Theology and Science

[coolname123]

Sorry for the mildly ambiguous name, but I want people responding to the question, not the title.

K, so I abandoned this forum a while back out of frustration by how outrageously difficult it was to have a discussion with some of the people here… I really do enjoy talking out ideas as I feel it helps me to grow both spiritually and educationally. But the amount of hoops I had to leap just to get one remotely reasonable response out of people was just not worth it after a while…

So before I ask my question, I figure I'll make a few clarifications in hopes that we can have a civil discussion that doesn't spiral into circular reasoning and question dodging.

1) If you are going to source something, please tell me where your point is being made within the document and what your opinion is… Nothing is more frustrating than arguing based on my opinions on the document and having the other person think this is my opinion on their ideals, not the documents. Knowing how you viewed the source means I can contextualize everything and make a much clearer case for whatever is being discussed…

2) Don't source entire books. You wouldn't be aloud to do that in an academic paper and I'm not about to read an entire book every time you have a point to make, if the author is any good you should be able to find a paragraph or two that discusses whatever we happen to be talking about. So just source that and if I feel I need more I will do some extra reading on my own.

3) If you are trying to make a point about something academic (i.e. science) please source academic grade material… If you don't know what that is, look for foot notes and endnotes… Those tend to be pretty decent indicators. If you know anything about bibliographies, MLA, Chicago and APA style of sourcing are all acceptable academic styles. But for the most part, as long as the source tells me where it is getting it's information from I will be happy.

4) please don't source things unless they are accessible, I'm not the richest of fellows and don't really feel like buying books everytime you have something to say… I'll try and keep all my sourcing to free material available online if you can do the same.

So I think if we can adhere to that then we should be on track for a good discussion. (or at least one that doesn't get unnecessarily frustrating)


Sorry for that mildly systematic lead up to my questions, but too many of my discussions on this site go south, so I wanted to make sure all knew what to expect before getting to the question itself.
[SIZE="2.5"]
Theology and Science

I love Theology and Religion and everything that goes along with that.. However I also love science, the beauty of how things came to be and everything intertwined with that aspect of reality as well. The two go so fantastically together that I can't imagine seeing one without the other…

What I don't understand is why all this hate is directed towards science… Even if you don't believe in it (which is just foolish these days), if Christianity is all about following in the footsteps of christ, shouldn't our priority be, you know, loving our neighbours instead of harbouring senseless hate over something that has done nothing but good (and any bad you could possibly imagine coming from science isn't half of what could be said for the religious hate of the past).

So why? Why make such a fuss over science?

I don't understand it theologically.
I don't understand it in terms of Scientific dis-trust.
I just don't understand it. It doesn't make sense.

I suppose I should just get this out of the way before we even begin… Biblical Literacy is not my cup of tea.

But there is it, please respond… I legitimately want to know and have a discussion about this because I do think this hate is dangerous in so many ways. I mean if we could just get beyond harbouring all this senseless hate, regardless of the subject, the world Christ envisioned would be so much more attainable... Don't you think?[/SIZE]

 

[juvenissun]

Any one of our scientific understanding is only superficial. We know it works, but we do not know why. And when it does not work, we don't know why either. (if you are going to debate on this understanding, it only shows you are not good enough in science)

So, when one said that everything should be approved by science, then someone else may naturally say: no, science does not know everything. It is not we don't like science. But when a shallow-minded person used science to attack religion, that is when the so-called "anti-science" debate started.

 

[Elendur]

Why make a fuss about science?

I honestly don't know why anyone would do that from a religious standpoint.
(I apologize in advance for crappy links and unprofessional musings, I hope they won't be useless)

From an economical standpoint though, that's another question. I've posted this before, but I think it's worth spreading
Attacks paid for by big business are 'driving science into a dark era' | Science | The Observer

Also, this study performed on monkeys might give another factor:
Did the monkey banana and water spray experiment ever take place


That would be two possible reasons why less religious zeal could meet resistance.
An economical loss by the power holders, combined with a populations traditional memory.

Why would increased foothold of science contribute to less religious zeal?
Less reliance on religion to answer questions.


I hope I've made sense, I tried to distill my thoughts down to a shorted text but then there's always the chance of losing something vital

 

[Radagast]

But there is it, please respond

I read your post, and I couldn't see an actual question.

However, let me just say that science and theology are perfectly compatible. Naturally so, given that the real boom in science began in Christian Europe.

You might be interested in reading Stanley Jaki's books, such as The Savior of Science.

 

[Resha Caner]

So why? Why make such a fuss over science?

I can't speak for others, but it is not science I object to, but rather scientism.

