Science or God?

[mix]

Poll question: Science or God?

I mean the God(s) of the Abrahamic faiths and the soft and hard sciences.

[AsahinaKimi]

1. Why not both?

Can't be just one or the other. I am Buddhist, but love Science.

[mix]

2. But does Buddhism have the same conflict with science though,

the way certain strains of fundamentalist Christianity do, for example?

[ladjf]

3. I don't think so. nt

[mix]

48. Then if not, why do some faiths/beliefs/religions/ways of being

not have the same problem with science as the more extremist sects within Christianity, for example?

[ladjf]

50. Buddhism is based upon its followers becoming "Enlightened", which

as I understand their use of the term, to understand how one relates to the Universe and it's inhabitants. Extremist Christian sects, and in many other religions as well, the base their beliefs
on the notions of their preachers and in order to do so, they must learn to disregard and wisdom that be come from objective, rational thought processes. So, with that mind set, only fallacious
superstition can flourish until that particular sect implodes and disappears.

Good question from you. A lot longer answer than the one I offered. (too lazy)

[Zanzobar]

4. The question might be better posed, "Religion or Science?"

Science and a creator are not mutually exclusive, necessarily.

[mix]

6. A prime mover is more relevant here than the generic term "religion." nt

[kick-ass-bob]

13. You mean the dude in the sky with the beard and a big "G" chain

around his neck?

Then: science.

[mix]

16. that's "him" nt

[Zanzobar]

55. The problem is, religion can exist without a prime mover

Without regard to the reality of a prime mover, religion exists.

Without regard to the reality of religion, a prime mover may or may not exist.

Religion is real estate. A prime mover is an abstraction.

A prime mover holds no inquisition. A religion does.

On edit:

In reference to "God", the original question might be posed: Abstraction or reality?

Of course, reality wins out.

In reference to "Religion", the original question might be posed: Reality or reality?

Religion is a reality that we must deal with. God is not, necessarily.

[mix]

59. Abrahamic religions are based on a prime mover.

I am not talking about religions in general.

Aquinas "adopted Aristotle’s proof of the existence of a primary unmoved mover, but the primary mover at which Aquinas arrived is very different from that of Aristotle; it is in fact the God of Judaism and Christianity."
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/476354/prime-mover

[Zanzobar]

60. The question was: Science or God?

The question can only be considered categorically. In that sense, Abraham and other religious icons are trivial.

The question considers all the sciences and all the gods.

And on edit:

"God" is nonetheless an abstraction. Even the Abrahamic god.

The only reality you can face is the religion. Certainly, if Abraham's god existed and you could converse with it, your question would not be necessary unless you were proposing open revolt. Is that what you are proposing?

[mix]

61. No, only that you read before responding.

From the OP: "I mean the God(s) of the Abrahamic faiths and the soft and hard sciences."

This issue is more than theological, it also has historical and anthropological relevance. Within the Abrahamic religions there are sects who deny the validity of science. Why is this when there is a long history of scientists who believe in the Christian God for example?

Abstraction or not, people believe and that is a social and cultural fact that has nothing to do with your or my beliefs about prime movers and monotheisms.

[AlecBGreen]

73. a possible answer

"Within the Abrahamic religions there are sects who deny the validity of science. Why is this when there is a long history of scientists who believe in the Christian God for example?"

Because there are some who believe that the Bible is to be taken literally in nearly all instances, that it is a completely factual account, and that when explanations by modern science run counter to what they perceive the Bible says, their faith tells them to always go with the Bible.

These same people and I disagree. They say "The Bible is literal!" and I say "How much?" and they will say "All of it!" My reply is, when Jesus said forgive your neighbor 77 times, does that mean we are to stop forgiving on the 78th offense? The response is usually "of course not." So I ask, if this is not taken literally, why not other parts too? When Jesus said "drink this cup, its my blood. Eat this bread, it is my flesh" how literal was he being? My point is not to needle and try to stump them, but rather to see that they do not in fact take ALL of the Bible to be 100% literal. It boils down to HOW MUCH do you take to be literal and HOW MUCH do you take to be figurative. IMO, its a personal decision.

