Balancing Faith and Science

There are many religions, each telling its own story of the creation of the universe. Most stories are different in non-trivial ways. They cannot all be true. If there is no rational, objective way to determine which story is true, then how can it be rational to choose any one of them? If the only way to come to a belief is a subjective feeling that that particular belief is the truth, then rationality isn't part of the process. {edited to fix subtitle}This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 06-Jul-2005 03:02 PM

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

The issue is balancing faith and science. Someone mentioned that faith, by definition, is irrational. I agree with that, and I'd add that science, by definition, is rational. I was merely trying to tip the balance by showing the irrationality of faith. Not off-topic, in my opinion.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

By showing the irrationality of faith and positing the rationality of science, I take the stance that faith and science are mutually exclusive, since irrational thinking can never be used as support for anything which is the product of a purely rational activity, which is what science is.It may be that science discovers truths that were believed in all along by believers of certain faiths, but these truths are not established any stronger because of pre-existing irrational but, in hindsight, justified beliefs.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

You and I may agree on the relative positions of religion and science with regard to how things work, but a lot of religious people, on this forum and elsewhere, would disagree. Creationism specifically wants to tell us how things happened. Creationism is religion, is it not? ID wants to tell us in even greater detail how things happened. ID, despite claims to the contrary, is nothing but religion donning a lab coat labelled "science", in the hope that we don't recognise it for what it really is.The starter of this topic stated:

quote:

---

So much discussion on this forum inevitably seem to concentrate on perceived differences between the Christian faith and science. There seems to be the two routes to sorting out what is truth. The first is the scientific, which largely relies on empirical evidence. The second is the philosophic or theological which relies more on observation and intuition. My belief is that both are important and relevant.

---

and also:

quote:

---

This conversation with Francis Collins goes right to the heart of everything that is at the center of discussion on this forum.

---

There is a conflict between religion - at least some forms of it, not yours probably - and science. This forum is living proof. We also see it when religion tries to influence science education. I am simply taking a stance in the matter, that's all.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

I account for it by saying what I said:

quote:

---

There is a conflict between religion - at least some forms of it, not yours probably - and science.

---

{emphasis added}The mere fact that court cases are necessary at all, is telling, I'd say. Some religions, pardon me, religious interpretations (not Francis Collins', not Trixie's, not yours, but believe me, enough varieties are left) do conflict directly with science, and it's those that bother me.Believe me, Jar, when I say that I respect your position much more than I respect, say, a YEC's. I can see the difference.Have your say if you will, but I would like to put this to rest now, can we?This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 06-Jul-2005 10:15 PM

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Random thoughts, I suppose?

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

A legal verdict is not the same as logical proof. It isn't even the same as legal proof. A court case can have no proof, but still a verdict.What is meant by "it is impossible to prove a negative" is that it is logically impossible to prove absolutely that something does not exist or is not the case.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Of course not. You need only produce one tangible example of an invisible (hence 'tangible') pink unicorn to logically prove that an invisible pink unicorn exists.But if it does not exist, there's nothing you can do to prove it. You can't produce the evidence, because something that doesn't exist usually doesn't leave much evidence.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins