Deists and scientists: peaceful coexistence

kowalskil · Feb 23, 2011

Deists and scientists: peaceful coexistence

I would very much like to know what people on this website think about peaceful coexistence between those who study our material world (scientists) and those who study our spiritual world (theologians). My attempt to write an essay on that subject failed, as you can see at:

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theology3.html

The webpage was prepared to generate a discussion. Those who post comments should refer to specific ?contributions,? as numbered (or to specific persons, as numbered at the beginning). This will simplify the discussion.

And let us keep in mind that the main topic is peaceful coexistence. Is it possible? Is it desirable? What should we do promote it? etc.

Thank you in advance,

Ludwik Kowalski (see Google and Wikipedia)
Professor Emeritus
Montclair State University
.
.

DodgeFB · Feb 23, 2011

I think they can and should coexist. But that will only happen if each side respects the others right to believe as they do.

obtuseobserver · Feb 24, 2011

I'm a Christian.

I believe in a creator God, Darwinian Evolution and the Big Bang. So do all the Christians I know. The Pope has stated officially that evolution is not just a theory.

The bigger question for me is why do so many non-Christians presume most Christians think the world is 6000 years old and that they are biblical literalists?

Jeramie · Mar 4, 2011

Yes. Scientists should be allowed to be as vain as they want to be. This is all in the spirit of America. Just thank the nice people for their hard work but, please, don't make eye contact.

skeptic-f · Aug 30, 2011

I'm basically a Deist. I believe in God, but after that the details get fuzzy.

clax · Jan 8, 2012

I am all for coexistance. The reason I think it is so hard is the presumed conflict over "fact". I say presumed because, in reality there is no fact that is provable absolutly, without a consecus of the general population. Mainly because fact only exists in human perception, without physics and mathmatics you can't prove anything. What are physics and mathmatics but laguages created by man to represent the way we percive the world. So no none of us really know anything but what we learn from others, or through expireance. We believe things that can't be proven, as long as people realize they can't prove opinion (what we believe) I think we can easly coexist.

Noone can prove God exists, no one can prove he dosent, avoid that contriversy unless you can handle opposing opinion without loosing your resolve you will find coexistance easyer.

kowalskil · Jan 9, 2012

clax said:
... What are physics and mathmatics but laguages created by man to represent the way we percive the world. So no none of us really know anything but what we learn from others, or through expireance. We believe things that can't be proven, as long as people realize they can't prove opinion (what we believe) I think we can easly coexist.

Noone can prove God exists, no one can prove he dosent, avoid that contriversy unless you can handle opposing opinion without loosing your resolve you will find coexistance easyer.

Yes indeed. The term 'to prove" also means "to convince others (and oneself)."

Ludwik Kowalski
.

clax · Jan 9, 2012

kowalskil said:
Yes indeed. The term 'to prove" also means "to convince others (and oneself)."

Ludwik Kowalski
.

very well stated. Maybe theists and non-theists can find they are not so different.

RoccoR · Jan 9, 2012

kowalskil, et al,

Yes, there is a happy medium between the two. The probability is "1;" and the two have coexisted and will continue to coexist and exchange ideas well into the future. Albert Einstein was, in my opinion, a "deist."

kowalskil said:
Deists and scientists: peaceful coexistence
And let us keep in mind that the main topic is peaceful coexistence. Is it possible? Is it desirable? What should we do promote it? etc.
.

(COMMENT)

The belief in a creator has nothing at all to do with science. The belief in the creator (The Supreme Being) is based on faith.

Science is not faith. It is a description, explanation, or prediction that is testable -- in a prescribed environment and defined parameters; that are reproducible with the same observable outcomes.

Science and faith are not on the same plane of observation. Science cannot explain or disprove a faith-based assertions.

They are generally - mutually exclusive issues.

Most Respectfully,
R

clax · Jan 9, 2012

RoccoR said:
kowalskil, et al,

Yes, there is a happy medium between the two. The probability is "1;" and the two have coexisted and will continue to coexist and exchange ideas well into the future. Albert Einstein was, in my opinion, a "deist."

(COMMENT)

The belief in a creator has nothing at all to do with science. The belief in the creator (The Supreme Being) is based on faith.

Science is not faith. It is a description, explanation, or prediction that is testable -- in a prescribed environment and defined parameters; that are reproducible with the same observable outcomes.

Science and faith are not on the same plane of observation. Science cannot explain or disprove a faith-based assertions.

They are generally - mutually exclusive issues.

Most Respectfully,
R

Sicence is faith. Would you say that the people who broke the sound barrior used science. Dosent it require stubbern faith to say, "yes I can" when all other scientests say no you can't.

Sicence is the descovery of knowledge through experiamntation. Not acceptance of fact. Scientests are the ones leading you, because you choose to believe their opinions based on outcomes of experimintation, or theroies (opinions) derived through extreemly complex languages that even the top studiers of those languages barely grasp, I.e. quantum physics, and higer maths.

Saying that the laguage they use is correct because its complex or isaac newton dreamed it up is no different than prople saying that the bible is correct because it is complex and and the profits say it is.

You simply follow a differnt profit, if you say science disproves god.

The only way to prove something is fact is to get people to agree with you.

clax · Jan 9, 2012

I submit to you this man created math, therefore it is subject to flaw. If it was not created by man, it has to have either been created by something else or always exist without beginning or end.

