› ›

Science vs. faith

marmar357marmar357
edited April 2013 in Faith Issues
Hey everyone, here I am again :)

Could someone please help me response at the following picture? How to explain a non-believer this is not true? And faith and science aren't neccesary contradicting.

And could you response to the picture from the perspective from of a non-believer? So he could understand it.

Thanks!

GBU

Comments

  • egyboyegyboy
    My priest (who is a great theologian) once said the blind faith without proving it to yourself is ignorance. Our faith makes sense! Love your enemies is such a bold statement. It goes against all the laws of earth, but it is the law of the Kingdom of God. Our faith does not contradict science. Our faith is not just some idea that came up and we thought it was good so we went with it, it's a living breathing organism. It's called the Church. "The whole universe was created for the Church. " (I believe that's a quote from St. Ignatius, but please correct me if I'm wrong.)

    Pray for me.
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    There are some Christians in this world who use faith to contradict science, usually fundamentalistic literalistic Protestants.  There might be some among the Orthodox as well, but mostly Protestant.  Therefore, whoever made this flowchart made it against those who are extremist, unrealistic, and delusional in their faith.  Unfortunately, the flowchart also indicates the other extreme:  atheism.

    For the most part, the Orthodox Church does not see a contradiction, nor do they separate faith and science either.  Science is a way of working with what we can sense, whereas faith is a way of working with what life means for us.  Faith encompasses many things if not all things of our lives, including faith in the scientific method, as well as faith in God.  But we as believers in God do all things through His glory.  Therefore, our practice of faith is through our professions as well.  If we are scientists, we work in the scientific method not by mere faith of it, but by faith of God and working out all things in this world through His glory.  If we are handymen, or health care workers, or engineers, or lawyers, or law enforcement, or students, we do all these things through His glory.

    Therefore, any scientific theory should need not contradict faith, but enrich it.
  • ReturnOrthodoxyReturnOrthodoxy
    That flowchart is bogus. Let me give you an example of how this is mere bigotry: Look up Francis Collins (known as Mr. DNA)

    Science enriches religion and religion enriches science. Both are the work of the word of God. The gospel is the inspired word of God documented on paper, and nature is the product of the Word of God (as genesis 1 notes). A study of science is a study of God, just like a study of the gospel.

    This is a diochotomy atheists like to make, but most sophisticated atheists don't make such stupid claims.

    Ray
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    There is so much wrong information in this flow chart that I can write a 5 page rebuttal. I'll just point out one thing.

    This flowchart assumes that scientific method can apply matters of faith. By definition an experiment can only examine finite material that is reproducible. Science cannot design an experiment that examines infinity. Albert Einstein said that science cannot prove the existence of God, only disprove any theory about God.

    This means that scientific method cannot apply to religion. The author of this flowchart erroneously implies and concludes faith is inferior to science because of inadequate experimentation. It has nothing to do with inadequate or infrequent experiments in faith, just inadequate scientific methodology.

    I can go on if anybody wants.
  • andrew8345andrew8345
    [quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=14356.msg164099#msg164099 date=1365105987]
    There is so much wrong information in this flow chart that I can write a 5 page rebuttal. I'll just point out one thing.

    This flowchart assumes that scientific method can apply matters of faith. By definition an experiment can only examine finite material that is reproducible. Science cannot design an experiment that examines infinity. Albert Einstein said that science cannot prove the existence of God, only disprove any theory about God.

    This means that scientific method cannot apply to religion. The author of this flowchart erroneously implies and concludes faith is inferior to science because of inadequate experimentation. It has nothing to do with inadequate or infrequent experiments in faith, just inadequate scientific methodology.

    I can go on if anybody wants.


    Please do continue, if you can  :)
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    Just for you Andrew.

    The top part of the science half of the flow chart says "Does the evidence support the idea?" If yes, a theory is created. If no, it is a bad idea. Go back and get another idea. It's the wrong question. The right question is "Can the evidence be interpreted in a way that supports the idea that conforms to scientific minimum standards?" In any science experiment, one will always find evidence. But could the experiment have given a particular result simply on pure coincidence or chance? The answer is always yes. No matter what experiment, there is always a chance you got a result based on chance not cause and effect. It is the responsibility of the experiment designer to interpret his findings using minimum standards. Usually, minimum standards are defined statistically with 0.05 standard deviation. We will see many scientific studies showing a result (good or bad) based on 0.1 or higher standard deviation. This means luck or chance was more responsible for a result then the experiment's parameters.

    The question, "Does the evidence support this idea" will always be yes and no together. Always. Therefore, the flow chart is broken.

    Now one can say I'm nit picking. The author meant "Does the evidence support the idea as it would be defined by minimum standards". Well then I can as easily assume that author meant the Faith half as "Start - Get an idea - Perform experimentation using philosophical and theoretical evidence - "Does the evidence support the idea as it would be defined by minimum standards?" Yes, Theory created. No, get another interpretation of philosophical and theoretical evidence." The problem here is the author of this flow chart only allowed for failure on the faith side, while he inadequately allowed for successful and failed scientific experimentation on the science side. In essence, he is comparing apples and oranges because he covertly thrusted his preconceived biases into the flowchart. Therefore, the flow chart is again broken.

    Shall I keep going?
  • marmar357marmar357
    [quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=14356.msg164112#msg164112 date=1365173227]
    Just for you Andrew.

    The top part of the science half of the flow chart says "Does the evidence support the idea?" If yes, a theory is created. If no, it is a bad idea. Go back and get another idea. It's the wrong question. The right question is "Can the evidence be interpreted in a way that supports the idea that conforms to scientific minimum standards?" In any science experiment, one will always find evidence. But could the experiment have given a particular result simply on pure coincidence or chance? The answer is always yes. No matter what experiment, there is always a chance you got a result based on chance not cause and effect. It is the responsibility of the experiment designer to interpret his findings using minimum standards. Usually, minimum standards are defined statistically with 0.05 standard deviation. We will see many scientific studies showing a result (good or bad) based on 0.1 or higher standard deviation. This means luck or chance was more responsible for a result then the experiment's parameters.

    The question, "Does the evidence support this idea" will always be yes and no together. Always. Therefore, the flow chart is broken.

    Now one can say I'm nit picking. The author meant "Does the evidence support the idea as it would be defined by minimum standards". Well then I can as easily assume that author meant the Faith half as "Start - Get an idea - Perform experimentation using philosophical and theoretical evidence - "Does the evidence support the idea as it would be defined by minimum standards?" Yes, Theory created. No, get another interpretation of philosophical and theoretical evidence." The problem here is the author of this flow chart only allowed for failure on the faith side, while he inadequately allowed for successful and failed scientific experimentation on the science side. In essence, he is comparing apples and oranges because he covertly thrusted his preconceived biases into the flowchart. Therefore, the flow chart is again broken.

    Shall I keep going?


    Hmm, interesting.

    Yes continue please :)
Sign In or Register to comment.