Q? for the faithful

We can know that science is valid knowledge of reality because it works. We can apply scientific priniples to accurately predict future conditions, create technologies that function etc. That so, why does religion turn it’s back? If you folks believe that reality is Created by God, doesn’t it follow that science is in effect God’s word? Hasn’t the Church made a massive mistake promoting faith - to the exclusion of rational doubt and valid knowledge?

In the [translated] words of Martin Luther himself, “Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has.”

Absolutely!!!

So few replies from the faithful. It’s almost as if they just ignore that which challenges their fixed, false beliefs - the psychos. I wonder if any managed to read past the word science in the OP?

:laughing:

You won’t get adequate replies, just board warnings :wink:.

if that’s truly the case, that’s too bad :frowning:
I mean about the board warnings part, of course he’s not going to get adequate replies. :wink:

I don’t think that you will get very many replies because most of the faithful agree with your OP. The typical answer to the Q is :
‘Yeah, sure, let’s move on.’

The faithful agree that it was a massive mistake promoting faith? Hrm…

“Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.” - Genesis 3:23

Oddly, it seems like that passage could be used to support either side of the issue. But maybe I’m taking it out of context.

I am sure some members of the various big churches promote faith to the exclusion of rational doubt and valid knowledge, but most use rational doubt in their lives and valid knowledge. And then there are many other theists who do not see that a choice has to be made. And then there are many ‘rationalists’ who do not realize that they too use faith or intuition all the time.

He said:

The end bit ‘to the exclusion of rational doubt and valid knowledge’ is important to answering the question. Maybe in the Middle Ages, faith was everything but since then rational thought has become more common. I don’t think that the faithful who are on ILP are very likely to believe that faith, to the exclusion of rational doubt and knowledge, was/is a good thing.

This brings to mind an episode of the show Numb3rs that was centered around a religious extremist cult who believed science was the work of the devil, to such an extent that it was a sin to even accept medical help. One of the scientists in the show, Larry, had this to say –

“What kind of mindless cretins would blind themselves to the gifts of science? How else would a creator reveal himself, but through his creation? And to deny the mind of that creation is to deny the mind of god!”

Yes, I think that sums it up nicely.

Watch it. I suggest reading the rules.

Perhaps the problem is that the early church condemned pagan teachings and early science came into that. It then condemned anything which utilised nature as if to be sorcery, and so science has always been condemned for what is seen as an attack on gods law ~ as opposed to the understanding of gods creation. Alchemy can seam like its not natural just as some areas of modern science can.

Problem is that everything is put into one container, all areas of science and philosophy which don’t agree with theology etc, are put in with the more innocuous and potentially sympathetic aspects.

And so we have a duality which persists to this day, science is not benign in its part either, it is quite happy to use its understanding against that of the church esp with atheist ‘missionaries’ like Richard Dawkins.

Personally I think both sides think they know more than they do and always have.

I also think they could both benefit by learning from one another.

Um…okay, wtf?

The words weren’t mine, it was a quote, which I cited, and anyway, I wasn’t directing it towards anyone. The point is that I think it makes sense that, if a creator exists, we can know more about him through science. Seriously, chill out. Why would you automatically take it as an insult? When have I ever gone out of my way to insult someone just because they believe in god? Actually, though I don’t follow any religion myself, I’ve always gone out of my way to defend it on these boards, to try to explain the way I’ve seen Christian minds work. Why don’t YOU go read the rules, and stop jumping the gun.

Even in the Middle Ages much of the use of reason was directly connected to the church.

There is scientific evidence that religion works too, though perhaps due to an unexpected cause:

news.discovery.com/human/religio … print=true

Hello Mark
Valid knowledge really translates into a knowledge of our own assumptions and not necessarily a knowledge about what really is the case. Our assumptions can be expanded becoming “principles” that we use to negotiate with reality. But from thiese you can get superstition as well as science. Again I don’t see a necessary link to a knowledge of reality as much as an assumption about reality. And of course we adopt and preserve certain assumption above others because we see that these “work”, yet nonetheless a fantasy can work for centuries because work is in the eye of the beholder.
As for predictions, this is actually a remnant of the religious spirit whose chief duty was to predict. But the weatherman gets it wrong sometimes and spacecraft explode violently in the sky. To all of this religion turns it’s back only because of the basic assumption at the root of science that we do not know the ultimate why but only the how. But besides this, in certain matters, science simply regurgitates the same assumptions about the universe displayed by the religious spirit, such as the belief in one colossal moment of creation. Of course even that assumption is now almost completely abandoned, even if it had been scientifically unassailable for decades.

You’re on to something here.
The Christian Church, which absorbed Half of the world, operated from a conclusion backwards. It was biased towards certain evidence, certain interpretations. Whatever challeneged a dogma had to be supressed. Ideally, science should be like that too but sometimes it acts just like Christianity did.

That’s unremarkable – everything was connected to the church. Galileo couldn’t be an atheist if he wanted to. Really, they’d torture and murder him (or maybe I got the time frame wrong…)