[dawg]

5. Both!!!!!

And that picture is excellent example. God giving life to Adam, just as in Genesis. But lots of people also believe that Michaelangelo also worked in secret scientific knowlege of the human brain. Read more at the link:

http://www.cracked.com/article_18386_7-mind-blowing-easter-eggs-hidden-in-famous-works-art.html

[Kalyke]

36. Was going to post the same thing!

[foxfeet]

7. False dichotomy.

[mix]

9. But a political reality. nt

[foxfeet]

12. So, what's your point?

[mix]

15. If you see a nuance to this debate that I am overlooking, then point it out.

I myself am not Jewish, Christian or Muslim, but I have no problem with those who have reconciled their faith with science.

For many right-wing Christians this, however, is not a "false dichotomy" but religious conviction.

I didn't think this really needed pointing out, but apparently I was mistaken.

[foxfeet]

17. So you were hoping for the input of right-wing Christians?

Sugar, I hate to break it to you, but you're unlikely to get that in this forum.

[mix]

18. Splenda, you read me like a book.

:spray:

[hfojvt]

24. What is 'science' though?

Is it the same a 'scientism' or 'materialism'?

[mix]

28. You forgot empiricism, hypothesizing, observation and

provisional and consensual truths.

The classical definition of the science method has been most seriously challenged in the social sciences, but this storm has passed.

[hfojvt]

34. I didn't forget them

I don't consider them to be relevant. Somebody can believe they are being empirical and testing their hypotheses, when, in fact, all of their testing happens in a frame - a frame of materialism, with pre-suppositions which are neither question, tested, and often not acknowledged.

That, of course, is the root of the conflict.

[mix]

35. Regardless of your philosophical squabbles with science,

its methods over that last 600 years have radically changed the material world and our understanding of it, for good and bad.

[hfojvt]

42. so have its philosophies

and isn't that the argument? Whether "for good" or "bad". The people choosing science as their religion are declaring its goodness.

[skepticscott]

58. And who exactly are these people

choosing science as their "religion"? And what does "goodness" have to do with it, as opposed to success at what it purports to be able to do?

[Sal316]

81. ...and for the other side....

For many right-wing Christians this, however, is not a "false dichotomy" but religious conviction.

...and for many atheists, religion is for the simple minded and has no use in society.

Duality is for the simple minded, stemming from the need to be absolutely right where others are absolutely wrong.

[darkstar3]

82. Oh, so you're saying that dualists are absolutely wrong?

I love it when you crawl out from under your rock. You're hilarious.

[Sal316]

84. Actually, that's not what I said at all.

I appreciate your attempt to put words into my mouth, but I'll speak for myself.

What I said was, and I'll try to use small words, is that on both sides of this issue the demonization of the other side comes from a dualistic mindset which leads them to believe that only they can be right while the others have to be wrong.

I didn't say that dualistic thinking was right or wrong, just that it stems from a more simplistic mindset. You're the one that had to place it in a right/wrong context.

[darkstar3]

85. And you're the one who simply can't see the irony in your post. n/t

[Sal316]

86. Actually, what it is, is...

As you read the poll, and read my response, and responded to me, you realized the poll was a false dichotomy.

As you realized the question was a false dichotomy, and a false dichotomy being a logical fallacy, you began to see the poll question as bogus.

Understanding the poll was bogus, you saw that your worldview was being challenged.

However, since you already responded, you were committed to maintaining your worldview even though the question was bogus, and this is illustrated by the fact that your response to me wasn't substantive at all, but a personal attack directed at me with your "crawl from under your rock" comment.

In fact, your view is that there has to be a right or wrong in nearly every circumstance, including questions that are as nonsensical as "giraffes or a cool summer breeze".

The irony, therefore, lies in your initial response to my comment.

[darkstar3]

87. Still with the you vs. me while claiming to be external to duality.

Your irony meter must be broken.

