Mor(m)ons

[Woodruff]

Also.. what john said.

The line you are trying to draw between faith thinking and science thinking just does not exist. The difference between science and faith is the kind of evidence accepted, not the thinking process.

No, the difference between science and faith is that science attempts to answer questions through further examination using the scientific process whereas faith is not interested in using the scientific process in determining answers or those answers cannot possibly be determined by the scientific process.

[Woodruff]

This cartoon seems appropriate to the place this thread is in:

[Army of GOD]

who didn't fall of the bridge: the little moron or the big moron?

the little moron because he was a little-more on

[PLAYER57832]

Also.. what john said.

The line you are trying to draw between faith thinking and science thinking just does not exist. The difference between science and faith is the kind of evidence accepted, not the thinking process.

No, the difference between science and faith is that science attempts to answer questions through further examination using the scientific process whereas faith is not interested in using the scientific process in determining answers or those answers cannot possibly be determined by the scientific process.

See, here is the problem. You have set up a paradigm where the only thinking process is science.. all else is not thinking or questioning.

I say the real paradigm is not that, it is the kind of evidence accepted. Religion accepts things like text, tradition and personal experience. Science accepts, as proof, only that which can be shown to others.

Religion IS very much interested in finding answers, it is just not limited to things that can be proven given observable/quantifiable methods now available to us here on Earth.

What you describe above is not religion, it is just not thinking. I agree that many people act that way in regards to religion. They also do that in regards to politics, and even science (I believe I mentioned the time it took for velliger larvae to be considered larvae and not parasites?). However, that is their failing. That's like saying because some scientists falsify data or are just plain lazy/poor scientists, then all are. There is a vast difference between a technician plodding out numbers or chemicals and nobel laureates. There is a huge difference between the guy who goes to church, listens to his pastor/preacher/priest and "follows the rules" to get to heaven and truel theologic thinkers and analyzers.

[PLAYER57832]

This cartoon seems appropriate to the place this thread is in:

I did laugh...

[Woodruff]

Also.. what john said.

The line you are trying to draw between faith thinking and science thinking just does not exist. The difference between science and faith is the kind of evidence accepted, not the thinking process.

No, the difference between science and faith is that science attempts to answer questions through further examination using the scientific process whereas faith is not interested in using the scientific process in determining answers or those answers cannot possibly be determined by the scientific process.

See, here is the problem. You have set up a paradigm where the only thinking process is science.. all else is not thinking or questioning.

Perhaps you can point out for me how the concept of "faith" endears itself toward "thinking and questioning".

[john9blue]

Also.. what john said.

The line you are trying to draw between faith thinking and science thinking just does not exist. The difference between science and faith is the kind of evidence accepted, not the thinking process.

No, the difference between science and faith is that science attempts to answer questions through further examination using the scientific process whereas faith is not interested in using the scientific process in determining answers or those answers cannot possibly be determined by the scientific process.

See, here is the problem. You have set up a paradigm where the only thinking process is science.. all else is not thinking or questioning.

Perhaps you can point out for me how the concept of "faith" endears itself toward "thinking and questioning".

it doesn't, IMO

the thing is that religion is more than just faith... it uses logical thought processes. and many scientists use faith when making their assertions. so it's pathetically dishonest to try and pretend that you either follow one or the other.

[Woodruff]

Also.. what john said.

The line you are trying to draw between faith thinking and science thinking just does not exist. The difference between science and faith is the kind of evidence accepted, not the thinking process.

No, the difference between science and faith is that science attempts to answer questions through further examination using the scientific process whereas faith is not interested in using the scientific process in determining answers or those answers cannot possibly be determined by the scientific process.

See, here is the problem. You have set up a paradigm where the only thinking process is science.. all else is not thinking or questioning.

Perhaps you can point out for me how the concept of "faith" endears itself toward "thinking and questioning".

it doesn't, IMO

the thing is that religion is more than just faith... it uses logical thought processes. and many scientists use faith when making their assertions. so it's pathetically dishonest to try and pretend that you either follow one or the other.

Yes, scientists use faith when they make their assertions...I'VE SAID ALMOST EXACTLY THAT IN THIS THREAD. However, that is where the divergence between faith and science happens. Science goes on to look for the answer to the assertion, whereas faith simply accepts it. Because that's what faith is.

[john9blue]

Also.. what john said.

The line you are trying to draw between faith thinking and science thinking just does not exist. The difference between science and faith is the kind of evidence accepted, not the thinking process.

No, the difference between science and faith is that science attempts to answer questions through further examination using the scientific process whereas faith is not interested in using the scientific process in determining answers or those answers cannot possibly be determined by the scientific process.

