jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (32 posts)

Can science help to bolster faith? Can faith bolster science?

  1. Ericdierker profile image83
    Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago

    Here is the premise: Science can in a real sense help to "prove" matters of faith. But it cannot disprove matters of faith.
    Oh for sure science can debunk things like tears coming from a statute or even show clearly that the time line of the bible is clearly not to be taken literally. It can date the "dead sea scrolls" and it can show how many "miracles" are not. And to strict constructionist literalists of the Holy Bible this is very disconcerting.
    Well let us leave the folks that are overly sensitive over there outstanding in their fields -- no really over there out there standing in their fields.

    So science can disprove these little things that some folks like to lean on to bolster their faith. I suggest that is a good thing. People that run around with little signs to form their faith need a wake up call to see the bigger picture. Faith does not require proof and indeed faith based on proof will soon be disproved if history is any indicator.
    Now perhaps there is someone who knows of some method to disprove my knowledge of God. I have yet to hear of it. That technique would be welcomed to be revealed here.

    So here is the forum focus of discussion: Is there really a way for science and faith to debunk each other.
    We are not talking religion here or the bible but strictly faith.

    1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
      EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Science doesn't really care to disprove matters of faith, why should it. Science provides us with facts about our universe and helps us understand how things work, so it actually inadvertently may indeed preclude faith based explanations with real truths.



      Science debunks faith all the time, but it has yet to be seen that faith can debunk science.

      That's like saying pure guesswork will debunk factual truths.

      1. Ericdierker profile image83
        Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You should watch some TV cop shows, the hero always goes on his gut instinct lol.
        What do you make of those "Catholic" peer reviews that use atheist scientists to establish true miracles. Meaning something totally not consistent with factual knowledge, and yet true?
        I have never looked into them deeply but understand they have scientific basis.

        1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
          EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Have you not noticed that most, if not all cop shows use the latest scientific techniques for solving crimes?



          What is a "Catholic peer review"?



          Such as?



          Then, maybe you should so you can support your claims, I await your evidence.

          1. Ericdierker profile image83
            Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            That is the cool part of the CSI's, all that razz a ma tazz stuff but it still comes down to her nagging feeling about something something that leads to the discovery of "truth".

            So in order to be a Saint - Canonized you must be declared to have been part of two certifiable miracles. So the Archdiocese put together a panel to determine if an action constitutes a miracle. Of course they are commonly medical in nature - curing so to speak. In order to "certify" they must have scientific evidence that there is no scientific evidence that it was not a miracle. I link here to a dude being pushed forward to be canonized - Knights of something founder. But they cannot find a miracle much less two.
            http://articles.courant.com/2013-08-02/ … -sainthood
            What say you of this wild and bizarre marriage of faith and science?

            1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
              EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              No, it doesn't, it comes down to hard evidence and facts.



              There is no marriage, they are on opposite sides of the intellectually explanatory spectrum.

              1. Ericdierker profile image83
                Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                And your basis for that exclamation of truth?

                You are hardwired, thinking outside of the box was either before your time or you just ignored it like dinosaur.
                Your rigidity is palpable like and evangelical Christian. Have you no room to accept other thought than your own?
                Are you so hardened that you cannot explore other possibilities than ones you come by, by yourself. You are the scientist that demands that the hypothesis meet your expectations. And so true trial and error is lost on you. Edison wrote that: I did not fail and the lighbulb two thousand times, i simply ruled out two thousand possibilities. You are not scientific for you have predestined notions. You are not open to possibilities your are frigid and rigid. You stopped growing and are a lab rat.

                1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Facts.



                  The term, "thinking outside of the box" is meaningless.



                  Thoughts or beliefs? The point is that one can contemplate thoughts and beliefs without having to accept them. That would then bring in the concepts of logic and reason.



                  You mean like the "possibilities" that you claim you have more senses than the rest of us?



                  And, the expectations are evidence and facts, not made up childish nonsense.



                  Are you inventing a light bulb or are you trying to tell us you are special over and above the rest of us?



                  Would your version of :"scientific and open to possibilities" include making claims of knowing God and having more senses than the rest of us?

                  Seriously.

                  1. Ericdierker profile image83
                    Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    It just is so my friend. I know God and you cannot because of some genetic intricacy.  I do not declare "better than thou art just that you do not have the ability to see beyond the common senses. I have no qualms with you. YOU are just stuck in an empirical world.
                    I would like it if I could introduce you to our world of faith and spirit but it is beyond your comprehension. your world of BC is ez.

                  2. Ericdierker profile image83
                    Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Encephaloid dude it turns out out you have no background in science, you are neither doctor nor lab scientist. You speak with authority yet you have none. What exactly is your scientific background? I at least hold a Bachelor in Sciences. I do not think you educated at all in such matters.

