Faith and science

[lao tzu]

Greetings, TWeb,

What do you do when faced with physical evidence that contradicts your spiritual faith? Is it ever okay to believe something in your heart that can be proven untrue in your head?

What's the minimum intellectual requirement to be called a christian? Can a congenital idiot be saved?

Most of the world today accepts that humans arose from another species and still they find a way to love their kids, but half of American christianity thinks evolution somehow makes us less than human. What's up with that?

I PMed these questions to a few TWebbers and received a reply from Jedidiah in anticipation of this discussion.

If something can be proven to be untrue discard it.

Christianity is not about the intellect. It is about trusting God. I will trust God with the congenital idiot, or other questioned individual.

Popularity is not what it is all about. It is true that most of the best scientists believe evolution is the way all species came about. It is true that evolution, in some version, is the best naturalistic explanation for what we see around us. That does not mean it is indeed the best possible explanation. If it is true it has nothing to say about us, beyond what we are.

Discussion will have to proceed from further questions.

I actually feel, in spiritual matters, that faith can trump reality on occasion. In the purely physical realm, we are confined to observable truths, but it's possible to take these observations and, through faith, create an alternate spiritual reality. There are such things, in spiritual matters, as self-fulfilling prophecies. Of course, I wouldn't recommend using that principle on a malfunctioning electrical outlet.

Perhaps in no other feature does faith show a universal applicability that surpasses science than in the relative requirements of intellect. From the Jainists who walk barefoot to avoid inadvertently killing an insect to christians such as Jedidiah above who find a common humanity in those afflicted with mental deficiencies from birth, faith allows us to discern a spirit that reaches beyond mundane measures.

I would ask my fellow TWebbers, and especially TWebbers in the community of faith, how they treat the divide between faith and physics, between spirituality and chemistry, between love and calculation.

As ever, Jesse

[Jedidiah]

I actually feel, in spiritual matters, that faith can trump reality on occasion. In the purely physical realm, we are confined to observable truths, but it's possible to take these observations and, through faith, create an alternate spiritual reality. There are such things, in spiritual matters, as self-fulfilling prophecies. Of course, I wouldn't recommend using that principle on a malfunctioning electrical outlet.

I would like to understand just what you mean by faith trumping reality. Do you mean nothing greater than self-fulfilling prophecies?

I would also like to understand exactly what you mean by faith. Faith, as I understand it refers to confidence based upon evidence of some sort. Of course, I am not using faith as a term referring to a particular 'faith' or religious group.

[rossum]

If you believe that God inspired the Bible and that God created the world then the Bible, correctly interpreted cannot contradict the world, correctly interpreted. Truth cannot contradict truth.

Unfortunately there are many incorrect interpretations out there. You just have to work out which are the correct interpretations. What you cannot do is to ignore the world - that would be to ignore what God created.

Remember also that your resolution of this question might be different from another person's resolution. That does not make them less of a Christian than you.

rossum

[Straylight]

I'm a supporter of science, to the extent that it would probably upset some of my friends in faith, as well as confuse the average apologetic atheist. Unlike them, I don't see science and faith as competing viewpoints. One is concerned about eternity, truth, and the ideal, while the other is concerned about inquiry and discovery in the material world. Why is this an either/or situtation? And why is it always viewed that way by people who don't even study science?

The fight is not between science and faith. It's between materialism and faith (and no, science is not materialism).

Saying science is against faith is liking saying police officers are against fire prevention because they're not firemen. Which is to say, it's simply not the job or in the scope of science to inquire into "everything". Materialism, on the other hand, affirms that what science sees "is" everything -- When science itself doesn't support that notion.

[lao tzu]

I would like to understand just what you mean by faith trumping reality. Do you mean nothing greater than self-fulfilling prophecies?

I would also like to understand exactly what you mean by faith. Faith, as I understand it refers to confidence based upon evidence of some sort. Of course, I am not using faith as a term referring to a particular 'faith' or religious group.

Hiya, Jed,

I offered self-fulfilling prophecies as an example in the OP to encourage posters to think beyond the usual "vs." stereotype of discussions dealing with faith and science. In particular, though, I was thinking of an encounter with a surly waitress once, who turned out to be quite friendly when I decided to treat her as if she was. The reality was that she was surly. The faith was that she could be other than surly. Faith, in this case, "trumped" reality.

