Science or faith

[We Never Know]

I've seen some here say things like...
I'm all about science and I don't know of any science that supports intelligent design but yet at the same time they believe/have faith in a god as the creator(which would support intelligent design).

How does this not make what they accept in science but yet believe about a god conflict with each other?

 

[Lain]

I'm all about science and I don't know of any science that supports intelligent design but yet at the same time they believe/have faith in a god as the creator(which would support intelligent design).

AFAIK theistic evolutionists like that only hold that God directed evolution as it happened and caused life to exist, they do not believe in intelligent design like those called Creationists (think Ken Ham) do, although they do believe God made all things. There is no conflict it is just a different sense of how the world came into being that they have.

 

[We Never Know]

AFAIK theistic evolutionists like that only hold that God directed evolution as it happened and caused life to exist, they do not believe in intelligent design like those called Creationists (think Ken Ham) do, although they do believe God made all things. There is no conflict it is just a different sense of how the world came into being that they have.

Yet if a god directed it, he was in control, made it happen.
In other words designed it.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I've seen some here say things like...
I'm all about science and I don't know of any science that supports intelligent design but yet at the same time they believe/have faith in a god as the creator(which would support intelligent design).

How does this not make what they accept in science but yet believe about a god conflict with each other?

Faith/Spiritual beliefs are from God
Science is made by Humans.

This is how I understand it, so therefore a scientist may hold a belief in God but at the same time look at the world through the eyes of science. (maybe they compare it?)

 

[exchemist]

I've seen some here say things like...
I'm all about science and I don't know of any science that supports intelligent design but yet at the same time they believe/have faith in a god as the creator(which would support intelligent design).

How does this not make what they accept in science but yet believe about a god conflict with each other?

The problem here is that you are mixing two ideas:

- On the one hand there is the well-publicised pseudoscience movement called "Intelligent Design" (ID), which makes a series of specific, bogus, claims about the development of life on Earth.

- On the other, there is the idea that nature was created by a God who is presumed to be intelligent. This could be taken to mean that nature is "designed" in some way, by an intelligence. But that is not ID.

Any Christian will subscribe to the latter. But that in no way implies the former.

(The ID movement of course chose its title carefully, in order to suggest it only claims what any Christian would subscribe to. But that is far from true.)

 

[Windwalker]

Yet if a god directed it, he was in control, made it happen.
In other words designed it.

Does God direct a tornado to form? Yet it takes the shape that it does because it emerges from the confluence of different interactive systems. It was 'designed' through natural systems. That has an inherent 'intelligence' to it, but that does not mean there was some god in the sky with a giant spoon stirring the clouds at that moment intending for that tornado to form directly over some poor sinner's house.

The ID argument, which is just basically a soft-sell version of the pseudoscience of Creationism, which is not based upon science at all, but a literal interpretation of Genesis as a book of science and history.

To say there is an inherent intelligence in the systems of nature would not be incorrect. But to say it was directed by an supernatural agent outside of the systems of nature, like a watchmaker making a watch, would be an error of the mind. It is an anthropomorphic projection of the human ego upon the Divine. It's bad science, and bad theology.

I certainly have no problem seeing the Divine within nature. Evolution is God creating. It's the "how" of Creation, but not from the outside, but from within. It is Life seeking Life.

 

[Stevicus]

I've seen some here say things like...
I'm all about science and I don't know of any science that supports intelligent design but yet at the same time they believe/have faith in a god as the creator(which would support intelligent design).

How does this not make what they accept in science but yet believe about a god conflict with each other?

I'm not sure, although I'm reminded of the commercials of a local air conditioning company which calls itself "Intelligent Design." They segue from talking about their beliefs in ID into making a pitch for A/C installation and repair.

As to your question, I suppose it's possible that someone could believe in a god or creator who isn't intelligent. That is, someone could look at the various stories in the Bible and the purported actions, decisions, and words of God and think "this guy ain't too bright."

Some people might say I'm being "blasphemous" by thinking of God in that way. They say things like "God moves in mysterious ways" and that we humans are too small and stupid to be able to understand the genius and supreme intelligence of God. That may be so, but then again, maybe God really isn't that intelligent.

He puts a tree in a garden and tells Adam and Eve not to eat from it, but then gets outwitted by a snake. If God is the author of the Bible, then we can evaluate His intelligence based on writing style, logic, continuity, consistency - and compare with what we know about the world today.

 

[metis]

I'm all about science and I don't know of any science that supports intelligent design

The two do not negate each other as a great many scientists are also theistic.

 

[Valjean]

Faith/Spiritual beliefs are from God
Science is made by Humans.

Apples and oranges. Science and faith are entirely different things.

Faith is from emotion, familiarity and convention. It's emotional, not evidenced.
"...from God" presupposes God. This has not been established.

This is how I understand it, so therefore a scientist may hold a belief in God but at the same time look at the world through the eyes of science. (maybe they compare it?)[/QUOTE]
Faith is unfounded, poorly evidenced belief.
Knowledge is evidenced belief.
Science is a process of investigation and assessment.

 

[1213]

I've seen some here say things like...
I'm all about science and I don't know of any science that supports intelligent design but yet at the same time they believe/have faith in a god as the creator(which would support intelligent design).

How does this not make what they accept in science but yet believe about a god conflict with each other?

Probably it depends on what is meant with science. Nowadays some people seem to think Fauci is the science, and many are faithful to him.

If science means only the method to examine world, it is not in any way in contradiction with God. If science also means the interpretations of what people make of scientific findings, that can be in contradiction with the God of the Bible. But those interpretations are not necessary facts or truth and person who is loyal (faithful) to God has no real scientific reason to accept them as the truth.

Also, faith is needed in any case. Person is faithful (=loyal) to science, if he trusts to it and keeps it as the authority.

 

[Windwalker]

If science means only the method to examine world, it is not in any way in contradiction with God.

I agree. It is only a contradiction to people's ideas about God and the ways in which they choose to interpret scripture and refuse to question their interpretations. That's why you have science deniers amongst some of the most ardent "believers". They can't imagine how they think about God can be wrong.

If science also means the interpretations of what people make of scientific findings, that can be in contradiction with the God of the Bible.

Such as? If science can demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt from many sources of data that the earth is in fact not 6000 years old, do you consider that a contradiction of the God of the Bible? I don't. Only certain Christians do, but certainly not most of them.

But those interpretations are not necessary facts or truth and person who is loyal (faithful) to God has no real scientific reason to accept them as the truth.

Ahh, no. They do have real scientific reasons to accept them as the truth. If your beliefs about God are challenged, that's your problem with your faith, not with the actual science.

Also, faith is needed in any case. Person is faithful (=loyal) to science, if he trusts to it and keeps it as the authority.

Not, they are not being faithful to science. That's nonsense. They just accept the veracity of it's claims based upon it's proven track record and methods. No faith is needed whatsoever.

 

[Valjean]

Probably it depends on what is meant with science. Nowadays some people seem to think Fauci is the science, and many are faithful to him.

If science means only the method to examine world, it is not in any way in contradiction with God. If science also means the interpretations of what people make of scientific findings, that can be in contradiction with the God of the Bible. But those interpretations are not necessary facts or truth and person who is loyal (faithful) to God has no real scientific reason to accept them as the truth.

But they do. Concordance with observation, reason and logic are reasons to accept them. Testing is a reason to accept them.
What more well evidenced, well tested 'interpretations' do we have? Contrasted with univedenced, untestable claims in an ancient, self-contradictory, patently inaccurate anthology of stories, the more likely world-view is clear, is it not?

Also, faith is needed in any case. Person is faithful (=loyal) to science, if he trusts to it and keeps it as the authority.[/QUOTE]No.
Science HATES loyalty or faith. Scientists are insulted if their proposals are not criticized. Attempts to disprove one's hypotheses are part of the scientific method.

I think you're drawing a false equivalence here. Faith-based religion is the exact opposite of evidence-based science.

 

[metis]

Probably it depends on what is meant with science. Nowadays some people seem to think Fauci is the science, and many are faithful to him.

The words "faithful" and "science" do not mesh well at all as our "faithfulness" is only to the use of the scientific method.

But those interpretations are not necessary facts or truth and person who is loyal (faithful) to God has no real scientific reason to accept them as the truth.

Whether one accepts reality or not is not ours to control within the scientific community, thus a person of faith can believe whatever they chose to believe in. However, "belief" and "Truth" often aren't the same.

Also, the NIH, the CDC, and the FDA can only propose guidelines as they don't have the compulsory power of law within them.

 

[Heyo]

I've seen some here say things like...
I'm all about science and I don't know of any science that supports intelligent design but yet at the same time they believe/have faith in a god as the creator(which would support intelligent design).

How does this not make what they accept in science but yet believe about a god conflict with each other?

Many prominent scientists are/were Deists. I.e. they believe(d) in a creator god who doesn't (have to) mess with its design once it started.
Others are theists who think god may mess with the world (just not with their field of study).

 

[1213]

...Testing is a reason to accept them...

Yes, I like the idea of testing and that a scientific fact can be observed.

"scientific fact, an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly..."
scientific fact

By that definition, evolution theory for example is just a theory, not a scientific fact, if it means all species have evolved from single species by the mechanisms of evolution.

...Science HATES loyalty or faith.

Are you speaking of Fauci? To me science is a method, not a person who has feelings.

...Scientists are insulted if their proposals are not criticized. Attempts to disprove one's hypotheses are part of the scientific method...

Maybe some, unfortunatelly that doesn't seem to be true for example in the case of Covid.

 

[1213]

...If science can demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt from many sources of data that the earth is in fact not 6000 years old, do you consider that a contradiction of the God of the Bible? I don't. Only certain Christians do, but certainly not most of them.

"Reasonable doubt" is funny idea. I could as well say that God's existence is demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt by the Bible and by this world.

I think real science prodeces facts, not beliefs that some people can't doubt.

There really is no scientific fact that proves earth is not 6000 years old.

...
They just accept the veracity of it's claims based upon it's proven track record and methods. ...

Yes, they have lot of faith. It is actually amazing, if you consider how many times "science" has been wrong.

 

[Windwalker]

"Reasonable doubt" is funny idea. I could as well say that God's existence is demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt by the Bible and by this world.

I'll put it this way. It's beyond a reasonable doubt that if I throw a lit match into a puddle of gasoline, it will start on fire. The evidence of the earth being more than 6000 year old is more certain than that even. That's what I mean by beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now, as far as God's existence goes, there is a reason the Bible says it's a matter of faith. If there was undeniable evidence, then faith is not necessary. "You are saved by overwhelming evidence and facts", the Bible does not say. Does it?

Do you consider faith a matter of logic and reason, or a matter of the heart? I believe the Bible teaches it's the latter, not the former.

There really is no scientific fact that proves earth is not 6000 years old.

Have you ever looked at all the evidences that prove the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old? You can't claim it's not much of anything that you can easily dispute. Unless you believe God made it look that old to test the faith of believers in Young Earth Creationism?

How Science Figured Out the Age of Earth

Yes, they have lot of faith. It is actually amazing, if you consider how many times "science" has been wrong.

Why would you need faith when you have data and facts to look at? I think you are mistaking believing science is reliably trustworth, with a religious faith. Those are two very different, but not contradictory things. They can complement each other perfectly well.

I, and a great many people believe in God, and accept science without being dishonest to either faith or intellect. Ask me how?

 

[Valjean]

Yes, I like the idea of testing and that a scientific fact can be observed.

"scientific fact, an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly..."
scientific fact

By that definition, evolution theory for example is just a theory, not a scientific fact, if it means all species have evolved from single species by the mechanisms of evolution.

Evolution is both a theory and a fact. It has been observed and documanted so extensively, from so many different disciplines, that one would have to be obtuse in the extreme to deny it. Change really has occurred over time.
https://ehistory.osu.edu/sites/ehis...h/Scopes/Documents/Evolutionfactandtheory.htm


What does "just a theory" mean anyway?

"Reasonable doubt" is funny idea. I could as well say that God's existence is demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt by the Bible and by this world.

But the Bible is just a collection of religious writings, like many other collections of writings. What makes it authoritative?
The books have been cherry-picked by one of many competing early Christian sects, from among many other gospels, and religious writings. Even so, the Bible is full of contradictions and errors, and almost all of it is of unknown authorship.
So what makes the existence of such a book evidence of anything? It states God exists, but so what? A claim isn't evidence.

I think real science prodeces facts, not beliefs that some people can't doubt.

How can a fact-based hypothesis precede the facts it's based on? Without these observed facts science would have nothing to work with.

Science is based on observed facts: things fall down, at a known speed. seasons correspond to the planet's angle to the Sun. Water becomes a solid at a certain temperature, &c. Science forms hypotheses based on these facts, then tests them, hopefully to discover new facts.

There really is no scientific fact that proves earth is not 6000 years old.

Yes, there are. Many, from many different disciplines.
The old-Earth theory is at least as well supported as the heliocentric theory, or the spherical Earth theory.


I said: ...Science HATES loyalty or faith.

Are you speaking of Fauci? To me science is a method, not a person who has feelings.

No. I'm speaking of the methodology of science, which eschews faith. It's this rejection of faith that's made science so incredibly successful at expanding our understanding of the world, over the past couple hundred years.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Faith/Spiritual beliefs are from God
Science is made by Humans.

This is how I understand it, so therefore a scientist may hold a belief in God but at the same time look at the world through the eyes of science. (maybe they compare it?)

A proper scientist would have to admit all sourcing comes only from people and nowhere else.

Observable, testable, repeatable.

 

[1213]

...
But the Bible is just a collection of religious writings, like many other collections of writings. What makes it authoritative?

I have no problem, if it is not authoritative for you. I believe it, because I see things going as it tells and I think it has great wisdom and truth about humans and good and right.

... the Bible is full of contradictions and errors, ...

That seems to be true only if you interpreted it in such way that it looks contradictory and erroneous.