Runboard.com
Слава Україні!
Community logo

"‘Tonight, in the city of David, a Savior is born, 'tis Christ the Lord.'"

"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church, which is, of course, quite a different thing."
-Bishop Fulton J. Sheen
Placating terrorists, meeting with dictators, compassion for murderers... but no humanity for the unborn... incredible.
OOT


-->

EWTN, Global Catholic Network

runboard.com       Register for a free global account (learn about it) | Log in: (), globally (lost password?)

Page:  1  2  3 

 
Lauchlin Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Newbie

Registered: 07-2006
Posts: 389
 | 
Re: United Atheist Front?


Michael,

I am implying that faith of any kind does not make sense in the context of science. As I stated in another thread, faith says 'I believe this, and do not require empirical, or verifiable evidence to convince me of this truth'. Science says 'I will not accept it as truth unless it is supported by verifiable, empirical evidence, with very little in the way of logical jumps in the reasoning process'. The two truly do sound to be completely in contradiction. This is an observation that is not a large jump, though I am open to hearing the interim points I may be missing.

Now, this is not to say that a religious person cannot study science effectively. There are many examples that completely contradict that point, so it would be a silly one to try to make. However, there are many cases, as well, where faith is used to completely contradict even simple, and thoroughly proven scientific facts, showing that faith can indeed be a detriment to honest scientific exploration.

Do the two paths not seem a bit contradictory? That a person would believe one thing with no supporting evidence (by scientific standards) but require it for all the other studies that one does? And in questions where one overlaps another, would this not create a conflict of interest?

Anywho, when you say that the only way a person could not believe what you do is through pride, that seems very condescending. To add to this, you are assuming that these people convinced themselves that there was no God, as opposed to having never been convinced that there was a God. I guess to you the social/historical evidence is acceptable, and maybe incontrovertible, but to many others in the world, it is not convincing enough, for various reasons.

I understand your points, don't get me wrong, I am just saying they are not the only possible outlook. I mean, is it based more in pride to sit back and say that you honestly don't know, and can't believe in something because you have not seen proof, or to say that somehow you know the most profound truth of the universe?

I would definitely agree that many highly intelligent people are prone to arrogance, conceit, pigheadedness, and many other undesirable human traits. I would also state that those self same traits are resident in many highly religious people as well.

I think the nature of pride is to be resident in those who assume they are better, more intelligent, more special than others, or somehow chosen, regardless of actual status. The only way to avoid pride is to be aware that we are all weak to it if we are not careful, and to keep in mind that we are all fallible.

Long rant, I know, but I really do wish that everyone just got along, and would realize that everyone has valid reasons for believing what they do.

Lauchlin
Mar/1/2009, 9:31 pm Link to this post Send Email to Lauchlin   Send PM to Lauchlin
 
Michael D Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Peacemaker

Registered: 09-2005
Posts: 2111
 | 
Re: United Atheist Front?


Sorry, Lauchlin. I had a few days away and am trying to recover my train of thought on this.

My point about pride was that it is prideful to worship the self's intellect. At least I think that was the point. The relationship between faith and science is complicated but I am still holding to what I think is the proper position which is that science, which is based upon empiricism and observation of the physical universe, is a proper methodology to ascertain only a subset of what we can call knowledge. The difficulty comes, in my mind, when someone claims that science is the only way to know what is real. What is real is bigger than what can be observed. Maybe that is our point of diversion. I don't know. I am not meaning to judgmental or condescending but I really don't think it is controversial to comment that great intellects are prone to succumbing to great pride. Maybe your experience is different but I have met a great many arrogant people in my life.

---
Nothing by force, but everything by charity.

Ss. Thomas Aquinas and Augustine, pray for us.
Mar/5/2009, 6:57 pm Link to this post Send Email to Michael D   Send PM to Michael D
 
Lauchlin Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Newbie

Registered: 07-2006
Posts: 389
 | 
Re: United Atheist Front?


Michael,

I do not disagree with your points about intelligent people being filled with pride, in many cases. I would state that it isn't necessarily the intelligence that does it, though. As I said, I have observed the same thing in pretty much every group that values a specific thing, over all others. Whether it be a person thinking they are more intelligent, faithful, stronger, a better gamer, athlete, writer, etc, it always comes down to someone elevating themselves over others.

I would definitely agree that science is the pursuit of a subset of what a person can 'know'. It is a pursuit of how the physical universe works, combines, and reacts. That is the very nature of science, the definition. The problem with your approach here is that the word 'real' is very subjective. Science deals with the real that is verifiable, reproducible, consistent, measurable. Beyond that, you move into the conceptual. Things like art, writing, philosophy, are all mental constructs.

So what do you call real?

Lauchlin
Mar/5/2009, 8:08 pm Link to this post Send Email to Lauchlin   Send PM to Lauchlin
 
Michael D Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Peacemaker

Registered: 09-2005
Posts: 2111
 | 
Re: United Atheist Front?


Lauchlin,

I don't think there can be a such thing as a real real and an unreal real. To say things that are intangible are merely conceptual seems to me to deny their ultimate reality.

So, is there an intangible reality? That is the question. If there is then science cannot address it, by definition.

---
Nothing by force, but everything by charity.

Ss. Thomas Aquinas and Augustine, pray for us.
Mar/6/2009, 12:59 pm Link to this post Send Email to Michael D   Send PM to Michael D
 
Lauchlin Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Newbie

Registered: 07-2006
Posts: 389
 | 
Re: United Atheist Front?