See, here is the problem. You have set up a paradigm where the only thinking process is science.. all else is not thinking or questioning.

Perhaps you can point out for me how the concept of "faith" endears itself toward "thinking and questioning".

it doesn't, IMO

the thing is that religion is more than just faith... it uses logical thought processes. and many scientists use faith when making their assertions. so it's pathetically dishonest to try and pretend that you either follow one or the other.

Yes, scientists use faith when they make their assertions...I'VE SAID ALMOST EXACTLY THAT IN THIS THREAD. However, that is where the divergence between faith and science happens. Science goes on to look for the answer to the assertion, whereas faith simply accepts it. Because that's what faith is.

okay, so then you'll agree that christians who study philosophy, the bible, and the teachings of the church for answers to their questions are using science?

[Woodruff]

No, the difference between science and faith is that science attempts to answer questions through further examination using the scientific process whereas faith is not interested in using the scientific process in determining answers or those answers cannot possibly be determined by the scientific process.

See, here is the problem. You have set up a paradigm where the only thinking process is science.. all else is not thinking or questioning.

Perhaps you can point out for me how the concept of "faith" endears itself toward "thinking and questioning".

it doesn't, IMO

the thing is that religion is more than just faith... it uses logical thought processes. and many scientists use faith when making their assertions. so it's pathetically dishonest to try and pretend that you either follow one or the other.

Yes, scientists use faith when they make their assertions...I'VE SAID ALMOST EXACTLY THAT IN THIS THREAD. However, that is where the divergence between faith and science happens. Science goes on to look for the answer to the assertion, whereas faith simply accepts it. Because that's what faith is.

okay, so then you'll agree that christians who study philosophy, the bible, and the teachings of the church for answers to their questions are using science?

That depends on the questions, I suppose. See, what you appear to be missing is that I'm not at all saying that Christians can't be scientific (in fact, I've said exactly the opposite), but rather that science and faith are two disparate concepts and concepts of faith cannot be looked at from a scientific perspective. In fact, that's directly what that chart is saying. Science continues to explore whereas faith does not. This isn't rocket science, it's practically just definitions.

[Symmetry]

To be fair, Woody, faith does continue to expand. Eco-Theology is a fairly recent development, for example.

I agree with most of your points, but don't think that faiths have been standing still and ignoring the modern world.

[kentington]

That depends on the questions, I suppose. See, what you appear to be missing is that I'm not at all saying that Christians can't be scientific (in fact, I've said exactly the opposite), but rather that science and faith are two disparate concepts and concepts of faith cannot be looked at from a scientific perspective. In fact, that's directly what that chart is saying. Science continues to explore whereas faith does not. This isn't rocket science, it's practically just definitions.

I think what you are trying to say is that as soon as faith explores reason it is not faith but science?
This can make sense. A Christian who wants to explore science can do so for many reasons that would not imply doubt or lack of faith.
He/She could look into scientific research in the defense of their faith (for others) the same as scientists could, to show that their beliefs are right, a genuine interest in the topic. The list could go on, but the implication is that faith is belief without seeing. Science is about being able to see. Thus, the two can't mesh in the sense some are implying. One can have faith and still be scientific, one can have faith and search for answers but it wouldn't be stemming from faith.
That is how I see it.

Edit: Messed up the quotes. Hopefully, it is right now.

[Woodruff]

That depends on the questions, I suppose. See, what you appear to be missing is that I'm not at all saying that Christians can't be scientific (in fact, I've said exactly the opposite), but rather that science and faith are two disparate concepts and concepts of faith cannot be looked at from a scientific perspective. In fact, that's directly what that chart is saying. Science continues to explore whereas faith does not. This isn't rocket science, it's practically just definitions.

I think what you are trying to say is that as soon as faith explores reason it is not faith but science?
This can make sense. A Christian who wants to explore science can do so for many reasons that would not imply doubt or lack of faith.
He/She could look into scientific research in the defense of their faith (for others) the same as scientists could, to show that their beliefs are right, a genuine interest in the topic. The list could go on, but the implication is that faith is belief without seeing. Science is about being able to see. Thus, the two can't mesh in the sense some are implying. One can have faith and still be scientific, one can have faith and search for answers but it wouldn't be stemming from faith.
That is how I see it.
Edit: Messed up the quotes. Hopefully, it is right now.

Yes, you've got it exactly. "Faith" does not use the scientific method, nor can it.

[Woodruff]

To be fair, Woody, faith does continue to expand. Eco-Theology is a fairly recent development, for example.

I don't know what this means. (Onward to The Google Machine!)