[Sal316]

88. I'm sorry you feel that way.

I'm sorry you're stuck in an "us vs. them" world.

If you'll notice, nowhere did I ever say it was the 'wrong' worldview, just that it was yours.

Do I agree? No, but that doesn't make mine right and yours wrong....they're just different.

As I teach my kids, different does not automatically equal wrong.

Personally, I find it to be limiting... in business, and life in general, by automatically discounting people on the basis of their viewpoints.

But if it makes you happy, hey, that's your gig. Just understand that not everyone believes like you do.

[darkstar3]

89. You were very careful to avoid the word wrong,

but you leave no doubt of your views when you claim that other people are being "simplistic". As usual, your posts ooze the superiority that you have supposedly found in your theology. The only problem is that, as much as you attempt to be above it all looking down on those you disagree with, you contradict yourself. The very duality you claim to be above at the end of your post #81 is more than evident in the sentences the precede it.

I happen to know that most people don't believe as I do, but then I know what I (don't) believe. You still have yet to explain to anyone on this board the precepts of your supposedly evolved faith that have been derived from a careful literal/non-literal reading of the bible, so tell me: Do you know what YOU believe? Can you articulate to anyone who wasn't your classmate in divinity school exactly what your belief is and what it is based upon?

You are standing in quicksand telling others that they are on shaky ground. In this subthread, you are the very epitome of the common phrase "pot, kettle."

[Sal316]

90. I wasn't "careful"....

...I just don't see it as wrong. Big difference. All your verbal gymnastics and attempts at projection don't change that fact.

Looking at everything as it has to fit within either one box or another is simplistic, and is limiting...that's just fact. Is it wrong? No. It is what it is.

It's like spending our lives looking out the same window of a house and never looking out any other window. The view through the one may be comforting, but it is also limiting, as we miss everything that happens outside another part of the house.

The fact that you have yet to address the obvious logical fallacy of the poll question, your initial response belittling religious faith as "mental masturbation", and your attack on me after my response says more than all the words in your posts.

And, yes, I have explained my beliefs, more than once, but they've been met with derision and calls of 'cherry picking' or the like in an attempt to fit me into a singular box. In fact, religious believers who hold similar viewpoints are often met with derision because, for some, unity must equal uniformity.

Personally, I've found that getting away from dualism has been liberating. Some of my best friends and allies are people that hold beliefs that contradict mine. However, understanding that those beliefs make up who they are, validating that fact by demonstrating you can look through their eyes even though you may not agree, helps to build a feeling of commonality that can overcome division.

Too often people look at each other through glasses that magnify their differences leading to one person discounting their worth, their dignity, and their very humanity. This leads to anger, suspicion, paranoia, and can perpetuate intolerance and injustice.

I prefer to view things and go into experiences without presuppositions, which allows commonalities to come to the surface.

But again, that's just me.

[darkstar3]

91. Well, let's see Captain Superior...

The logical fallacy of the poll has been addressed several times by others in this thread. I feel no need to beat a dead horse.

You claim victimhood and persecution for explaining your beliefs, but in fact there is no place on this board where you have bothered to explain them. The closest that you have come is telling others that certain passages from your holy book must be read metaphorically. You still have yet to show anyone how you arrived at that conclusion, or how you can tell which metaphorical reading is the right one. You balk there, reliably, and claim that your theology studies have given you this power and that you can't explain beyond that. This is a laughable defense.

If you know what you believe and why you believe it then you shouldn't have trouble explaining it to others. Certainly it would take the better part of a semester to explain EVERY piece in the Bible, but when challenged on a single passage (as you so often have been) it should be no trouble for you to pull out the measuring stick and show us methodically how it is used. No trouble, that is, if you know what you actually believe and why you believe it. No trouble, that is, if you've derived your beliefs from the careful study you claim rather than using that careful study to reinforce beliefs that were already existent.

As for the rest of your pontification, it does nothing to answer my previous points and serves only as more evidence that you consider yourself above those you disagree with. The "I'm liberated, I have no presuppositions or prejudices" routine is just another way for you to lie to yourself and feel superior to those with whom you debate. And the funny thing is, the lie is evident in the post that started this subthread and you refuse to see it.