I'm sure others could come up with examples as well. While any thread of mine is open to those who want a spirited debate, I'm usually looking primarily to create a space for discussion. Are there any examples of faith trumping reality in your understanding of christianity? I'm sure you could point to physical miracles, but what about the spiritual side?

We've already referenced the evolution theme. I can't read your response other than as intending to reach beyond the physical definition of humanity. I like to think of science's role in spirituality as illuminating the boundary between body and spirit, so as to avoid incorporating ... hmm, for example, the maya of Tibetan buddhism into one's faith. (Sorry, that link is the closest thing I could find on wikipedia.)

As ever, Jesse

[gharfish]

Greetings, TWeb,

What do you do when faced with physical evidence that contradicts your spiritual faith? Is it ever okay to believe something in your heart that can be proven untrue in your head? ......
I would ask my fellow TWebbers, and especially TWebbers in the community of faith, how they treat the divide between faith and physics, between spirituality and chemistry, between love and calculation.

As ever, Jesse

There's no divide. "All the above" point to Intelligent Design / microeveolution / punctuated 'bursts' of creation --the progressive model.

The scientific fields of study: cosmology, molecular biology, and paleontology; support this view, which is in keeping with the Judeo/Christian scriptures. The progressive view of the design model has every appearance of being more consistent (than any form of macroevolution) with first principles, the laws of science...observational evidence.

I'm sorry, but I couldn't resist saying something about your presumptuous--even a bit (a lil' bite) of condescension--in the OP.





_______________________________________________
"For the story and message of the cross is sheer absurdity and folly to those who are perishing...but to us who are being saved it is the [manifestation of] the power of God. ...He is longsuffering--extraordinarily patient--not desiring that any should perish, but that all should turn to repentence."

[Jedidiah]

If you believe that God inspired the Bible and that God created the world then the Bible, correctly interpreted cannot contradict the world, correctly interpreted. Truth cannot contradict truth.

This is pretty much my view.

[shunyadragon]

There's no divide. "All the above" point to Intelligent Design / microeveolution / punctuated 'bursts' of creation --the progressive model.

The scientific fields of study: cosmology, molecular biology, and paleontology; support this view, which is in keeping with the Judeo/Christian scriptures. The progressive view of the design model has every appearance of being more consistent (than any form of macroevolution) with first principles, the laws of science...observational evidence.

I disagree that science supports this worldview with observational evidence. If anything it is neutral and indifferent. The knowledge and understanding of science itself does reflects that the apparent 'cause' of everything in the universe is the laws, environment and materials.

[Jedidiah]

Hiya back, taoist,

I offered self-fulfilling prophecies as an example in the OP to encourage posters to think beyond the usual "vs." stereotype of discussions dealing with faith and science. In particular, though, I was thinking of an encounter with a surly waitress once, who turned out to be quite friendly when I decided to treat her as if she was. The reality was that she was surly. The faith was that she could be other than surly. Faith, in this case, "trumped" reality.

Okay, I would not describe that as faith trumping reality, but I can not argue with the idea. Proverbs 15:1 says “1A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.” There is also a common saw, “you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar.”

We've already referenced the evolution theme. I can't read your response other than as intending to reach beyond the physical definition of humanity

I had no intention of reaching beyond the physical definition of humanity. My point is simply that the evidence does not distinguish between naturalistic evolution, theistic evolution, or continuing creation. I do not deny that the fossil evidence is real, only that it is not able to make the distinction. I was in a discussion once upon a time, for example, where an evolutionist described the discovery of a huge flower. I was told that the existence of this flower, let to the clear prediction that there would exist in the area a huge moth to pollinate the flower. Well, the prediction is not all that clear – a prediction of an appropriate pollinator was valid – but it need not have been a moth. Of course, by the time we had our discussion the moth had been discovered. The idea of creation, the point is, would certainly make the exact same prediction in the above case. Thus, no distinction resulting from the available data.

Jed

[James Peter]

What to say? Hmm...

