What is the necessity of science?

Zombrex

This is a tangent that appeared on the Secularism thread, and to be honest it has nothing to do with secularism, so a thread in of its own is probably in order to stop me dragging that thread further off topic.

My question is what do you believe the purpose or necessity of science and the scientific method is if it is perfectly possible to know, accurate, knowledge of about reality and facts of reality without requiring that these are assess in a scientific fashion, as religious people around the world claim all the time.

Why, if this is perfectly possible for human beings to do on their own without scientific measurement or assessment, does science exist in the first place.

What do people think is happening to the scientists brain when science says something like to assess the accuracy of that theory on plant life you must use repeat experiments and falsification, that is absent from the scientists brain when they leave for the day and start thinking about God?

This thread is for those who believe science and scientific principles only apply when someone is doing science, and when they are not they are free to say things like they know God exists and heaven is real, and that is perfectly fine.

Seriously I would be very interested to know what people genuinely think the purpose or necessity of science is and why it doesn't apply to questions of religion where people can say with all honestly they accurately have determined these things without ever going near scientific standards or methodologies.

Xizors Palace

Wicknight wrote: »

My question is what do you believe the purpose or necessity of science and the scientific method is if it is perfectly possible to know, accurate, knowledge of about reality and facts of reality without requiring that these are assess in a scientific fashion, as religious people around the world claim all the time. [Science can help us learn about the world and creation. Science cannot measure or test spiritual realities.]

Why, if this is perfectly possible for human beings to do on their own without scientific measurement or assessment, does science exist in the first place.[Man produced the scientific method using the intellectual gifts given by his Creator.]

What do people think is happening to the scientists brain when science says something like to assess the accuracy of that theory on plant life you must use repeat experiments and falsification, that is absent from the scientists brain when they leave for the day and start thinking about God? [When I put my book away and go fishing, I can come back any time and carry on from where I left off. The standard method means that he can do the same thing on his return from the fishing trip.]

This thread is for those who believe science and scientific principles only apply when someone is doing science, and when they are not they are free to say things like they know God exists and heaven is real, and that is perfectly fine.[Science can neither definitively prove nor disprove the Catholic faith. Having said that, science has shown the veracity of the many Eucharistic miracles.]

Seriously I would be very interested to know what people genuinely think the purpose or necessity of science is and why it doesn't apply to questions of religion where people can say with all honestly they accurately have determined these things without ever going near scientific standards or methodologies.

If you are waiting for a definitive scientific proof of God you will be waiting. I tried that myself a few years ago. God wouldn't play ball. God wants us to believe in Him, to trust Him, and to make a leap of faith. If he gave a concrete sign of Himself, whereby there could be no doubt whatsoever, there would be no room for faith - this trust in Him which is so pleasing to God - yet which would be destroyed if we had irrefutable proof scientific of His existence.

I recommend you read this sometime:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html

Zombrex

Xizors Palace wrote: »

If you are waiting for a definitive scientific proof of God you will be waiting. I tried that myself a few years ago. God wouldn't play ball. God wants us to believe in Him, to trust Him, and to make a leap of faith. If he gave a concrete sign of Himself, whereby there could be no doubt whatsoever, there would be no room for faith - this trust in Him which is so pleasing to God - yet which would be destroyed if we had irrefutable proof scientific of His existence.

I recommend you read this sometime:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html

That didn't really answer my question.

Or are you saying that belief that God exists is far less of a belief than say the accuracy of electromagnetism, or evolution, or atomic theory, or any other well established scientific theory. That belief in God is a sort of It might be true, can't really tell, going to go with it type of belief, rather than knowledge based on high standards of assessment?

If that is the case then the question isn't really for you, it is for religious believers who say they know God exists and know various claims made by their religion are true.

Morbert

Xizors Palace wrote: »

If you are waiting for a definitive scientific proof of God you will be waiting. God wants us to believe in Him, to trust Him, and to make a leap of faith. If he gave a concrete sign of Himself, whereby there could be no doubt, there would be no room for faith, this trust in Him which is so pleasing to God, yet which would be destroyed if we had irrefutable proof scientific of His existence.

I recommend you read this sometime:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html

Not to derail the thread, but I never understood this line of thought. Faith in God, and faith in the existence of God are different things. Faith in God is the faith that promises would be kept, and that what God says is honest. Faith in the existence of God is, effectively, faith in the apostles.

Even if God did give a concrete sign (which he presumably did to the apostles 2000 years ago), there is still a need to place faith in him. There is presumably nothing to stop a deity from cruelty and deception against creation. My pet bird knows I exist, but it took a long time for it to trust me.

Xizors Palace

Wicknight wrote: »

That didn't really answer my question.

Or are you saying that belief that God exists is far less of a belief than say the accuracy of electromagnetism, or evolution, or atomic theory, or any other well established scientific theory. That belief in God is a sort of It might be true, can't really tell, going to go with it type of belief, rather than knowledge based on high standards of assessment?

If that is the case then the question isn't really for you, it is for religious believers who say they know God exists and know various claims made by their religion are true.

Well there are proofs. In the Christian who loves God, there is a discernible upwelling of divine grace, of joy, in the soul. I'm not sure you can measure that with science or even if you could, what it would tell you. Do non-believers experience this? I don't think so. They can experience natural joy and happiness, but that's not the same thing.

I am certain of one thing: that if there is any true religion on this earth, it is Catholicism. Might there be no God? Might this world be all there is? Perhaps. But nothing I have seen can convince me that there is no God or that the Catholic faith is not true.

We accept by faith the teachings of the Church as revealed by God.

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

Not to derail the thread, but I never understood this line of thought. Faith in God, and faith in the existence of God are different things. Faith in God is the faith that promises would be kept, and that what God says is honest. Faith in the existence of God is, effectively, faith in the apostles.

Even if God did give a concrete sign (which he presumably did to the apostles 2000 years ago), there is still a need to place faith in him. There is presumably nothing to stop a deity from cruelty and deception against creation. My pet bird knows I exist, but it took a long time for it to trust me.

Yes, trust in someone is not the same as belief they are real. I believe the guy who works in Burger King is real, I don't trust him not to give me food poisoning. Those two things are entirely different concepts.

Interesting, but probably a bit off topic.

Zombrex

Xizors Palace wrote: »

Well there are proofs. In the Christian who loves God, there is a discernible upwelling of divine grace, of joy, in the soul.

Ok, so back to my original question. What is the purpose of science then if such proofs can be accurately assessed without the need for scientific evaluation.

Xizors Palace wrote: »

I'm not sure you can measure that with science or even if you could, what it would tell you.

That is the point of the question. If you do not have to measure this in a scientific fashion (repeatably using falsifiable theories) what is the purpose of doing science at all?

Isn't science just a waste of time then?

Xizors Palace wrote: »

I am certain of one thing: that if there is any true religion on this earth, it is Catholicism. Might there be no God? Might this world be all there is? Perhaps. But nothing I have seen can convince me that there is no God or that the Catholic faith is not true.

And you have assess this to the level of certainty without the need for any scientific evaluation. Certainity now, just to be clear. Not maybe its true, maybe its not it doesn't really matter. But certainty. I hope I'm not over stating it.

So again, if you can be certain of this without requiring scientific evaluation, why do we need scientific evaluation at all.

Surely we can be as certain about anything else without bothering to do science?

Xizors Palace

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok, so back to my original question. What is the purpose of science then if such proofs can be accurately assessed without the need for scientific evaluation.



That is the point of the question. If you do not have to measure this in a scientific fashion (repeatably using falsifiable theories) what is the purpose of doing science at all?

Isn't science just a waste of time then?



And you have assess this to the level of certainty without the need for any scientific evaluation. Certainity now, just to be clear. Not maybe its true, maybe its not it doesn't really matter. But certainty. I hope I'm not over stating it.

So again, if you can be certain of this without requiring scientific evaluation, why do we need scientific evaluation at all.

Surely we can be as certain about anything else without bothering to do science?

I can only be certain about the causes of sparrow decline by doing scientific studies. Science helps us understand sparrow population declines and can also help us understand how we can help sparrows. You can't understand the decline of inner-city sparrows by faith alone.

As regards faith, I cannot be totally and completely certain about God. There must be room for faith. There are different kinds and levels of certainty and different kinds of proofs, not just scientific proofs.

Xizors Palace

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes, trust in someone is not the same as belief they are real. I believe the guy who works in Burger King is real, I don't trust him not to give me food poisoning. Those two things are entirely different concepts.

Eating the burger is an act of faith. You can believe in the burger on the table, but only by eating the burger can you have faith, or trust.

If I believe in God, that is one thing. If I have faith in Him, my trust (which is another word for faith in this context) leads me to organise my entire life around this God.

Zombrex

Xizors Palace wrote: »

I can only be certain about the causes of sparrow decline by doing scientific studies.
...
You can't understand the decline of inner-city sparrows by faith alone.

Why? What happens if you try too? I mean if you simply choose the cause that feels like it makes sense isn't that good enough?

Xizors Palace wrote: »

As regards faith, I cannot be totally and completely certain about God. There must be room for faith.

What does that mean, room for faith? Who says their must be room for faith? If it is God then isn't that a bit circular. You can't be sure about God but you think he exists and you think he wants you to be not sure about him (ie require faith not proof).

If you aren't sure couldn't you be not sure about him wanting you to be not sure?

Xizors Palace wrote: »

There are different kinds and levels of certainty and different kinds of proofs, not just scientific proofs.

Ok, but why then are scientific proofs necessary in the first place if you are perfectly happy with the kind of proof that says God is real, which you seem to be suggesting is a lesser proof that scientific proof?

I mean can't you just do what you are doing with God with sparrow decline, or electricity, or roller coast design? Is that not good enough?

Zombrex

Xizors Palace wrote: »

Eating the burger is an act of faith. You can believe in the burger on the table, but only by eating the burger can you have faith, or trust.

Who am I trusting when I eat the burger?

Xizors Palace wrote: »

If I believe in God, that is one thing. If I have faith in Him, my trust (which is another word for faith in this context) leads me to organise my entire life around this God.

Yeah I accept that, but don't you agree you don't need to trust he exists in order to trust that he will do right by you, that those are two different things.

For example you believe Satan exists (I assume). You don't trust Satan, but that doesn't stop you from believing he is real.

TravelJunkie

I don't really know what you're trying to find out with this thread.

I'm not a scientist, never studied it further than I had to.

What I can say is that, in my opinion, when you're conducting experiments, etc. testing theories, you're working within rules or boundaries set out for the purpose of what you're trying to prove/achieve.

Same with God, except he has given us his own set of rules / boundaries. We want a spiritual life with him, well, we have a methodology to follow. Read the word, meditate on it and pray. Seek God in times of trouble and rely on Him. Call on him. Let our light shine - ie. minister to other people. Also, fellowship with other christians, and respect each other. Lastly, we also have a mission, to spread the gospel.

This is just a brief summary.

Onesimus

Christians believe in both the visible and the invisible. Science is the study of the visible facts. But when trys to answer the existence of God, it no longer becomes science but ''philosophy''.

But when science ceases to explain a supernatural event which is brought about by the invisible ( of which ''science'' can not study ) it fobs it off by using their invisible God known as ''coincidence''.Thats known as bad science though. The kind that meddles in affairs of the invisible and gives itself a really bad name.

Zombrex

TravelJunkie wrote: »

I don't really know what you're trying to find out with this thread.

I'm trying to find out if anyone can justify the necessity of science while holding to beliefs about supernatural claims that have never been, and can never be, assess to anything close to scientific standards.

Why if people do this with supernatural beliefs is science necessary at all?

TravelJunkie wrote: »

What I can say is that, in my opinion, when you're conducting experiments, etc. testing theories, you're working within rules or boundaries set out for the purpose of what you're trying to prove/achieve.

Same with God, except he has given us his own set of rules / boundaries.

At some point this must be reduced back to you actually determining satisfactorily that God exists and has actually give you his own set of rules and boundaries, that you aren't simply wrong.

If you can do this without requiring scientific assessment, then what is the point of scientific assessment. Surely it is unnecessary?

TravelJunkie wrote: »

Lastly, we also have a mission, to spread the gospel.

Says who? The Bible? Ok why is the Bible true?

Do you seem my point. At some point in time every Christian decided that all of this was actually real. They didn't decide that about Hinduism, or Scientology.

How did you do that given that you didn't do it using scientific standards of exploration.

And if you were able to manage this without science, why is science necessary in the first place?

Why can't you apply the same principles to the study of atoms, or electricity, or black holes, or cancer?

Zombrex

Onesimus wrote: »

Christians believe in both the visible and the invisible.

Why? How did you determine there was anything "invisible" in the first place to believe in?

Given that I'm certain it wasn't through science, why then is science necessary. Why can't you just use the process you used to determine the invisible exists, and apply that to the visible as well.

Doesn't it make science redundant, a huge over reaction?

Onesimus wrote: »

Science is the study of the visible facts. But when trys to answer the existence of God, it no longer becomes science but ''philosophy''.

So why can't we just use this "philosophy" to determine things about atoms, and gravity, and cancer and electromagnets?

This philosophy works doesn't it, you are certain God exists?

Onesimus

So why can't we just use this "philosophy" to determine things about atoms, and gravity, and cancer and electromagnets?

This philosophy works doesn't it, you are certain God exists?

I'm talking about the study of God with regards to science. That it becomes a philosophy. using philosophy to determine things about atoms and gravity is fine but it cannot find atoms and gravitys ''creator'' and only give a limited - although correct - description of how they work in the world.

Could you quote us a correct definition of Science also? it sounds like you want to have both your cake and eat it. In that you think science can discover whether God exists and thus denounce the scientific method by turning it into a philosophy. By philosophy I mean the study of God.

Have you studied science? or study it? have you ever thought about putting this question towards your teachers or professors?

Zombrex

Onesimus wrote: »

I'm talking about the study of God with regards to science. That it becomes a philosophy. using philosophy to determine things about atoms and gravity is fine but it cannot find atoms and gravitys ''creator'' and only give a limited - although correct - description of how they work in the world.

Sorry, not following. What can't find atoms "creator"? Philosophy or science?

What I'm asking is why can't you take the process or methodology you used to discover God exists and is the Christian God, and apply that to finding out about atoms and junk.

Why bother with science at all, if the other method works perfectly well?

Onesimus wrote: »

Could you quote us a correct definition of Science also? it sounds like you want to have both your cake and eat it. In that you think science can discover whether God exists and thus denounce the scientific method by turning it into a philosophy. By philosophy I mean the study of God.

That is the complete opposite of what I'm asking. I know science cannot discover God, because God's existence is an untestable claim.

My question is theists believe there is a system that can, that isn't limited by the problems science has about requiring verification. All theist believe God exists and is the god they believe he is (the Hindu gods, the Christian God, the Islamic God), and the same with the details of the religion.

So why then is science necessary?

Can't we just use this process instead? And if not, why not?

Onesimus

Sorry, not following. What can't find atoms "creator"? Philosophy or science?

Neither philosophy or science can find atoms creator.They are the means by which we can come to accept and put faith in the existence of God but thats about it. Proving Gods existence is always a matter of philosophical discussion. It is never a means by which we come to believe in the creator. We have the evidence for Gods existence but its a matter of accepting that evidence. If one is stubborn and refuses to accept this evidence then he is a barrier on to himself. Thus the atheist always ends up in the ''I simply DONT WANT to believe category.''

What I'm asking is why can't you take the process or methodology you used to discover God exists and is the Christian God, and apply that to finding out about atoms and junk.

What method? you mean the philosophical method? Yes you can but in order for it to work with science it needs visible proof. In order for it to work with God it needs faith and acceptance of that visible proof.

Why bother with science at all, if the other method works perfectly well?

Because science does not belong to science, Science belongs to God and is a gift from him that, if used in the correct manner of which it was given, will help us discover and find stuff within the world and loving God and thanking him more, in a manner that does not degrade the very gift of science itself.

Science degrades itself by trying to find God because it claims to be the study of the visible. Unless you want to creat a new sect called the ''scientific/philosophic group'' but it would be pointless, because neither method can FIND God in his completeness for God transcends all knowledge. Any knowledge we have of him is correct but limited.

could you answer my question about giving me an encyclopedias definition of what science is? and do you study it? have you ever put forth this question to your professor?

Onesimus

Zombrex

Onesimus wrote: »

Neither philosophy or science can find atoms creator.

Umm, not quite following, you mentioned "philosophy"

"But when trys to answer the existence of God, it no longer becomes science but ''philosophy''."


What ever you want to call the process humans can use to accurately determine the Christian God is real, call it process X, why can't we use this process to discover all other stuff, including stuff we traditionally use science for?

Or why don't we, if science is interested in accuracy of ideas about reality, why doesn't it use the process you and other religious people use?

Onesimus wrote: »

They are the means by which we can come to accept and put faith in the existence of God but thats about it. Proving Gods existence is always a matter of philosophical discussion.

Ok, how do we come to accept the existence of God, and why can't we apply that to what we do with science?

Shouldn't this process make science unnecessary and redundant?

Onesimus wrote: »

What method? you mean the philosophical method?

What ever method you used to determine, or accept as you put it, that the Christian God is the one that actually exists, and the other ones don't. That you determined that this is a fact, not a fiction or mistake.

Onesimus wrote: »

Yes you can but in order for it to work with science it needs visible proof.

Why do you think science need visible proof, when that isn't necessary?

You know God exists, you don't have visible proof. You determined this without that. So it doesn't require visible proof to determine something accurately about the nature of reality.

So why does science require this if it isn't necessary?

Onesimus wrote: »

could you answer my question about giving me an encyclopedias definition of what science is?

You can use what ever definition of science you are happy with.

AhSureTisGrand

Onesimus wrote: »

Thus the atheist always ends up in the ''I simply DONT WANT to believe category.''

Funny to hear that. I tried so hard to believe after losing my faith

Xizors Palace

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Funny to hear that. I tried so hard to believe after losing my faith

Faith is a gift. It has to be asked for. One must pray to God and ask him for this gift of faith. Then one must be patient and so forth.

AhSureTisGrand

Xizors Palace wrote: »

Faith is a gift. It has to be asked for. One must pray to God and ask him for this gift of faith. Then one must be patient and so forth.

How can I pray to something I don't believe in?

riffmongous

I think OP its because science hasn't advanced to a stage yet where it can cope with the level of intelligence possessed by humans. Humans can currently ask questions that science can't answer or we have questions that we don't want to apply a scientific method to the answer. So we try to answer these questions with ethics/philosophy/theology instead.

Manach

Offhand science has the purpose to accurately describe and predict the laws of material nature except in the rare edge cases of Event horizons or cats in boxes, and even then statistics can be used to give a high degree of probability (tongue in check response: to provide jobs for lazy types, like mes-elf)

Zombrex

riffmongous wrote: »

I think OP its because science hasn't advanced to a stage yet where it can cope with the level of intelligence possessed by humans.

Can you expand a bit on that, science is a human derived methodology. As is theology.

riffmongous wrote: »

Humans can currently ask questions that science can't answer or we have questions that we don't want to apply a scientific method to the answer. So we try to answer these questions with ethics/philosophy/theology instead.

But if we can answer these questions using these methods, which are also human derived methodologies, what is the necessity of science?

Zombrex

Manach wrote: »

Offhand science has the purpose to accurately describe and predict the laws of material nature except in the rare edge cases of Event horizons or cats in boxes, and even then statistics can be used to give a high degree of probability (tongue in check response: to provide jobs for lazy types, like mes-elf)

But isn't that all redundant? Why is it necessary to use science to accurately describe reality. People don't use science to know God exists, and they would believe that is an accurate descriptions of reality, wouldn't they?

Manach

That is why I stuck in the "material" part in my response. I don't actually see the Holy Ghost as being amenable to be burning by a bunsen's blaze.

riffmongous

Wicknight wrote: »

Can you expand a bit on that, science is a human derived methodology. As is theology

But if we can answer these questions using these methods, which are also human derived methodologies, what is the necessity of science?

Ok, well I was thinking about the free will thread over on the humanities forum, and the conclusion is that if you look at humans from a strictly physics viewpoint we are just a collection of atoms and electrical signals, nothing special at all. But due to our level of intelligence we have decided that we are special, that's why we developed rules (our laws) and systems (ethics,religion and so on) that use non-scientific values.

I hope that makes sense to you. But I was thinking that maybe you mean a 'scientific method' as used in science by humans? Like coming up with a theory, stating your assumptions, then trying to prove it.. etc? And why we do we need this if we just assume other things? If that's what you meant, apologies for my ramblings

Zombrex

Manach wrote: »

That is why I stuck in the "material" part in my response. I don't actually see the Holy Ghost as being amenable to be burning by a bunsen's blaze.

Ok, but why can't the same methodology used to study the immaterial not be applied to the material as well?

Zombrex

riffmongous wrote: »

Ok, well I was thinking about the free will thread over on the humanities forum, and the conclusion is that if you look at humans from a strictly physics viewpoint we are just a collection of atoms and electrical signals, nothing special at all. But due to our level of intelligence we have decided that we are special, that's why we developed rules (our laws) and systems (ethics,religion and so on) that use non-scientific values.

I hope that makes sense to you. But I was thinking that maybe you mean a 'scientific method' as used in science by humans? Like coming up with a theory, stating your assumptions, then trying to prove it.. etc? And why we do we need this if we just assume other things? If that's what you meant, apologies for my ramblings

yeah that is sort of the question. why bother with all this scientific method when studying some things when you can just as easily do it without it. No one has ever studied God to the degree necessary for since, yet everyone on this forum says they believe God exists and is how Christianity describes him. They have determined this without requiring scientific standards. So doesn't that make scientific standards redundant?

riffmongous

Wicknight wrote: »

yeah that is sort of the question. why bother with all this scientific method when studying some things when you can just as easily do it without it. No one has ever studied God to the degree necessary for since, yet everyone on this forum says they believe God exists and is how Christianity describes him. They have determined this without requiring scientific standards. So doesn't that make scientific standards redundant?

Well I'm not sure that I can answer that question, since I'm still waiting for a scientific theory of God to come along

One problem I do have with the scientific method though is that it leads to theories that work rather than 'the truth'. And while the method should eventually take us closer and closer we will never be certain if we know what is really happening. And I think this isn't good enough for a lot of people, its okay for science since that will keep going and improving for as long as humans exist and remember the knowledge but people themselves won't live forever and they want certainty in their lives. I think some people can live without the certainty but others can't, so they can ignore a method that will never work for them.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

My question is what do you believe the purpose or necessity of science is

It makes nerds feel better about themselves when they're home alone on Saturday nights:pac:

Zombrex

riffmongous wrote: »

One problem I do have with the scientific method though is that it leads to theories that work rather than 'the truth'. And while the method should eventually take us closer and closer we will never be certain if we know what is really happening. And I think this isn't good enough for a lot of people, its okay for science since that will keep going and improving for as long as humans exist and remember the knowledge but people themselves won't live forever and they want certainty in their lives. I think some people can live without the certainty but others can't, so they can ignore a method that will never work for them.

Do you think the other methods work better at discovering actual truth for these people?

riffmongous

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you think the other methods work better at discovering actual truth for these people?

No, I don't think they do. Not actual truth, I often wonder if its even possible for that to be understood by humans, even using science (not trying to contradict what I said earlier about the scientific method taking us closer and closer, here I mean is it even possible for the method to take us to the truth), since the universe allows regions where science doesn't work, like singularities. But that's just my opinion as an astrophysicist

Zombrex

riffmongous wrote: »

No, I don't think they do. Not actual truth, I often wonder if its even possible for that to be understood by humans, even using science (not trying to contradict what I said earlier about the scientific method taking us closer and closer, here I mean is it even possible for the method to take us to the truth), since the universe allows regions where science doesn't work, like singularities. But that's just my opinion as an astrophysicist

Do you believe in the existence of a particular god?

Festus

This is a very strange thread. Surely theology is the science of religion.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

This is a very strange thread. Surely theology is the science of religion.

If that is the case why isn't theology just the "science" of everything? Why bother with science at all?

What would happen if you tried to study the natural world with the methodology deployed in theology?

riffmongous

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you believe in the existence of a particular god?

I am undecided, and I don't mean that as a copout I was atheistic when I started studying but towards the end I wasn't so sure. So I decided not to commit to any viewpoint and think it over which I am still doing.

dcmraad

Xizors Palace wrote: »

I am certain of one thing: that if there is any true religion on this earth, it is Catholicism. Might there be no God? Might this world be all there is? Perhaps. But nothing I have seen can convince me that there is no God or that the Catholic faith is not true..

Why would you believe this? If superstition became origins of Judaism, and christians came out of that.

Science has been developed by people for whom the answer God did/made it is not enough.

Manach

I disagree. Many prominent scientists pursued their work as a means of achieving a greater understanding of God's creation. For example Newton. A recent biography "Newton and the Counterfeiter" give a background to this.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm trying to find out if anyone can justify the necessity of science while holding to beliefs about supernatural claims that have never been, and can never be, assess to anything close to scientific standards.

Why if people do this with supernatural beliefs is science necessary at all?



At some point this must be reduced back to you actually determining satisfactorily that God exists and has actually give you his own set of rules and boundaries, that you aren't simply wrong.

If you can do this without requiring scientific assessment, then what is the point of scientific assessment. Surely it is unnecessary?



Says who? The Bible? Ok why is the Bible true?

Do you seem my point. At some point in time every Christian decided that all of this was actually real. They didn't decide that about Hinduism, or Scientology.

How did you do that given that you didn't do it using scientific standards of exploration.

And if you were able to manage this without science, why is science necessary in the first place?

Why can't you apply the same principles to the study of atoms, or electricity, or black holes, or cancer?

Because faith is revealed by God, made certain in our minds as much as any exhaustive scientific experiment would convince you of the truth it reveals.

Now, if the nature of atoms, or electricity, or black holes, or cancer were likewise revealed by God, there would be no need for science. Since they are not, or only briefly, we must turn to science for the details.

__________________________________________________________________
1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge— 21 by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith.
Grace be with you. Amen.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Because faith is revealed by God, made certain in our minds as much as any exhaustive scientific experiment would convince you of the truth it reveals.

How do you assess that the reason you are certain was because God did something, as opposed to any other explanation (I think you yourself talked about events happening that you assessed could not be random)?

And can't you take this method of assessment and apply it to something else.

Say for example, I'm certain of claim X about natural phenomena Y. Do I have to run scientific tests on that claim to back up my certainty? Or is the fact that I'm certain enough to justify that?

If so doesn't that make science rather redundant?

Zombrex

Manach wrote: »

I disagree. Many prominent scientists pursued their work as a means of achieving a greater understanding of God's creation. For example Newton. A recent biography "Newton and the Counterfeiter" give a background to this.

I don't think that is quite what he meant. Those scientists weren't happy with "God did it". They wanted to know what God did, and found natural processes.

"God did it" though still caused problems, and Newton is a good example of this because Newton stopped his research into certain areas of physics because he believed "God did it" was a satisfactory explanation and that there was nothing to discover beyond that in these areas.

It was later that French natural philosopher discovered the natural workings of the area that Newton was content to leave up to God entirely.

Neil deGrasse Tyson has a good talk on this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YotBtibsuh0

Festus

dcmraad wrote: »

Science has been developed by people for whom the answer God did/made it is not enough.

I thought science was invented for people for whom no answer is ever sufficient

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

I thought science was invented for people for whom no answer is ever sufficient

You might want to consider that the next time you get into an aeroplane :pac:

Manach

If God had meant man to fly He would not have invented Aer Lingus Management.

Festus

Wicknight wrote: »

You might want to consider that the next time you get into an aeroplane :pac:

I have it on good authority that science is not what keeps Ryanair's craft in the air.

Fanny Cradock

I would imagine it's profit.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

I have it on good authority that science is not what keeps Ryanair's craft in the air.

Well leaving aside any deals with the devil Michael O'Leary may have taken, what keeps aircraft in the air is an accurate understanding of aerodynamics.

It is things like that why science was invented.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

How do you assess that the reason you are certain was because God did something, as opposed to any other explanation (I think you yourself talked about events happening that you assessed could not be random)?

And can't you take this method of assessment and apply it to something else.

Say for example, I'm certain of claim X about natural phenomena Y. Do I have to run scientific tests on that claim to back up my certainty? Or is the fact that I'm certain enough to justify that?

If so doesn't that make science rather redundant?

I would separate the criteria of the prime proof (God revealed it) and the secondary assurances (answers to prayer).

The former is an absolute proof, the latter is subject to some levels of testing - logic, common-sense, scientific process to assess its likelihood of being mere chance.

__________________________________________________________________
1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge— 21 by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith.
Grace be with you. Amen.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I would separate the criteria of the prime proof (God revealed it) and the secondary assurances (answers to prayer).

The former is an absolute proof, the latter is subject to some levels of testing - logic, common-sense, scientific process to assess its likelihood of being mere chance.

"God revealed it" though is a claim about reality. As "Your imagining it" is also a claim about reality, as is "The devil is tricking you" is a claim about reality.

How do you assess which is, to your mind, more accurate?