            2. profile image0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I don't think you are understanding how the Catholic Church declares an event a miracle. They don't look to atheists for help in the determination as you claimed.

              1. Ericdierker profile image83
                Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                False

                1. profile image0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Show or point me to the atheists who determine what are miracles for the Catholic Church. Kateri Tekakwitha was recently sainted because a boy with flesh eating decease survived. He was heavily medicated with the best antibiotic and the best care available and lost much of his face, but someone decided that because someone prayed for the recovery of the boy it was a miracle.

                  1. Ericdierker profile image83
                    Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Look it up yourself you self proclaimed scientist without degree or pedigree in the field.. Rad Man you speak eloquently but in fact you are not a scientist and hold not even a BS so you speak of science but have no knowledge of it.
                    Your words of science are deaf for you are not in anyway a scientist. Slow down and back off.

              2. Ericdierker profile image83
                Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You are wrong and speak without foundation.

                1. profile image0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm still waiting for the list of Atheists the RCC calls on to verify miracles? I suspect I'll be waiting a while.

  2. wilderness profile image95
    wildernessposted 3 years ago

    To some degree you answered your own question; depending on what your faith is, science sometimes debunks it.  If your faith says the statue is crying, for instance.

    Science can also bolster faith.  If your faith is that the universe was created 15 billion years ago, it can bolster that.  But that is assuming that faith can be "improved" by knowledge, facts and truth.  If, as you say, none of those are a part of faith then science can do nothing.

    As far as disproving your "knowledge" of God - no, science can do nothing for you there as you have no knowledge of God.  Only faith, belief, opinion, subjective feelings and other similar thought processes.  Knowledge requires far more than that and is the field of science.

    That does NOT mean that faith is inferior to knowledge; it means it is different.  Faith has a very definite place in our lives, even faith in an invisible god, if it produces the feelings you want in your life.    Faith can most definitely produce feelings and emotions that all the knowledge in the world cannot, and in that manner can be quite beneficial.

    1. Ericdierker profile image83
      Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Awesome bro. That is why I love you man. And that makes me ask a question. Do you think love is just chemical reactions?

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        If you consider chemical reactions to include electron travel through neurons, then yes of course. What else could it be, emanating from the brain as it does?

  3. tirelesstraveler profile image86
    tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago

    Today's WSJ 1/11/14 there is a book review on a book rev "Maimonides" by Moshe Halbertal. " Maimonides' vision of a God who reveals himself through nature vaulted all religion into modernity."  In other words The heavens declare the glory of God.
    I think without everything we are bound to miss something.

  4. TwerkZerker profile image90
    TwerkZerkerposted 3 years ago

    As far as I'm concerned, faith and science shouldn't be at odds because the two are two completely different things which answer very different questions.

    When boiled down to the utmost simplicity, science answers "
    How?" and faith answers "Why?". For example, If I were to ask "Why is there green?", a scientist could tell me "Because the combining of blue light and yellow light produces green light", but this doesn't answer the question, does it? WHY is there green? Science can't tell us without large-scale, untestable guesswork. Even Richard Dawkins agrees to the fact that science and faith answer two fundamentally different questions.

    There are also inherent limitations to science that prevent it from "disproving" or "proving" God as people say. Don't get me wrong--science can support faith or evidence it, but "evidence" isn't the same as "proof". I can evidence God's existence with the unfathomable complexity of the natural world and the sheer impossibility that such a magnificent creation could ever come into being by chance. This makes perfect sense to me, yet it isn't proof. I can't quantify, test, repeat, or write a mathematical proof for God. But by the same token, not being able to quantify, test, repeat, or write a proof for something hardly means it can't exist. The ancient Greeks had no way of proving quantum-level physics existed, but that doesn't mean it didn't back then (and still today).

    Science, by definition, only concerns itself with the observation and analysis of interactions of matter and energy in the natural universe. The physical matter-energy universe itself is the limit of science. Now, God, by nature of being...well...God, transcends this universe. He isn't bound by time or the laws of this universe as we are--because He created them and therefore had to exist before any of them were in place!

    Using our limited scientific knowledge of this universe (and only this universe) to prove or disprove the God whose very existence requires him to transcend the universe is like going to a gallery, staring at a painting, and using your analysis of the brush strokes therein to produce a historically accurate biography of the painter. It just can't be done!

    At most, science can only play an indirect role of providing supporting evidence, but this evidence (whether for or against) is not proof. Whether a person believes or disbelieves in God, it is just that: a position of faith.

    Apologies for the lengthiness! Many thanks to anyone patient enough to read all this!

 
working