I hope that you’ll make comments and ask questions, to better understand it.

I’m thinking that there is a special kind of truth, spirit, power and wisdom, a kind that people sometimes call “divine” or “sacred,” in all the religious lore and scriptures that are revered by multitudes of people. I don’t think that the truth, spirit, power and wisdom in them is divided into sections that one or another of the religions can claim as its exclusive property, to vaunt itself over the others. I think that there’s a very personal and personalized relationship that we all can have with that truth, spirit, power and wisdom. That’s what I’m currently thinking now, today, that “religion,” in its singular form, means in Baha’i scriptures.

I think that the same truth, spirit, power and wisdom are in the fruits of honest and responsible scientific research, and that our personal relationship with them can be as much in that as it can in religious scriptures. I can see that in the stories of the giants of modern physics.

 

[Valjean]

Offhand, I can't see any way of reconciling these two, diametrically opposed, approaches to knowledge.