After quick run on The Google Machine, this doesn't seem like much of a recent development to me...in fact, it seems similar to the druidic view of balance with nature. Many philosophies have viewed things this way.

Also, as I mentioned before, it's not that religious people can't use scientific methods...but if they do, they're not working on faith any longer.

[Symmetry]

To be fair, Woody, faith does continue to expand. Eco-Theology is a fairly recent development, for example.

I don't know what this means. (Onward to The Google Machine!)

After quick run on The Google Machine, this doesn't seem like much of a recent development to me...in fact, it seems similar to the druidic view of balance with nature. Many philosophies have viewed things this way.

Also, as I mentioned before, it's not that religious people can't use scientific methods...but if they do, they're not working on faith any longer.

On this you might have to trust me. Eco-theology is pretty new, but you'll never find a branch of theology that doesn't dig into history to find its roots. You will also have problems if you feel that theologians are just rehashing the middle ages. Science and religion can happily coincide.

To take a simple example, look to Gregor Mendel, a founder of genetics, but also an Augustinian monk. His work and his faith were not separate.

[Woodruff]

To be fair, Woody, faith does continue to expand. Eco-Theology is a fairly recent development, for example.

I don't know what this means. (Onward to The Google Machine!)

After quick run on The Google Machine, this doesn't seem like much of a recent development to me...in fact, it seems similar to the druidic view of balance with nature. Many philosophies have viewed things this way.

Also, as I mentioned before, it's not that religious people can't use scientific methods...but if they do, they're not working on faith any longer.

On this you might have to trust me. Eco-theology is pretty new, but you'll never find a branch of theology that doesn't dig into history to find its roots. You will also have problems if you feel that theologians are just rehashing the middle ages. Science and religion can happily coincide.

To take a simple example, look to Gregor Mendel, a founder of genetics, but also an Augustinian monk. His work and his faith were not separate.

Once again, I am not at all saying that people of faith cannot use science or anything so silly. Gregor Mendel clearly did scientific work, yet his scientific work itself was science and not faith. Perhaps you can explain how his work in genetics had anything to do with "faith".

[Army of GOD]

belief in a god is neither logical nor illogical.

[PLAYER57832]

Perhaps you can point out for me how the concept of "faith" endears itself toward "thinking and questioning".

OK, first you are shifting the debate slightly, because the original discussion was religion, not faith.

Faith is both a general term roughly equivalent to the term "religion", but it is also a specific term that means a specific mode of thinking that is not scientific... i.e. "blind faith".

BUT... religion and the more general term "faith" do not imply "blind faith". I am refering to that definition, not the more specific one.

ALL thinking has multiple origins. Where does anyone get any idea? Always from a combination of experiences, observations and likely some other factors we are only beginning to understand (chemical interactions, brain anomolies, etc, etc, etc.).

Religion takes a portion of that and puts it into a particular framework. Science takes that and puts it into a different framework. BUT the distinction only really happens near the end.

UP until you get to the point of proof, there is no real distinction between the process of science and religion.. or, rather, there need not be. Some scientists are very extreme technicians. That is, they take ONLY things they see/hear/feel, etc. On the other side are some religious individuals who, well, seem to mostly memorize text. In both cases, you are talking about an extreme few..and definitely not the best in either side.

The idea that science has to be opposed to religion is a popular idea. It comes from the fact that a large group of highly educated people decided to dismiss what their parents taught them, often because they were taught by people who were pretty narrow in thinking. A wide thinker constantly comes into conflict with narrow thinkers.

The mistake, though is in thinking that all religious thinkers, all scientists think the same or think narrowly.

Oh, let's throw in fantasy.... that is the place of pure ideas, without any basis in fact. It is no cooncidence that many scientists either write or enjoy fantasy type fiction. But... so do many religious individuals. And, some of the greatest science fiction involves a fair amount of religous questioning.

[Symmetry]

To be fair, Woody, faith does continue to expand. Eco-Theology is a fairly recent development, for example.

I don't know what this means. (Onward to The Google Machine!)

After quick run on The Google Machine, this doesn't seem like much of a recent development to me...in fact, it seems similar to the druidic view of balance with nature. Many philosophies have viewed things this way.

Also, as I mentioned before, it's not that religious people can't use scientific methods...but if they do, they're not working on faith any longer.

On this you might have to trust me. Eco-theology is pretty new, but you'll never find a branch of theology that doesn't dig into history to find its roots. You will also have problems if you feel that theologians are just rehashing the middle ages. Science and religion can happily coincide.

To take a simple example, look to Gregor Mendel, a founder of genetics, but also an Augustinian monk. His work and his faith were not separate.

