Do religion and science attempt to show the same thing?

[dms1972]

This isn't satisfactory to me.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The witness of the biblical accounts of His resurrection supports the claim of that resurrection. Studies in the various biblical criticisms and secular investigations into the truthfulness of the resurrection accounts have not been able to successfully falsify the resurrection accounts. For many, these investigations have helped in convincing scholars that the Bible is truthful. Further, if the body of Christ can be produced or if its disappearance can be proven to be orchestrated by man, I will join you in your rejection of God’s existence and His authority over mankind. Until then, I follow faith that is rooted in reason and logic.

There are three tests that I use for determining truth which Ravi Zacharias outlines in his lectures:

1. Logical consistency.

2. Empirical adequacy.

3. Experiential relevance.

Logical consistency

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.

Empirical adequacy

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.

Experiential consistency

The Biblical narratives in the New Testament reveal why Jesus was who He claimed to be and is followed by millions. A comparison of Jesus, Mohammad, Krishna (no evidence for a true existence), Buddha, and Mahavira show the extreme differences in their claims and demonstrations. Only one, Christ, ever claimed to be divine. For the follower of Christ the fact that the universe is not self-existent, plus the obvious intelligence embedded in the universe, and the experiential verification of what Jesus taught and did, make belief in Him a very rational and existentially fulfilling reality.

If you'd like to discuss the points you've made here, I'd be happy to do so...but only in private messages. Talking about it here would be apologetics which is against the rules.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

You are free to follow whatever method you feel is best for you personally, to discover the truth.

All I was saying is; people (and sometimes very intelligent people) believe in things that are false all the time. Why is that? Psychological need likely plays a huge role. If someone really, really needs to believe in something, their psyche will find a way to make it happen.

 

[golgotha61]

If you'd like to discuss the points you've made here, I'd be happy to do so...but only in private messages. Talking about it here would be apologetics which is against the rules.

Sure; the ball is in your court.

 

[dms1972]

You mean besides plants existing before the sun? Day and night existing before the sun? The order being completely wrong? Having no account at all for what actually happens in biology?

I can't say I understand why the genesis accounts is as it is. You may not like what I am going to say, but I'll say it. Stick around for a while longer and we'll pose some these in separate threads. Difficulties are not reason to give up, or despair. I understand a little bit about wanting intellectually satisfying answers, in some ways I temper that demand a bit now. But we can pose some of these in new threads.

 

[Crandaddy]

"Religion deservedly comes in for more criticism in its failures than science does in its, because religion claims for itself the ability to know what's true, whereas science claims for itself only the ability to quantify the probability of a thing being wrong. A genuine truth arrogantly asserted - that is, without so much as a guess at the likelihood of its being false - is a most pernicious kind of falsehood, far worse than a mere mistake, because it alienates people from it."

This isn't quite right. Modern science claims for itself the ability to discover -- and thus to know, in a sense -- truths about the world, and religion doesn't (always, at least) eschew the application of reason and falsifiability to its claims.

[W]hat is its proper circumscribed domain, what can science study?

It depends on how you define "science." Nowadays, the term "science" typically refers to the empirical study of how the physical world works, but in the Middle Ages, a "science" was any domain of knowledge that was accessible (to some extent, at least) by the rational mind. Even theology was considered a "science."

 

[Gottservant]

The requirement for religion is to show the same thing in principle, initially.

(I ____ believe ____)

 

[stevevw]

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

Of course not and I havnt inferred that and neither has Professor Polkinghorne. What he is saying which I support and believe is that we need to consider both science and religion when trying to understand life and existence. Otherwise as he said we are only looking with one eye open and cant see the complete picture.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Of course not and I havnt inferred that and neither has Professor Polkinghorne. What he is saying which I support and believe is that we need to consider both science and religion when trying to understand life and existence. Otherwise as he said we are only looking with one eye open and cant see the complete picture.

That's assuming religion allows one to see a more complete picture. I think it does more to obscure our vision than it does to clarify it.

 

[stevevw]

That's assuming religion allows one to see a more complete picture. I think it does more to obscure our vision than it does to clarify it.

I think Professor Polkinghorne is speaking more about a frame of mind rather than any particular religions philosophy. That is to not restrict yourself to certain parameters. If you focus to much on one side and make that everything then you can be obscuring your view or miss something which can help you understand what life and existence is all about. Making materialism or physical-ism the be all and end all can obscure your view and be just as much a religion as theism, pantheism or deism.