[Sal316]

93. Why do defensive?

The logical fallacy of the poll has been addressed several times by others in this thread. I feel no need to beat a dead horse.

Unless, of course, it suits your agenda to do so.

I never once claimed victimhood or persecution. Please, don't let facts get in the way of your ranting here.
I have explained my beliefs, and at times, and at great length, offered my opinion as to why literalist interpretations of scripture passages are sorely lacking (i.e. being completely removed from their context). This has been met, at times, by poo-flingers who's sole purpose is to come into R/T to tell believers how incredibly irrational, stupid, misled, etc., they are. Quite honestly, I feel for those who fling poo.

If you're looking for a list stating which are literal and which are not then, sorry, can't help you. You can keep asking over and over for that, but you won't get it from me. Why don't you ask the fundies, I'm sure they'll be glad to give you a list like that.

You still have yet to show anyone how you arrived at that conclusion, or how you can tell which metaphorical reading is the right one.

See, there you go with the right/wrong thing again. You really need to get past this.

Jesus didn't even want people to march in lockstep uniformity. The prayer in John 17 is for unity, not uniformity.

Tell you what, try reading Romans 14, where Paul talks about 'disputable matters', or Acts 15, the Council of Jerusalem, where the Apostles argue circumcision and come to a conclusion that 'seems to be a good idea', or perhaps 1 Corinthians 12, where Paul talks about diversity in the Church through using the human body as a metaphor, then you might start to get it.


That's just another way of trying to force the entire world into one of two boxes. Seems that, with those who demand such, there has to be an "A" or a "B". This is the same thing the Pharisees did. There was a list of right/wrong, sacred/profane, and as long as they did one and didn't do the other, they thought they were golden. You see, they thought that what we know as the 10 Commandments in the OT was more of a list of do-s and don't-s instead of a reflection of one's life, if one understood what the Holiness Code was truly about.

I also never said I didn't have presuppositions or prejudices. I still do, the difference is now I recognize what and when they appear and can set them aside when they do. It's called growth, and it's a life-long process.

[darkstar3]

94. Your verbosity simply dodges my point, Sal.

I want to see the measuring stick. You have a metaphorical measuring stick against which you measure scripture, and I want to know where you got it and how it functions. I want to know this because there are some verses that you obviously believe meet the measure, and many others that you have to stretch in order to fit. I also want to see it because I'm positive that it is the same measuring stick that different believers and non-believers use to judge and create their own morality, and you've simply painted it a different color and called it better.

And you know exactly why my posts seem defensive. I do not respond well to passive-aggressive or holier-than-thou twaddle, and your posts drip with it. They also drip with hypocrisy, because you continue to claim that you are above duality while clearly engaging in it yourself.

ETA: BTW, here's a direct quote showing you contradicting yourself:

I prefer to view things and go into experiences without presuppositions, which allows commonalities to come to the surface.
...
I also never said I didn't have presuppositions or prejudices.

[Amaya]

95. sal is big into

passive-aggressive holier-than-thou twaddling


the fact that i am posting will give him a big woody for the old days- he thinks he's special like that :evilgrin:

God, i'm mean }(


( sal i've wanted to say this for years.... you were always a douchbag) :7

[trotsky]

97. ...

:rofl:

[Sal316]

98. It's douchebag.

If you're going to insult someone, at least spell it correctly.

[trotsky]

99. I'd be more embarrassed if I misspelled "so."

Why do defensive, Sal?

[darkstar3]

100. Grateful for a distraction, were you? n/t

[Sal316]

101. The measuring stick today....

...is not the same it was. That's sort of the point, you know, to constantly strive for greater understanding. As I learn more, it allows me to look at scripture from yet another angle, perhaps seeing something I didn't see yesterday, last week, last month, or last year.

Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?

You seem to grant other subjects and schools of thought the ability to change and grow over time, why not when it comes to theology?