 

[mkatzwork]

Actually the problem is not science the problem is scientist. Did you ever hear the story of "Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis (July 1, 1818 - August 13, 1865) and his attempt to get doctors to wash their hands? Science was very resistant to his new life saving theory. Science offers very good data to work with. It is what the scientist does with that data that can be questionable.

Not so much: some doctors were very resistant to his new idea, not "science" as an entity and a concept. Not all doctors were - disease contagion was not an entirely new idea.

Some were resistant because they thought his work seemed like a step backwards, having as they did not even a concept of germs. They simply thought that decaying matter was unlikely to be producing infectious disease because there was no biological mechanism of reproduction in decaying matter, which didn't explain disease particularly well. They had no idea that these were places that germs would fester, because they didn't know that germs even existed. Scientifically, his papers were somewhat loose (as pointed out at the time and known now) and we know that several of his central hypotheses regarding the observations he made were wrong.

Ironically, the most important thing he may have done is re-centering medicine on the idea that empirical evidence is the most important tool that we have, something also espoused by...oh yes, science. He's a curious example to choose from your perspective...

 

[coolname123]

Any one of our scientific understanding is only superficial. We know it works, but we do not know why. And when it does not work, we don't know why either. (if you are going to debate on this understanding, it only shows you are not good enough in science)

I just need a little clarification … because I've heard people talk about why things work, and it sounds like they got a pretty good idea why it works… Our knowledge may not be complete but that doesn't mean that when something happens, we just go "Oh… Well that was interesting… let's try and do that again… too bad we didn't take note of what we were observing here so we could maybe figure out how or why it was done." Doesn't happen that way. We are constantly striving to understand the why, and again while our knowledge may not be complete that does not mean the why is this unknown and unattainable thing. And you're going to have to do quite the convince job if you really do think otherwise.

So, when one said that everything should be approved by science, then someone else may naturally say: no, science does not know everything. It is not we don't like science. But when a shallow-minded person used science to attack religion, that is when the so-called "anti-science" debate started.

Now this, Just makes no sense… Like less than before. Basically what you're saying here (or how it comes across to me) is "Well Science is pretty awesome and all… but because this guy used it in a way I don't like, I'm just going to discredit the entire discipline" I mean can you hear the lunacy in that statement? It's like love the sinner hate the sin taken to this weird vengeful extreme where anything used by the sinner becomes sinful, whether it is or not.

Why would increased foothold of science contribute to less religious zeal?
Less reliance on religion to answer questions.

Are we still really this scared of reality?

I read your post, and I couldn't see an actual question.

Let me try to make it clearer… I don't understand the resistance people have towards science… So I was curious why this resistance still existed? Why people are placing such importance on resisting science when there are so much better things that could be done with ones time.

Actually the problem is not science the problem is scientist. Did you ever hear the story of "Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis (July 1, 1818 - August 13, 1865) and his attempt to get doctors to wash their hands?

a) That is a pretty outdated example to base this statement on.
b) Science did exactly what it was meant to do here, be absolutely certain of something before merely jumping on the bandwagon. It is this peer-reviewed idea where everyone attempts their level best to prove you wrong that ensures only the best of ideas get through. Sure occasionally things would have been better had their ideas been accepted sooner, but a lot of things could have turned out much worse if the reverse was also true.

I can't speak for others, but it is not science I object to, but rather scientism.

I'm afraid I don't see the difference. I mean I know there is a difference in that one is a methodology and the other is an ideology… But they are both incredibly similar in regards to how they approach science.

 

[coolname123]

Not so much: some doctors were very resistant to his new idea, not "science" as an entity and a concept. Not all doctors were - disease contagion was not an entirely new idea.

Some were resistant because they thought his work seemed like a step backwards, having as they did not even a concept of germs. They simply thought that decaying matter was unlikely to be producing infectious disease because there was no biological mechanism of reproduction in decaying matter, which didn't explain disease particularly well. They had no idea that these were places that germs would fester, because they didn't know that germs even existed. Scientifically, his papers were somewhat loose (as pointed out at the time and known now) and we know that several of his central hypotheses regarding the observations he made were wrong.

Ironically, the most important thing he may have done is re-centering medicine on the idea that empirical evidence is the most important tool that we have, something also espoused by...oh yes, science. He's a curious example to choose from your perspective...

Ditto.

 

[Elendur]

Are we still really this scared of reality?

Good question. I think we are.

 

[Resha Caner]

I'm afraid I don't see the difference. I mean I know there is a difference in that one is a methodology and the other is an ideology… But they are both incredibly similar in regards to how they approach science.

I don't understand your reply. It sounds like you're saying you don't see a difference between how an advocate of scientism approaches science and how science approaches science.

It's the second part that confuses me. What am I missing?