Once again, I am not at all saying that people of faith cannot use science or anything so silly. Gregor Mendel clearly did scientific work, yet his scientific work itself was science and not faith. Perhaps you can explain how his work in genetics had anything to do with "faith".

I don't think he separated them. I suppose the greatest example of how he combined the two was that his work was conducted as a monk in the monasterial gardens.

[Woodruff]

Perhaps you can point out for me how the concept of "faith" endears itself toward "thinking and questioning".

OK, first you are shifting the debate slightly, because the original discussion was religion, not faith.

The hell I am. The whole arm of the thread resulted from that chart I posted, which explicitly stated "faith".

Faith is both a general term roughly equivalent to the term "religion", but it is also a specific term that means a specific mode of thinking that is not scientific... i.e. "blind faith".

So? I am speaking of "faith" as in "does not require proof", which SHOULD have been evident to you throughout this entire discussion.

BUT... religion and the more general term "faith" do not imply "blind faith". I am refering to that definition, not the more specific one.

Then we have nothing further to discuss, because YOU'RE the one changing the discussion now. If you want to continue trying to convince me that faith isn't distinctly different from science, let me know.

[Woodruff]

To be fair, Woody, faith does continue to expand. Eco-Theology is a fairly recent development, for example.

I don't know what this means. (Onward to The Google Machine!)

After quick run on The Google Machine, this doesn't seem like much of a recent development to me...in fact, it seems similar to the druidic view of balance with nature. Many philosophies have viewed things this way.

Also, as I mentioned before, it's not that religious people can't use scientific methods...but if they do, they're not working on faith any longer.

On this you might have to trust me. Eco-theology is pretty new, but you'll never find a branch of theology that doesn't dig into history to find its roots. You will also have problems if you feel that theologians are just rehashing the middle ages. Science and religion can happily coincide.

To take a simple example, look to Gregor Mendel, a founder of genetics, but also an Augustinian monk. His work and his faith were not separate.

Once again, I am not at all saying that people of faith cannot use science or anything so silly. Gregor Mendel clearly did scientific work, yet his scientific work itself was science and not faith. Perhaps you can explain how his work in genetics had anything to do with "faith".

I don't think he separated them. I suppose the greatest example of how he combined the two was that his work was conducted as a monk in the monasterial gardens.

Which part of his work in the monasterial gardens was based on faith? Which part of his work in the monasterial gardens was based on science? I would suggest to you that it was all part of the scientific method. Were you going to point out for me how his work in genetics had anything to do with "faith"?

[PLAYER57832]

Which part of his work in the monasterial gardens was based on faith? Which part of his work in the monasterial gardens was based on science? I would suggest to you that it was all part of the scientific method. Were you going to point out for me how his work in genetics had anything to do with "faith"?

The part where he wanted to find out about God's creation.

[Symmetry]

Look, Woody, the main area of my knowledge is 16th and 17th Century history. I deal a lot with people like John Dee, or Francis Bacon, for whom the exploration of scientific knowledge was no different than gaining knowledge through faith based studies like reading the Bible in Hebrew, or Greek.

I don't think there has to be a separation. Bacon is often considered one of the founders of the scientific method, but much of his drive was deeply religious. Protestantism was, for him, equated with science against (for him) a superstitious Catholic past. Dee advanced navigation while drawing on medieval religious thinkers like Roger Bacon (no relation to Francis).

I think you're perhaps ignoring the boundaries of what might motivate someone. Scientists can find something intangible in their research- the beauty of a mathematical proof, say. And religious people can find God in science.

Poor science and poor faith seem to me to be the things you find problematic.

[Army of GOD]

Look, Woody, the main area of my knowledge is 16th and 17th Century history.

PLAYERS main area of knowledge is everything

[PLAYER57832]

Perhaps you can point out for me how the concept of "faith" endears itself toward "thinking and questioning".

OK, first you are shifting the debate slightly, because the original discussion was religion, not faith.

The hell I am. The whole arm of the thread resulted from that chart I posted, which explicitly stated "faith".

Faith is both a general term roughly equivalent to the term "religion", but it is also a specific term that means a specific mode of thinking that is not scientific... i.e. "blind faith".

So? I am speaking of "faith" as in "does not require proof", which SHOULD have been evident to you throughout this entire discussion.

BUT... religion and the more general term "faith" do not imply "blind faith". I am refering to that definition, not the more specific one.

Then we have nothing further to discuss, because YOU'RE the one changing the discussion now. If you want to continue trying to convince me that faith isn't distinctly different from science, let me know.

Faith and logic are BOTH very much a part of BOTH science and religion, belief in God and ideas about science.

They differ in what they consider to be evidence, in the kinds of data and observations they admit as evidence.