I've explained what currently makes up the "measuring stick". Linguistics (Hebrew, Aramaic, Koine Greek, and their idiomatic nuances), cultural geography, who is doing the talking, who is being spoken to, etc. As to where I got it... from school, from church history, from other theologians... a number of places.

I also want to see it because I'm positive that it is the same measuring stick that different believers and non-believers use to judge and create their own morality...

Are there similarities? Sure. However, I have yet to meet someone who has had the identical educational and life experiences as me, so to say it's the 'same' is a stretch on your part.

....and you've simply painted it a different color and called it better.

You called it 'better', not me.

Do I believe I'm right? Yes. Do I also believe that I could be wrong? Yes. In fact, in some cases, I certainly hope I am wrong.

I don't have it all figured out, nor do I have all the answers. I also realize that I've still a long way to grow.

And like I said, understanding and moving beyond dualistic thinking allows me to recognize when my presuppositions and prejudices appear so that I can work on putting them aside and view things from outside my own worldview. In the quote you gave, I used the words "I prefer", which is different than the more definite "I do". Prefer is flexible and allows for the possibility of being wrong, while "Do" is rigid and assumes that one knows all they need to know and that they're not capable of being wrong.

It's my opinion that your posts are so defensive because it's your natural response when either: a) your worldview is challenged; or; b) there's a possibility that your presuppositions and/or prejudices could be wrong. It stems from an inherent need to be right, all the time.

[darkstar3]

102. Last first. Psychoanalysis over the internet will get you nowhere,

unless of course your last name is Frist.

Here's my major problem with what you're saying:

You seem to grant other subjects and schools of thought the ability to change and grow over time, why not when it comes to theology?

I have many reasons for this, some of which come from scripture itself, like "yesterday, today, forever." But the most important reason why I and others scoff at the idea of theology changing over time is not the change, but the methodology.

You cannot compare theology to other subjects and schools of thought. Scientific subjects and schools of thought change only when a proper and repetitive methodology is followed. A methodology, I might add, that has been standardized and is recognized worldwide in the discipline. The same is true for linguistics, history, and just about every topic of study that you can name. Theology, however, as you admitted in your opening paragraph, changes essentially on a whim. There is an indiscernible difference between the diverse and diverging changes made by everyone worldwide in the field of theology, and "making it up as you go along."

(You don't think it says something that theology DIverges while all other disciplines of inquiry tend to CONverge given time?)

I asked you to show me the measuring stick that you use to measure scripture. You have now told me that the measuring stick changes. That is contrary to the very idea of a measuring stick, metaphorical or otherwise, and only goes to show that your measuring stick changes in order to measure up to something else, something more, something beyond the realm of your standard theology. You change what you will accept from scripture based on what you already believe is right. What source do you have for that belief, and keep in mind that if you say "bible" or "theology" you are engaging in circular reason.

Additionally: You believe you are right, and accept the possibility that you could be wrong. Right and wrong. That doesn't sound dualistic to you? You haven't moved beyond shit.

[dawg]

8. I said both but I voted for God.

I didn't want him to not have any votes. :(

[Uben]

10. Him?

Her.

[mix]

11. them?

[trotsky]

41. It.

[Meshuga]

79. That god makes me hungry for some reason. n/t

[Occam Bandage]

14. I'll take the salad, if you've got light dressing. nt

[mix]

20. I'll stick with my Twinkies, thank you very much. nt

[Romulox]

19. I think the question, as posed, is "culture wars" bullshit

I don't look to either science or religion to define the meaning of my life as a human being. Therefore, where is the conflict?

[mix]

21. Cultural wars bullshit is right.

That is where the "conflict" is.

Some, such as yourself, have sorted through this issue and formed your own world view. But this question is at the heart of the political malaise of our country and checking the pulse of liberals/democrats/progressives is hardly fueling the cultural wars.

But keep tilting at windmills.