Its not that religion may or may not allow us to see a more complete picture. Its putting a restriction on what is possible or what can be involved in how life and existence works. Humans call it religion but it may be any dimension or possibility that cannot be verified by science. But to just limit everything to what can be scientifically verified is restricting yourself and therefore seeing things with one eye closed.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I think Professor Polkinghorne is speaking more about a frame of mind rather than any particular religions philosophy. That is to not restrict yourself to certain parameters. If you focus to much on one side and make that everything then you can be obscuring your view or miss something which can help you understand what life and existence is all about. Making materialism or physical-ism the be all and end all can obscure your view and be just as much a religion as theism, pantheism or deism.

Its not that religion may or may not allow us to see a more complete picture. Its putting a restriction on what is possible or what can be involved in how life and existence works. Humans call it religion but it may be any dimension or possibility that cannot be verified by science. But to just limit everything to what can be scientifically verified is restricting yourself and therefore seeing things with one eye closed.

That's again assuming that religion allows one to see a more complete picture. I see no reason to assume that it does.

 

[stevevw]

That's again assuming that religion allows one to see a more complete picture. I see no reason to assume that it does.

It depends what answers and picture you are looking for isn't it. If its about some meaning in life or why something happens then it can add something that science cant. But as I said it isn't just about religion as religion is restrictive in itself and doesn't include the complete meaning of what can be used to give that extra meaning and dimension to life. It could be about spirituality or some sort. It could be about any philosophy that helps to bring some understanding to the why questions in life.

Some of the recent ideas and theories that scientists have been talking about with the mind and consciousness can also be interpreted as being in the spiritual realm. Research is now looking beyond the material world for answers. The fact is people ask those questions and it is an important part of helping a person find meaning. Science cannot give them those answers so this is where religion, spirituality or other philosophies that try to address the why questions come into play.

If you only focus on one side such as all religion and no scientific understanding or only the physical aspect of life then you are only getting a part of the picture. Each can play their role in helping you understand thing. So when you consider that its not just religion but anything that is based in spirituality it expands the possibilities and therefore can help you have a more complete picture of life. But its not based on an assumption either. There is good research that shows people who include religion or spirituality in their lives have good outcomes in a number of areas in life.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If you only focus on one side such as all religion and no scientific understanding or only the physical aspect of life then you are only getting a part of the picture. Each can play their role in helping you understand thing. So when you consider that its not just religion but anything that is based in spirituality it expands the possibilities and therefore can help you have a more complete picture of life. But its not based on an assumption either. There is good research that shows people who include religion or spirituality in their lives have good outcomes in a number of areas in life.

So what? What does this have to do with the truth of religious claims?

 

[stevevw]

So what? What does this have to do with the truth of religious claims?

I am not sure where you are heading with this. It keeps changing directing. It started with me posting something about religion and science working in conjunction but dealing with different aspects of life according to a famous Professors opinion. That they both were needed to deal with different questions of life. That denying one side is like seeing things with one eye closed. But now it is focusing on what truth religion claims.

Thats sort of irrelevant because there will be many different claims by different religions and there will be many other truths that different spiritual philosophies have. You would have to go through them one by one and that seems like its another threads worth of debate. I could just talk about what Christian belief says is truth but thats still not the point. The OP is about whether religion and science are showing the same thing. I am trying to say that they each say something about different things with life and existence and not whether religion is true or not.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I am not sure where you are heading with this. It keeps changing directing. It started with me posting something about religion and science working together according to a famous Professors opinion. That they both were needed to deal with different aspects of life. That denying one side is like seeing things with one eye closed.

That's again assuming that religion allows one to see a more complete picture. I see no reason to assume that it does.

But now it is focusing on what truth religion claims.

Thats sort of irrelevant because there will be many different claims by different religions and there will be many other truths that different spiritual philosophies have. You would have to go through them one by one and that seems like its another threads worth of debate. I could just talk about what Christian belief says is truth but thats still not the point. The OP is about whether religion and science are showing the same thing. I am trying to say that they each say something about different things with life and existence and not whether religion is true or not.

How can you claim that religion provides a "more complete picture" if its claims are not true?

 

[ViaCrucis]

This!

To me, religion starts with an assumed answer and then works hard to justify that answer.

Science, examines the physical evidence over and over and then comes up with theories to explain the observations.

Very, very different in their approach and likely why; science encourages critical analysis and religion, tends to shy away from critical analysis.