I agree that truth is truth and don't have any time for theories which have 'reality' (as we experience it) conflicting with 'truth' (as it is revealed to be). Everything hinges on correct understanding and interpretation of the evidence before us (that would apply both to science and 'faith'). If we want to make certain dubious assumptions about how Scripture is to be read and understood then we have to accept that we may end up looking a little stupid... Theology is based on more than just Scripture (traditionally at least, and I think rightly so) - Reason, Tradition and Experience all have their place. 'Science' is simply us experiencing the world and then attempting to understand it. It should be part of theology. And I don't think that using (as a moderate example) archaeology to help us to understand O.T. narratives is wrong - in fact refusing to use such evidence is wrong. Similarly what we know from astrophysics is perfectly valid to help us understand the creation narratives...

Faith isn't the opposite of Reason; that would effectively be saying that Faith is Ignorance (sadly often the two seem to go together though). Instead the sciences should help us to understand the world. Afterall, the NT and early church fathers reflect a Platonic understanding of the world (i.e. they understood God's revelation in the light of what they already 'knew')...

[fool]

I had no intention of reaching beyond the physical definition of humanity. My point is simply that the evidence does not distinguish between naturalistic evolution, theistic evolution, or continuing creation. I do not deny that the fossil evidence is real, only that it is not able to make the distinction.

It would seem to me that the Bible does distinguish, as in it states that all animals were made during creation week and are stuck within their "kind", being able to adapt into new species, but not new genera.

[Jedidiah]

It would seem to me that the Bible does distinguish, as in it states that all animals were made during creation week and are stuck within their "kind", being able to adapt into new species, but not new genera.

Howdy fool,

You are speaking of one very narrow way of interpreting the creation description in Genesis. The term 'kind' has been interpreted well beyond anything in the text itself. Also, I missed the discussion of evolution into new species, but not new genera, in the Genesis account. I am interested in how my understanding of evolution can be seen as distinguishing between the physical definition of man and something beyond that. I am not saying I do not see any aspect of man that goes beyong the physical definition, only that I had no intention, or thought, of anything beyond the physical aspect when I wrote the posts in question.

Jed

[lao tzu]

What to say? Hmm...

I agree that truth is truth and don't have any time for theories which have 'reality' (as we experience it) conflicting with 'truth' (as it is revealed to be). Everything hinges on correct understanding and interpretation of the evidence before us (that would apply both to science and 'faith'). If we want to make certain dubious assumptions about how Scripture is to be read and understood then we have to accept that we may end up looking a little stupid... Theology is based on more than just Scripture (traditionally at least, and I think rightly so) - Reason, Tradition and Experience all have their place. 'Science' is simply us experiencing the world and then attempting to understand it. It should be part of theology. And I don't think that using (as a moderate example) archaeology to help us to understand O.T. narratives is wrong - in fact refusing to use such evidence is wrong. Similarly what we know from astrophysics is perfectly valid to help us understand the creation narratives...

Thank you for your thoughts, James Peter,

I don't see a place for science "in" theology, but rather as an illumination for theology, or faith more generally.

Faith isn't the opposite of Reason; that would effectively be saying that Faith is Ignorance (sadly often the two seem to go together though). Instead the sciences should help us to understand the world. Afterall, the NT and early church fathers reflect a Platonic understanding of the world (i.e. they understood God's revelation in the light of what they already 'knew')...

I would say that faith takes up where reason leaves off. Naturally, that places faith in the region of our ignorance, but I really don't see a problem with that. What is the act of creating poetry, if it's not an act of faith? If we knew what we were creating before we created it, it would be a dismal world all around.

As ever, Jesse

[fool]

Howdy fool,

You are speaking of one very narrow way of interpreting the creation description in Genesis.

"Narrow is the path"
But seriously, if you don't posit that the Earth was created 6000 yrs ago, then we have no quarrel.

The term 'kind' has been interpreted well beyond anything in the text itself. Also, I missed the discussion of evolution into new species, but not new genera, in the Genesis account.

I guess that in my experience creationists use genera as an aproximate to "kind". As in, a horse can't become a possum.

I am interested in how my understanding of evolution can be seen as distinguishing between the physical definition of man and something beyond that.
Jed

I guess we need to define "beyond"

[Hail Mary]

What do you do when faced with physical evidence that contradicts your spiritual faith? Is it ever okay to believe something in your heart that can be proven untrue in your head?

What if you're faced with evidence that seems to contradict science? I think these would be along the lines of 'miracle' stories. Is it ever possible for you to consider something outside the realms of science?