[Romulox]

22. I just notice that every election is about GAWD and ABORSHUNZ while war and poverty proceed

unchecked. :shrug:

[mix]

23. f*cked up, ain't it? nt

[Renew Deal]

25. Where's the both option?

:shrug:

[mix]

29. Jesus, what do you think the "other" category is for? nt

[uppityperson]

26. "the God(s) of the Abrahamic faiths" is too limiting so Othere

[mix]

32. This poll is not meant to be religiously inclusive.

But if there are other faiths that have sects which reject a scientific world view, then enlighten us.

[haifa lootin]

27. I never realized Adam was left-handed

but then I'm an atheist...
:rofl:

[mix]

37. He seems to be quite casual in his attire as well. nt

[CanSocDem]

30. As if those are the only choices.

I like the subtle way 'science' and 'religion' use each other for their own enhancement. I prefer "other's"......

Of all belief systems available to us humans, these two might be the most destructive to the human spirit.

.

[TheKentuckian]

31. yes and other things too like nature, family, friends, and animals

[steve2470]

33. Both nt

[JuniperLea]

38. As a devout Agnostic...

I ask, why can't it be both? Why can't God have invented chemistry, physics, etc., and we're his giant chemistry set?

[mix]

39. As a devout nothing, I too have always thought this was a reasonable position,

if you are Christian for example. Descartes had no problem reconciling the two.

[WolverineDG]

53. Because that idea is not acceptable to fundamentalist atheists nt

[JuniperLea]

54. They can have their own thoughts:)

[TZ]

68. and there are so many of them burning xtians at the stake

for their beliefs. :sarcasm:
I've never met an atheist that tries to tell me how to run my science lab. And I've never tried to tell the Pope how to run his church. But somehow, I get religious folks telling me how to run/or teach my sciences. So who is the fundamentalists here?

[WolverineDG]

71. Believe only in science, say the "rational" fundamentalist atheists

except when science comes up with a conclusion "rational" fundamentalist atheists don't agree with.

dg

[HuckleB]

74. Say what?

:shrug:

[laconicsax]

80. Devout agnostic?

What does that even mean?

Is there an agnostic church no one can find where you congregate with other agnostics at a time that no one knows?
Do you dogmatically reject the possibility that we can be reasonably certain of anything?

What do you mean?

[jdp349]

92. Because that's just another arbitrary proposition...

[TexasObserver]

40. I consider God and Science inseparable.

God is the science we have yet to learn, all the things we do not yet understand or perhaps cannot understand.
My concept of God is nothing like that of religions, however. I hope there is a God who lovingly considers me his son (or hers), but whether that is true of not, science is not in opposition to God. Science is in opposition to IGNORANCE & SUPERSTITION, which far too many think is God.

[yurbud]

43. the supernatural is unknowable by natural means

therefore, you can only hope rather than believe or know it's there.

If you think you see a vision of God, you have no way to distinguish it from a hallucination, a trick, or if the supernatural exists, as a demon posing as an angel of light (an option mentioned in the Bible).

If someone else says they have seen a vision of God, it is even less reliable since there is the added option that they could be lying.

But most of the religious revelations people claim are of a much more ambiguous nature anyway: a feeling or intuition, which even Christian apologist CS Lewis could simply be the result of temperament or good digestion.

[mix]

46. That's why it's called "faith." Reason won't get you there. nt

[yurbud]

52. that makes faith meaningless if it is based on no evidence

[mix]

56. Yet millions believe. They have faith.

False consciousness? Faith in what cannot be scientifically proven has been around awhile, it's universal. Your empiricism and materialism works for the hard and soft sciences and in law, but not so much for the simple fact that so many believe in what cannot be rationally explained.

[yurbud]

70. Michael Shermer had a good hypothesis for faith in HOW WE BELIEVE:

People with unrealistic optimism were likely to persist in situations where pessimists or even those with a realistic assessment of success would give up, giving the optimists a survival edge.

Belief in life after death or a spiritual force shaping events for the good is the ultimate extension of that optimism, especially when you see that death is unavoidable and life will probably suck all the way through.

It beats the hell out of what Mark Twain said when someone asked him where he thought he would go after he died, and he said the same place he was before he was born, nowhere.