I think that may be too narrow way of describing the nature of religion. Very often religious answers are arrived at not by assuming the answer and then working toward it, but can come through personal and external investigation and experience. What I mean by external investigation isn't the scientific method or anything like that, but rather exploring for meaning in the world around us (as well as exploring meaning in or about ourselves).

As an example, it's said that Prince Siddhartha (who would become known as Gautama Buddha) had lived his life luxuriously and had never experienced the outside world, having lived an extremely sheltered and pampered life. When he finally one day sought to see the world outside he saw immense suffering in the world. And so he wanted to know how to put an end to suffering, and so he sought out many spiritual teachers and gurus, to find an answer to the problem of suffering. He tried extreme asceticism and other such spiritual practices to try and reach the answer but never to his satisfaction. It was then one day when he sat beneath the Bodhi Tree that he found enlightenment, and understood the Middle Way, the Four Noble Truths, and the Eightfold Path. The religious path here involved internal and external exploration, and in some sense was "accidental".

Religion, in truth, is always a very nebulous concept. And religious processes are often quite varied.

Religion and science are, fundamentally, completely different animals not simply because there exists a very different methodology; but because the sorts of questions being asked are very different sorts of questions. I'd argue they arise from different places of human psychology and appeal to different sorts of human psychological needs.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[stevevw]

That's again assuming that religion allows one to see a more complete picture. I see no reason to assume that it does.

Yes you see no reason but for those who who believe in God they will get some benefits and insights.

How can you claim that religion provides a "more complete picture" if its claims are not true?

What makes you say that the claims are not true. To those who choose to believe in God and what He says they believe that it is true and they get the benefits. Research shows that people get tangible benefits from their beliefs. Faith is a personal thing and you cant say that what they experience is not true for them.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes you see no reason but for those who who believe in God they will get some benefits and insights.
What makes you say that the claims are not true. To those who choose to believe in God and what He says they believe that it is true and they get the benefits. Research shows that people get tangible benefits from their beliefs. Faith is a personal thing and you cant say that what they experience is not true for them.

What do the apparent benefits of religion have to do with the truth of religious claims?

 

[bhsmte]

I think that may be too narrow way of describing the nature of religion. Very often religious answers are arrived at not by assuming the answer and then working toward it, but can come through personal and external investigation and experience. What I mean by external investigation isn't the scientific method or anything like that, but rather exploring for meaning in the world around us (as well as exploring meaning in or about ourselves).

As an example, it's said that Prince Siddhartha (who would become known as Gautama Buddha) had lived his life luxuriously and had never experienced the outside world, having lived an extremely sheltered and pampered life. When he finally one day sought to see the world outside he saw immense suffering in the world. And so he wanted to know how to put an end to suffering, and so he sought out many spiritual teachers and gurus, to find an answer to the problem of suffering. He tried extreme asceticism and other such spiritual practices to try and reach the answer but never to his satisfaction. It was then one day when he sat beneath the Bodhi Tree that he found enlightenment, and understood the Middle Way, the Four Noble Truths, and the Eightfold Path. The religious path here involved internal and external exploration, and in some sense was "accidental".

Religion, in truth, is always a very nebulous concept. And religious processes are often quite varied.

Religion and science are, fundamentally, completely different animals not simply because there exists a very different methodology; but because the sorts of questions being asked are very different sorts of questions. I'd argue they arise from different places of human psychology and appeal to different sorts of human psychological needs.

-CryptoLutheran

We are not far off from each other.

Yes, religion and science, are indeed completely different animals, no question.

My point was this, the particular religious beliefs a person settles on, typically is driven by personal psyche and how perceives their surroundings, is much more heavily impacted by their personal filter. This is why, we have so many denominations of Christianity alone and why some people bounce around to different ones, because their needs can change.

Science on the other hand, is much more externally driven, on what can be objectively verified.

IMO, both science and religion can be used in positive and negative ways, it just depends on the individual.

 

[stevevw]

What do the apparent benefits of religion have to do with the truth of religious claims?

I dont know, didn't you bring that up as an issue. I would imagine that a person is not going to have that religious practice or spirituality in their life unless they believe it true. I merely stated that religion, spirituality or whatever you wish to call it can add some extra meaning or benefit to a persons life. That Professor Polkinghorne said that we need to consider both science and spirituality to get a complete picture. Now this may be his belief and you have a different one. But all that can be said is that for some or many they believe that religion or spirituality adds to their life and gives them a richer experience. Whether its true is a personal thing because to the people who believe they believe that its true and real and you cant deny them this right.