Do religion and science attempt to show the same thing?

[Archaeopteryx]

Nothing in the physical universe can explain its own existence, i.e., something does not come from nothing. In order for there to be something (and there is), there must be at least one state that is self-existent and does not derive its existence from something else. And it must be nonphysical. This does not posit God, it posits a nonphysical entity that explains its own existence and is uncaused.

Why must it be nonphysical?

The raw materials that have resulted in the universe as we have it have been simultaneously brought together in an amazing array of combinations. Combinations that are to amazing to have happened by accident. This is the argument to design.

Natural processes are capable of producing complex structures.

 

[golgotha61]

Well, I don't use religion to determine what is good or bad, I use my brain.

You can use religion if it suits you though.

I use my brain/mind as well, but the difference is that I recognize that this process of defining what is good or evil is credited to the conscience which of course is a function of the brain/mind. I contend that the conscience is given to man by God, so that the human race can continue its survival until its members submit to God Himself. Even Nietzsche recognized the need for God and the ramifications of killing God when he popularized the "God is dead" theology. His The Parable of the Madman reveals the depth of hopelessness that he recognized was the result of such a philosophy. God is the ontic referent for determining what is good and what is evil.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I use my brain/mind as well, but the difference is that I recognize that this process of defining what is good or evil is credited to the conscience which of course is a function of the brain/mind. I contend that the conscience is given to man by God, so that the human race can continue its survival until its members submit to God Himself. Even Nietzsche recognized the need for God and the ramifications of killing God when he popularized the "God is dead" theology. His The Parable of the Madman reveals the depth of hopelessness that he recognized was the result of such a philosophy. God is the ontic referent for determining what is good and what is evil.

I think you have misunderstood Nietzsche. He considered hopelessness to be the consequence of Christianity. He didn't consider it the cure.

 

[dms1972]

You didn't look at the 2006 study, or the 'various studies', you went to the 2007 study that had at least some positive results to report in 7 of 17 cases. Though yes, ultimately that study reported that prayer did not meet the professional "criteria for evidence-based practice".

I had to, to balance the impression given by your comment.

 

[dms1972]

You didn't look at the 2006 study, or the 'various studies', you went to the 2007

I went to the footnote of the sentence you quoted.

 

[dms1972]

Lets just agree to disagree.

Ok. But I think the approach that is needed is not to start with an assertion, or a question posed to suit a particular conclusion. I dislike people posing a question to me sometimes, because they clearly want to me address the question as they put it and its a loaded question. Its a tendency we all have, especially if we think we have arrived at the right answer.

I am not really interested in debates between fully convinced theists and fully convinced atheists - because neither persuades the other to change.

 

[stevevw]

I have often heard some scientists who also believe in God say that science will attempt to tell us how something happens but religion will tell us why. Here is Professor John Polkinghorne who has won heaps of awards including membership in Britain’s Royal Society, one of the highest honors that can be bestowed on a scientist. He is also an Anglican priest.

God vs. Science
Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, Polkinghorne argues. In fact, both are necessary to our understanding of the world. “Science asks how things happen. But there are questions of meaning and value and purpose which science does not address. Religion asks why. And it is my belief that we can and should ask both questions about the same event.”

As a for-instance, Polkinghorne points to the homey phenomenon of a tea kettle boiling merrily on the stove. “Science tells us that burning gas heats the water and makes the kettle boil,” he says. But science doesn’t explain the “why” question. “The kettle is boiling because I want to make a cup of tea; would you like some?

“I don’t have to choose between the answers to those questions,” declares Polkinghorne. “In fact, in order to understand the mysterious event of the boiling kettle, I need both those kinds of answers to tell me what’s going on. So I need the insights of science and the insights of religion if I’m to understand the rich and many-layered world in which we live.”

Seeing the world from both the perspective of science and the perspective of religion is something Polkinghorne describes as seeing the world with “two eyes instead of one.” He explains: “Seeing the world with two eyes—having binocular vision—enables me to understand more than I could with either eye on its own.”
http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/...azine/trends-and-opinions/god-vs-science.html

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I have often heard some scientists who also believe in God say that science will attempt to tell us how something happens but religion will tell us why. Here is Professor John Polkinghorne who has won heaps of awards including membership in Britain’s Royal Society, one of the highest honors that can be bestowed on a scientist. He is also an Anglican priest.

God vs. Science
Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, Polkinghorne argues. In fact, both are necessary to our understanding of the world. “Science asks how things happen. But there are questions of meaning and value and purpose which science does not address. Religion asks why. And it is my belief that we can and should ask both questions about the same event.”