But faith being better for survival than lack of it doesn't make it true. And nowadays, it can actually inhibit society from embracing scientific findings that CAN actually improve and extend our lives.

[nyc 4 Biden]

44. Both. n/t

[stray cat]

45. Drilling holes in your head for healing is science as well

Real Scientific Truth may not be that different than a believe in a divine being

[mix]

47. that is a colorful analogy nt

[silverweb]

49. Both.

I have no conflict.

Conflicts between faith and science arise from human-defined religious dogmas and each sect's striving for hegemony.

[tortoise1956]

65. I agree with both

It wasn't too long ago that one could be both a scientist and religious, and reconcile them both.

I personally believe that there is some supreme power or motivating source behind life as we know it. I just don't hold out much hope for any religion that teaches they are the only path to enlightenment.

[silverweb]

66. Exactly.

And for some real fun, we have all kinds of cosmologies to play with, like 50+ dimensions and multiple universes, and their intersection with various possible forms of theism.

Dogmatic certitude is a childish insult to whatever supreme power/motivating source exists. If only we could say our seeking was always in good faith, I think that would count in our favor. Unfortunately, it's too often just a means to manipulate and control others.

I just like to sit and enjoy being wrapped in the mind-boggling awe.

[MisterP]

51. well, both have been described as blinding... nt

[mix]

57. .

[MisterP]

62. I was thinking more in Thomas Dolby's terms

and also in the insufferable radiance of the Divine (a la the Semele myth/example/illustration)

[GliderGuider]

63. The question is a false dichotomy, of course.

I don't believe in god. I think that "science" is a very interesting way of looking at the universe, though not the only way that's useful.

I don't see science as being in opposition to some god-concept. For me the antonym for "science" would be "meditation" (or something like that). That's because science relies on externalized, objective evidence and tends to be reductionist, while activities like meditation rely on internalized, subjective evidence and tend to be holistic. Neither is better or worse than the other, they just operate in different domains.

Gods, on the other hand, are just projections of human hierarchic tendencies.

[skepticscott]

67. No, science need not be in opposition to

"some" god concept. It just happens to be in opposition to MOST god concepts. Most religions cling stubbornly to dogma, while science continually changes its view of the world, as new evidence comes to light (the exact opposite of dogma, despite the many idiotic characterizations of science as a "religion"). Then there are the folk who like to consider themselves religious, but who constantly morph the description of their "god" to fit into the ever-smaller gaps left by science, leaving one to wonder why they even need a "god" to begin with.

[AlecBGreen]

75. it depends on what you are trying to explain

"(Science) just happens to be in opposition to MOST god concepts."

Science has a different explanation for the formation of the Earth and the appearance of our great biodiversity. In this instance, science and a literal interpretation of Genesis are greatly at odds.

When the psalmist declares that earth is God's footstool and that his voice is the mighty thunder, I personally dont take that literally so (to me) its not in opposition.

Modern miraculous healing occurs (such as a complete remittance of terminal cancer, etc) but scientists will tell you there is a scientific explanation, we just cant explain it right now. OK thats fine with me, perhaps thats what was happening in Jesus' time. Perhaps he DID cure leprosy by some physical means that we cannot explain. OTOH as an earth science teacher I have a hard time trying to hypothesize a scientific explanation for how Jesus walked on water and calmed a raging storm.

As for the heart of Christian concepts (i.e. the bulk of the NT), they are almost entirely spiritual so its hard for science to say one way or the other. Does a life of sin lead to spiritual death? Thats not really something that can be tested in a clinical setting. I suppose you could argue that a persons feelings of regret & remorse over their perceived wrongdoing could lead to emotional and physical breakdown. I think all of us know people whose high levels of stress bring on frequent sickness. On a strictly anecdotal level, Ive found that the oldest people Ive known tend to be joyous, humble, faithful people. Obviously correlation does not equal causation but its food for thought.

"Most religions cling stubbornly to dogma, while science continually changes its view of the world, as new evidence comes to light..."

Science can change slowly as well. Despite great evidence, Alfred Wegener's hypothesis of Continental Drift was rejected for 50+ years. I think that religion & science are similar in that they tend to be relatively unchanging for long periods of time but rapid spurts of change can occur seemingly overnight. With that said, I think science changes quicker and (here's the kicker) science EMBRACES that change. I cant think of many religions that relish the evolution of their dogma!

[skepticscott]

78. Billions of people

adhere to religions that make truth claims about the physical world that are utterly at odds with demonstrable scientific and historical fact. That divergence goes far beyond the lunacy of Biblical creationism. When a Catholic theologian says that it is unquestionably true that wine changes to actual blood at the Eucharist (hardly a trivial point in RCC doctrine), he is in complete opposition to fact. That is a physical matter, not a spiritual one, and only a single example out of many.

And religious dogma changes slowly (when it does at all) for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with fact or evidence, and the requirement that new theories and paradigms accumulate evidence in their favor that outweighs that of the prevailing view of things. Continental drift was slow to be accepted not because of any scientific "dogmatism", but because it took a while for a plausible mechanism to be demonstrated. Without that, the likelihood of it being true could be justifiably and rationally called into question. Science doesn't just embrace that change..that change, based on new evidence and discoveries, embodies science.

[mix]

69. Of course it is...but just ask a climate change denier or

someone who rejects evolution...a false dichotomy, but a political fact in our country.

[darkstar3]

64. Since "God" explains nothing in a satisfactory or complete fashion,

I'll stick with science.

Anthropomorphization is mental masturbation...

[AlecBGreen]

72. both

I am a science teacher (HS biology and earth science) and a Christian. I have no difficulty in reconciling modern science and my faith.

[mix]

76. I'm not a science teacher or a Christian.

But your position makes perfect sense to me.

[trotsky]

83. However the issue comes when you DO find a place they are in conflict.

For instance, do you believe in the virgin birth?

Do you believe that Jesus was a real person, and that he was clinically dead for a day and a half before being brought back to life?

Do you believe that Jesus really fed a crowd of thousands with just two fish and five loaves of bread?

When science conflicts with your religious beliefs, which one do you choose?

[caitxrawks]

77. let's give a round of applause to science.

No gods in this household :)

[Iggo]

96. True or False?

[klatu]

103. Resolving the science vs religion debate.......

What science, religion, philosophy or theology, Hawkins or
Dawkins thought impossible has happened. History now has it's
first fully demonstrable proof for faith. And coming  from
outside all existing faiths, clearly has 'tradition' in the
cross hairs. Quoting from an online review: 

"The first ever viable religious conception capable of
leading reason, by faith, to observable consequences which can
be tested and judged is now a reality. A teaching that
delivers the first ever religious claim of insight into the
human condition that meets the Enlightenment criteria of
verifiable, direct cause and effect, evidence based truth
embodied in experience. For the first time in history, however
unexpected or unwelcome, the world must contend with a claim
to new revealed truth, a moral wisdom not of human
intellectual origin, offering access by faith, to absolute
proof, an objective basis for moral principle and a fully
rational and justifiable belief! " 

If confirmed and there appears a growing concerted effort to
test and authenticate this material,  of which I am taking
part, this will represent a paradigm change in the nature of
faith and in the moral and intellectual potential of human
nature itself;  untangling the greatest  questions of human
existence: sustainability, consciousness, meaning, suffering,
free will and evil. And at the same time addressing the most
profound problems of our age.

While the religious will find this news most difficult,  those
who have claimed to be of an Enlightenment mind should find it
of particular interest. But if they are unable to appreciate
this change in the historical faith paradigm, to one that
conforms precisely to a criteria subject to test and
confirmation, then their own 'claim'  to rationality is no
more than pretension nor better then those theological
illusions they find so abhorrent.

A unexpected revolution appears to be under  way. More info at
http://www.energon.org.uk

[Iggo]

105. -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZ6N5m8FpVg

[Lucian]

104. One of those is based on fact and proof, the other, not so much.

I go with science.