 

[jpcedotal]

The picture that atheists try to paint is that Christians,especially those who take the Bible literally, hate science. It is simply a lie.

We question the fact that maybe what the secular world is trying to sell as science is actually a worldview and if taken far enough becomes it's own form of anti-God religion. Atheist may not believe in a supernatural being, but they have gotten the practice of worshiping a cause or theory or even man himself down to an art form.

That s where the head butting is...simply over the question of what true science is...that is where 99% of the disagreement comes from between Christians and the secular world.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

The picture that atheists try to paint is that Christians,especially those who take the Bible literally, hate science. It is simply a lie.

We question the fact that maybe what the secular world is trying to sell as science is actually a worldview and if taken far enough becomes it's own form of anti-God religion. Atheist may not believe in a supernatural being, but they have gotten the practice of worshiping a cause or theory or even man himself down to an art form.

That s where the head butting is...simply over the question of what true science is...that is where 99% of the disagreement comes from between Christians and the secular world.

Creo/Idists start with the conclusion and cherry pick their evidence, excluding every and all available evidence to the contrary. This is not science, but religion. This is the exact opposite of science. Theories are falsifiable, results repeatable, and results are never described in terms of absolutes. As more data is collected, our theories become more robust, and change accordingly. Creo/ID has never changed - not once.

Real science begins with a question, gathers the data, postulates most likely conlcusion - and accepts it no matter what. Scientists aren't held to any particular brand of mythology nor required to defend their dogma against all reason and evidence. Scientists are not beholden to any particular 'worldview,' on the contrary, they're/we're free to accept the world as it is. You shall know the truth, and it shall set you free!

 

[Greg1234]

Creo/Idists start with the conclusion and cherry pick their evidence, excluding every and all available evidence to the contrary. This is not science, but religion. This is the exact opposite of science. Theories are falsifiable, results repeatable, and results are never described in terms of absolutes. As more data is collected, our theories become more robust, and change accordingly. Creo/ID has never changed - not once.

Real science begins with a question, gathers the data, postulates most likely conlcusion - and accepts it no matter what. Scientists aren't held to any particular brand of mythology nor required to defend their dogma against all reason and evidence. Scientists are not beholden to any particular 'worldview,' on the contrary, they're/we're free to accept the world as it is. You shall know the truth, and it shall set you free!

Put all the evidence on the table and let the people decide. And by all I mean everything (even those which are forbidden). You guys would be crushed.

 

[juvenissun]

I can't speak for others, but it is not science I object to, but rather scientism.

Very good answer.

 

[juvenissun]

Now this, Just makes no sense… Like less than before. Basically what you're saying here (or how it comes across to me) is "Well Science is pretty awesome and all… but because this guy used it in a way I don't like, I'm just going to discredit the entire discipline" I mean can you hear the lunacy in that statement? It's like love the sinner hate the sin taken to this weird vengeful extreme where anything used by the sinner becomes sinful, whether it is or not.

Sorry that my argument was quite cumbersome. Resha Caner did a much better job. It is the scientism I am against.

Now, we may start to see what does the "scientism" mean.

 

[Elendur]

Put all the evidence on the table and let the people decide. And by all I mean everything (even those which are forbidden). You guys would be crushed.

There exists forbidden evidence? Care to share what you mean with that?

 

[CaliforniaSun]

There exists forbidden evidence? Care to share what you mean with that?

You're only privy to that once you perform the forbidden dance.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Put all the evidence on the table and let the people decide. And by all I mean everything (even those which are forbidden). You guys would be crushed.

Like a grape?

 

[coolname123]

I don't understand your reply. It sounds like you're saying you don't see a difference between how an advocate of scientism approaches science and how science approaches science.

It's the second part that confuses me. What am I missing?

Science is science... it is a methodology. Scientism is an ideology based upon that methodology... Both hold the exact same scientific principles, but Scientism, being an ideology, is applying certain viewpoints to said methodology... Which is why I don't see the distinction between the two, being as one is based off the other. And based off it in such a way that doesn't alter the understanding of science at all, it just offers a way to understand the method... Which is roughly where things become ideologies/philosophies.

So I guess what I meant to say is that the exact same definition of Science exists in both Science and Scientism, which is where my confusion came from.

 

[coolname123]

That s where the head butting is...simply over the question of what true science is...that is where 99% of the disagreement comes from between Christians and the secular world.

If this is true then why is it so insanely difficult for your side of the spectrum to produce any sort of critical evidence. Unless you straight up don't agree with what Science is on the whole... In which case, why call your stuff science? I mean you wouldn't go into a Math class and say "I don't like this, I'd rather be learning spanish... Hey Guys! From now on Spanish is called Math... Are we in Agreement? Good... I now like math again" Academia does not work like that.