SHJIHM :: Passion of The Christ :: Expelled ~ Runboard
"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
Re: Expelled Science and Faith CAN complement each other, if kept separate. It is a simple fact that facts gained through observation and careful study, along with critical reviews and attempts to contradict, are completely opposite of views based on acceptance without question of divine revelation that is not open to review or criticism.
Faith, in this context, means saying 'God did it, and I accept this' whereas science says 'I wonder what did it, I think I will ask questions, and explore what the evidence says'.
Do you not see faith as making it hard to follow the scientific process? If you already answer the question with 'God did it' as many of the faithful do, and have done throughout history, then what do you learn about the world around you? What CAN you learn?
Re: Expelled Or Faith could have its traditional meaning and say that 'God did this but God is rational and created a universe that a rational human mind can seek to understand so lets investigate'. Without believing in God you are implicitly accepting the conviction of a rational universe from experience. That experience came out of philosophy and that was my earlier point.
Michael D By definition, science cannot address theology directly.
Michael, I made this same point to my atheist friend. Here was his reply. Thought I'd share it
Of course it can, and does. Theological claims about the nature of the world can be tested just like any other claim.
It's just that theology has an abysmal win/loss record when theology and science enter conflict. Science may not have anything to say about the existence of the Christian God, but then again, it doesn't have anything to say about Ra, Odin, Zeus, Vishnu, or any of a thousand other deities that man has believed in. That the question of God is lumped into the same category as these other dubious theological claims says more about the weakness of the claim than it does about the limits of science.
Last edited by SHJIHM, Feb/27/2009, 3:39 pm
--- "My Sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.
Approaching theology from a scientific perspective doesn't make sense, as the approach to the claims are completely different. I do agree with his point about theological claims on the nature of the world, though.
And this is where Michael's point comes in - keeping a rational mind, and assuming that God put the world together in a rational way. This keeps a person's mind much more open, and able to follow scientific logic.
I think that anyone would agree that there are too many who sit back and contradict scientific claims with the way the Bible is written. In doing this, it is blatantly shown that most people of 'faith' cannot effectively follow the scientific process. While I do agree that Science, tempered with philosophy, which has shown many amazing exercises of reason, is a very good thing, but that science tempered with religion or faith is disaster.
quote:
'God did this but God is rational and created a universe that a rational human mind can seek to understand so lets investigate'
With the above quote, Michael, do you really believe it holds when speaking of rationality in the scientific sense? The existence of miracles implies that this is not really all that valid, I would think.
Re: Expelled Lauchlin,
Christian theology created the idea of the miracle as a sort of 'suspend the rules card' for God. If the universe were not governed by rational laws then every action would have some fashion of divine origin. That thought leads to pantheism or s variation of the gnostic concept of everything being divine emanations originating from the prime mover and working down the hierarchy of divine beings.
Re: Expelled So I guess the next question is, what is the rationale behind miracles? I know there is always the statement about God having a plan, and all - the get out of rational, consistent system free card. This is the issue that scientists have with faith, though.
When a scientist examines a miracle, they question the miracle, and see if it was really miraculous in the 'divine' sense.
An example my Mom always uses is the instance of a car or train crash, where many people die, but a child or baby survives. To her this is the miraculous survival of the innocent.
While this is encouraging, and comforting in a certain light, from a scientific perspective, this denies the fact that many children and babies in other scenarios die, seemingly without reason.
But that is the problem when one looks for objective evidence when the 'granting' of a miracle would supposedly be a very subjective thing, without any law, rule, or evidence. Granted, most scientists, instead, would use this to argue that the appearance of a 'miracle' is not statistically significant, and that they are not allowed to approach such things with the proper scrutiny.
Overall, from the scientific perspective, they would have to see evidence of the influence of God, coming face to face with a deity, or having some kind of evidence that was more than just the recorded word of men to vouch for it.
Re: Expelled The Catholic Church actually investigates miracles as part of its canonization process. The vast majority of miracles they attempt to ascertain the validity of are miraculous healings supposedly brought about by the intervention of a saint. Competent medical professionals are involved to verify that no natural process could have been the cause of the recovery. I suppose one could ask why God heals some and not others. I don't know how to answer that.
The very few showy miracles are apparently usually offered to confirm a vision or message. The miracle of the sun at Fatima is perhaps the most famous of such examples.
Re: Expelled I guess I have grown to mistrust the Church greatly on such matters, so would have to read up on their verification practices, and assure myself that they are using objective parties to examine the evidence.
I guess, after seeing all the approaches of people to support creationism/ID, I have gotten very soured on the whole thing. I mean, as a for instance, the idea of irreducible complexity - or as I view it, science by throwing in the towel.
If something seems 'irreducible' in complexity, that is where I say to myself, I am not equipped, at present, to find out any more about this, as I am just me, I am flawed, and biased, and of limited faculties - I do not know all. From this, I can sit back and say, perhaps, as time goes on, through peer review, and continued research, an answer will be found.
Doesn't it seem a trifle conceited to think to oneself 'since I cannot follow this path anymore, there must be no more to find out'? Particularly for someone that has no strong background of scientific research, such as the man who came up with irreducible complexity.
I know this sounds like the scientific gestapo, but in all reality I see it as being as simple as looking for a mechanic to fix my car, not a grocer.
Re: Expelled You really should read up on it if you have become that cynical, Lauchlin. This is not irreducible complexity or attempting to prove God through science. The Catholic Church certainly does not use these investigations for PR purposes either. It is simply something that must be done so that people do not claim miracles willy-nilly. Good sense requires investigation of such claims.
Re: Expelled I would agree... but I find myself fighting a losing battle with my cynicism. I look around at the abuses of the Word, and even the idea of Christ. From televangelists, to the vatican... I mean, in all reality, I would think Christ would be unhappy visiting Rome, considering the way he preached to people.
When I have time, though, I will take a peek at their verification practices. At present, I just find it hard to believe that they would be able to be objective. But that is a me problem, not a them problem, so we shall see.