Again, that depends on how you define real.

As well, how do you define intangible? As literally untouchable, or something that you cannot detect through instrumental means, or measure, in some way shape or form.

Ultimately, the idea of temperature was intangible, sort of. The idea of the ozone layer was intangible. Thunder was intangible, and seen as separate from the lightning.

So perhaps when we say intangible, it is only a matter of time until it becomes tangible? I am only throwing out speculation here, of course, but the main thing remains the same - until you can show logically, objectively deduced evidence/reasoning for something, science is not convinced it exists.

That, of course, is the point of science - to accept that there are many things that we do not yet know, and cannot know given current circumstances. The only way to eventually be able to know it, is to continue beavering away at the things that we have grasped, or at the edges of things we are trying to grasp.

My point, as always, is that science and faith take opposite approaches to these things. Science goes from the evidence, and creates an answer, and faith goes from the answer, and uses evidence to support that answer.

Lauchlin
Mar/7/2009, 12:33 am Link to this post Send Email to Lauchlin   Send PM to Lauchlin
 
Michael D Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Peacemaker

Registered: 09-2005
Posts: 2111
 | 
Re: United Atheist Front?


I am confused about what you are calling intangible. Temperature is an extensive property and can be and is directly experienced by people on a continual basis. There are some things that are tangible but are beyond our senses' ability to discern. I am not talking about those either. And I am still a bit dismayed that you seem to view faith as claiming itself to be a weak substitute for science even after our establishing that it addresses a different sphere than material existence.

Last edited by Michael D, Mar/9/2009, 5:56 pm


---
Nothing by force, but everything by charity.

Ss. Thomas Aquinas and Augustine, pray for us.
Mar/9/2009, 3:08 pm Link to this post Send Email to Michael D   Send PM to Michael D
 
AdMajoremDeiGloriam Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Cardinal

Registered: 08-2005
Posts: 1515
 | 
Re: United Atheist Front?


Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

2 Corinthians 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.
Mar/9/2009, 4:48 pm Link to this post Send Email to AdMajoremDeiGloriam   Send PM to AdMajoremDeiGloriam
 
Lauchlin Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Newbie

Registered: 07-2006
Posts: 389
 | 
Re: United Atheist Front?


Michael,

Yes, it was a bad example. I am not calling Faith a weak substitute for science - I am trying to blatantly state that they are two similar, yet fundamentally different things. They are both ways of deciding how different facets of the world work, but the understanding achieved is fundamentally different.

I WOULD, however, state that those trying to pass off religion/religious views as scientific 'facts' are presenting a poor substitute for true science.

All things that can be broken down to a physical manifestation, this of course includes magnetic/gravitational/electrical/etc. fields, are in the domain of science. Anything beyond that, from a scientific perspective, is speculation. This does not mean it is wrong, in all reality, just that, statistically and scientifically it cannot be substantiated, and therefore cannot be proven.

But then, that is why it is called belief.

And unfortunately Ad, that is why your quotes aren't really effective here. To mention hope to a scientist is to input bias in a process that is supposed to be objective. If something is not objectively observable, it cannot be said to be 'true'. So, in a certain sense of the word, if something is not 'seen' then it is not believed until existence can be confirmed.

And this brings me back full circle, I suppose - the 'non-belief' of most scientists in a God is not a choice. It is someone not being swayed by the arguments 'for'. I guess that is also why I have come to the conclusion that the debate between science and religion is kind of silly. I mean, to me it has become like someone telling me that they really like coconut. They taste it, and their experience of the taste has made them crave coconut.

My taste of coconut really kind of grossed me out. Kind of a silly analogy, but kind of effective, too.

Lauchlin
Mar/10/2009, 9:55 pm Link to this post Send Email to Lauchlin   Send PM to Lauchlin
 
SHJIHM Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Devout Catholic

Registered: 07-2005
Posts: 1370
 | 
Re: United Atheist Front?


Science?

I have no faith in such a method that would define life as a lump of cells to ease the minds of those who would seek to destroy life via abortion.



---
"My Sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.


Mar/12/2009, 11:20 am Link to this post Send Email to SHJIHM   Send PM to SHJIHM
 
Michael D Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Peacemaker

Registered: 09-2005
Posts: 2111
 | 
Re: United Atheist Front?


Abortion is bad enough, but the clone and kill stuff (ESCR) that is being disguised as research that will help mankind is especially horrifying.

---
Nothing by force, but everything by charity.

Ss. Thomas Aquinas and Augustine, pray for us.
Mar/12/2009, 11:40 am Link to this post Send Email to Michael D   Send PM to Michael D
 


Post new topic

Page:  1  2  3 





You are not logged in (login)
Christmas countdown banner

Easter countdown banner

This is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. Happy are those who are called to His supper.
The Bread of Life Catholic Webring
[ Join Now | List | Next 5 | << Prev | Next >> ]

Previous Next Index Random

This RingSurf

Sacred Heart of Jesus

Net Ring owned by
SHJIHM.


Random Site | List Sites | JOIN

The Sacred Heart of Jesus
Power By Ringsurf
Christian Banner Exchanger Webring
Power By Ringsurf

This

Blessed Virgin Mary Ring

owned by
SHJIHM



[ Join | Previous | Next | Skip Previous ] [ Skip Next | Next 5 Sites | Previous 5 Sites | List Sites ]