As a for-instance, Polkinghorne points to the homey phenomenon of a tea kettle boiling merrily on the stove. “Science tells us that burning gas heats the water and makes the kettle boil,” he says. But science doesn’t explain the “why” question. “The kettle is boiling because I want to make a cup of tea; would you like some?

“I don’t have to choose between the answers to those questions,” declares Polkinghorne. “In fact, in order to understand the mysterious event of the boiling kettle, I need both those kinds of answers to tell me what’s going on. So I need the insights of science and the insights of religion if I’m to understand the rich and many-layered world in which we live.”

Seeing the world from both the perspective of science and the perspective of religion is something Polkinghorne describes as seeing the world with “two eyes instead of one.” He explains: “Seeing the world with two eyes—having binocular vision—enables me to understand more than I could with either eye on its own.”
http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/...azine/trends-and-opinions/god-vs-science.html

If science cannot answer some deep and difficult question, it doesn't necessarily follow that religion can.

 

[bhsmte]

Ok. I think the approach we need is not to start with an assertion, or a question posed to suit a particular conclusion. I dislike people posing a question to me sometimes, because they clearly want to me address the question as they put it and its a loaded question. Its a tendency we all have, especially if we think we have arrived at the right answer.

I am not really interested in debates between fully convinced theists and fully convinced atheists - because neither persuades the other to change.

I'm not looking to change anyone's belief or lack of belief.

I am on these boards for intellectual discussion, which is more interesting with others who may have a different view point. I don't really care what someone's personal theological beliefs are, I find it much more interesting, how they personally justify their beliefs and that is where things get very interesting and involves human behavior and psychology, which I find fascinating.

People disagree all the time, it is no big deal.

 

[golgotha61]

I think you have misunderstood Nietzsche. He considered hopelessness to be the consequence of Christianity. He didn't consider it the cure.

I don't agree but we are once again at the mercy of interpretation, aren't we? Nietzsche's context was one of deep religiosity due to his upbringing and the last years of his life were spent in mental confusion, to say the least. But if his writings are strictly anti-God, they are ambiguous in support of that philosophy. No, I think that he was fearful of what the concept of killing God entailed and perhaps the loss of "comfort" was not rhetorical but rather dread (The Parable of the Madman).

 

[golgotha61]

Why must it be nonphysical?

Because the physical cannot bring about its own existence.

Natural processes are capable of producing complex structures.

A number of scientists who were once supporters of the atheistic brand of evolution have since converted to Christianity and have denied a Godless method of creation. One of them is Dr. Dean Kenyon who wrote the book Biochemical Predestination. The book was used for some 20 years by universities, even after Kenyon recanted his major premise in the book. The raw materials of existence are now comprised in three classifications: matter, energy, and information.

 

[dms1972]

The "why" questions you speak of, are question that ask about what the purpose is of something. These questions are loaded: they assume a purpose even exists to begin with. Which is an assumption something that isn't supported/justified. At all.

They are not loaded, they are valid questions. Is it not being rather dogmatic to say you can't ask those questions?

In any case, a dogma is simply a 'philosophical tenet'.

At the turn of the 17th century, dogma entered English from the Latin term meaning “philosophical tenet.” The Greek word from which it is borrowed means “that which one thinks is true,” and comes ultimately from the Greek dokeîn, which means “to seem good” or “think.”

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dogmata

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I don't agree but we are once again at the mercy of interpretation, aren't we? Nietzsche's context was one of deep religiosity due to his upbringing and the last years of his life were spent in mental confusion, to say the least. But if his writings are strictly anti-God, they are ambiguous in support of that philosophy. No, I think that he was fearful of what the concept of killing God entailed and perhaps the loss of "comfort" was not rhetorical but rather dread (The Parable of the Madman).

Yes, context is important. The parable needs to be understood in the context of Nietzsche's work, which traces the aetiology of nihilism to Christianity and Plato.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Because the physical cannot bring about its own existence.

But the nonphysical can?

A number of scientists who were once supporters of the atheistic brand of evolution have since converted to Christianity and have denied a Godless method of creation. One of them is Dr. Dean Kenyon who wrote the book Biochemical Predestination. The book was used for some 20 years by universities, even after Kenyon recanted his major premise in the book. The raw materials of existence are now comprised in three classifications: matter, energy, and information.

A number of scientists? Yeah, not buying it...

 

[dms1972]

I'm not looking to change anyone's belief or lack of belief.

I am on these boards for intellectual discussion, which is more interesting with others who may have a different view point. I don't really care what someone's personal theological beliefs are, I find it much more interesting, how they personally justify their beliefs and that is where things get very interesting and involves human behavior and psychology, which I find fascinating.

People disagree all the time, it is no big deal.

Sure, and thankyou for your civil replies. And that is an interesting topic. But are you are saying that those beliefs are merely beliefs (and they might be with some) but that one cannot find out the way things really are, and adjust ones beliefs accordingly? Surely if there is no God, we shouldn't believe in one, and if there is a God we should.

 

[dms1972]

I don't agree but we are once again at the mercy of interpretation, aren't we? Nietzsche's context was one of deep religiosity due to his upbringing and the last years of his life were spent in mental confusion, to say the least. But if his writings are strictly anti-God, they are ambiguous in support of that philosophy. No, I think that he was fearful of what the concept of killing God entailed and perhaps the loss of "comfort" was not rhetorical but rather dread (The Parable of the Madman).

I am not a expert on Neitzche, but its worth noting that those books of his published posthumously were put together by his sister from fragments, they might therefore reflect her thinking more than neitzche's in how she put them together.

 

[bhsmte]

Sure, and thankyou for your civil replies. And that is an interesting topic. But are you are saying that those beliefs are merely beliefs (and they might be with some) but that one cannot find out the way things really are, and adjust ones beliefs accordingly? Surely if there is no God, we shouldn't believe in one, and if there is a God we should.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

People believe in things that are likely false all the time and people believe in things with little to no objective evidence to believe in them quite often. To me at least, faith beliefs basically means believing in something even in the absence of objective evidence, which is why it is faith. If I agreed with something I had a good deal of objective evidence to support, I wouldn't need faith, to believe it.

If believing in a God and or a certain theology, helps someone cope with life and makes them a better person, that is the best thing for that individual.

I only start to question someone's faith belief, when they make certain claims; they are superior to me morally, I am being led by evil or deny God, they claim to have objective evidence for their faith belief and or they misrepresent well evidenced science, to protect their personal beliefs.

If people stay away from the above, I never question their faith belief. Many on these boards who have faith beliefs though, can't seem to not engage in what I mentioned above and then I question.

 

[golgotha61]

But the nonphysical can?

God who created all that exists, both physical and metaphysical, is spirit (metaphysical). But God is without beginning or end; God is eternal. God has always been and will always be which means He did not "come" into existence but has always existed.

 

[dms1972]

People believe in things that are likely false all the time and people believe in things with little to no objective evidence to believe in them quite often. To me at least, faith beliefs basically means believing in something even in the absence of objective evidence, which is why it is faith. If I agreed with something I had a good deal of objective evidence to support, I wouldn't need faith, to believe it.

I think thats right, and I therefore am interested in what approach is best, but christian faith its seems to me is more than that, and its not something like being convinced by the evidence alone.

But the quip by Mark Twain "Faith is believin' what you know aint so." while it may describes some people, I don't find that sort of faith I can live by, so I want to find some answer to this difficulty about faith and evidence.

If someone says "you must always follow this method to know if something is true" - and that method yields no certainty, maybe the method is flawed, maybe its not appropriate in every case, maybe I need to approach things differently.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I have often heard some scientists who also believe in God say that science will attempt to tell us how something happens but religion will tell us why. Here is Professor John Polkinghorne who has won heaps of awards including membership in Britain’s Royal Society, one of the highest honors that can be bestowed on a scientist. He is also an Anglican priest.

God vs. Science
Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, Polkinghorne argues. In fact, both are necessary to our understanding of the world. “Science asks how things happen. But there are questions of meaning and value and purpose which science does not address. Religion asks why. And it is my belief that we can and should ask both questions about the same event.”

As a for-instance, Polkinghorne points to the homey phenomenon of a tea kettle boiling merrily on the stove. “Science tells us that burning gas heats the water and makes the kettle boil,” he says. But science doesn’t explain the “why” question. “The kettle is boiling because I want to make a cup of tea; would you like some?

“I don’t have to choose between the answers to those questions,” declares Polkinghorne. “In fact, in order to understand the mysterious event of the boiling kettle, I need both those kinds of answers to tell me what’s going on. So I need the insights of science and the insights of religion if I’m to understand the rich and many-layered world in which we live.”

Seeing the world from both the perspective of science and the perspective of religion is something Polkinghorne describes as seeing the world with “two eyes instead of one.” He explains: “Seeing the world with two eyes—having binocular vision—enables me to understand more than I could with either eye on its own.”
http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/...azine/trends-and-opinions/god-vs-science.html

My guess is that Professor Polk didn't mention the method by which religion determines the answers to the "why" questions.