What I am saying is that math, physics and other scientific languages are either our creation, our God, or created by God.

Never have men created something perfectly. So inorder to prove something based on science, science must exist without flaw.

If there is no flaw in science based on all recorded history it is the one thing man didn't mess up. If that is our one victory I submit that you thinik science or the people who created it are Gods.

If science exists without our existance, then it always was and always will be. So science is omnipatence, also known as God.

If it was brought to us by outside forces and it is incapable of flaw, then the ones who brought it to us are, compared to us, gods.

I think science, and all of its language are interpritation, in absolutly the same way religion is an inturpritation.

Science and God are intertwined

myp · Jan 9, 2012

clax said:
Sicence is faith. Would you say that the people who broke the sound barrior used science. Dosent it require stubbern faith to say, "yes I can" when all other scientests say no you can't.

No it does not. Good science calls for the experimenters to go in with a neutral attitude, not with faith that anything will work how they think it might.

clax said:
Sicence is the descovery of knowledge through experiamntation. Not acceptance of fact.

It is not always empirical, but often is.

clax said:
Scientests are the ones leading you, because you choose to believe their opinions based on outcomes of experimintation, or theroies (opinions) derived through extreemly complex languages that even the top studiers of those languages barely grasp, I.e. quantum physics, and higer maths.

That is not true. Science has a strong peer-review component and depending on which science we are talking about there are rigorous considerations involved. Scientists are not politicians pushing their opinion as fact, which is what it seems like you are suggesting here. You bring up empiricism again here, but suggest that people choose to believe "opinions" based on it- that is not quite true. The point of empiricism is to determine conclusions that are repeatable.

clax said:
Saying that the laguage they use is correct because its complex or isaac newton dreamed it up is no different than prople saying that the bible is correct because it is complex and and the profits say it is.

Not sure who said science is correct because it is complex, but I'll agree with you on that complexity is not inherently important. Scientific claims are not comparable to the bible's claims though if the scientific claims are based on real science. I suggest you do a bit more reading about the scientific method, empiricism, and perhaps some epistemology as well.

clax said:
The only way to prove something is fact is to get people to agree with you.

Depends on how you define "prove" I suppose, but most people accept empiricism. Do you not think that planting a seed, watering it, and giving it light will make it grow vs. if it sits in a dry dark cabinet? Experiments have proven that the water, light, etc. stimulate growth. It has nothing to do with getting others to agree with you. This is because it has nothing to do with the scientist in the first place- the only challenges made have to be made to the actual science- methodology, etc.

clax · Jan 10, 2012

First I don't think I articulated my point clearly. Expirimintation is not nessacary if you don't believe or have faith that you can answer aquestion, it has nothing to do with the outcome but the endevor. With out the concept of there being an answer which is a belief in a result expeimentation wouldn't take place.

Second explain any scientific descovery that was not in an experimental phase, or theoretical phase be fore it proved anything.

Third the only science that dosent have opinion as its major component is medicine, swollow this and it will get rid of that. But that is really practice of a theory, that has not been disproven. Every theoretical science is based on theory, what is a theory but an opinion from an educated person, aka a person who passed the correct trial to have is opinions validated by a congress of others who fed at the same traugh. And the repeatable conclusion is the correct one, why? Who gets to decide that.

Yes I question every thing

Forth, yes some "fact" as some people call it is based on some theory dreamed up by some guy who sits and ponders. These "facts" as somepeople call them, are not really fact but belong to a complex belief structure and fear of all things theocratic.
In no way dose evolution disprove biblical oragin of the speices. Those who say it dose refer to six days of earth's creation, adding up of years in the liniage between adam and christ and so on.
These people are taking a spiritual text whose meaning is open to interpritation and inturpriting it their own way and saying it should be inturprated by everyone their way. And they try to disprove spiritual inturpritations with little understanding of spirituality by their own admission. (Sorry got of on a tanget) but what I am really saying is people attempt to use secular beliefs and consencus of people in academia who share their beliefs and say because smart people say so my beliefs are fact. Its okay to believe a theory, I do all the time, but because you believe it dosent make it fact, theory is
opinion.

Last, this is philosophical more than anything. All anyone knows is what they see feel hear taste and smell. Some would say that a seed would grow because it was planted in dirt, others would say it is because God made it possable. Either way it is based on how that person percives the world. I know the seed was only an example but not all seeds can sprout, because they are not viable, so its only repeatable some times, even most times but not every time, why, is that something science can explain or is it chance and certain amounts of chance are regarded as inconsequential by such sciences

myp · Jan 10, 2012

clax said:
First I don't think I articulated my point clearly. Expirimintation is not nessacary if you don't believe or have faith that you can answer aquestion, it has nothing to do with the outcome but the endevor. With out the concept of there being an answer which is a belief in a result expeimentation wouldn't take place.

That simply isn't true. I am guessing you have not had much research experience or been near researchers? I go to a large research university and let me tell you that you are far off from the truth here.

clax said:
Second explain any scientific descovery that was not in an experimental phase, or theoretical phase be fore it proved anything.

What do you mean?

clax said:
Third the only science that dosent have opinion as its major component is medicine, swollow this and it will get rid of that. But that is really practice of a theory, that has not been disproven. Every theoretical science is based on theory, what is a theory but an opinion from an educated person, aka a person who passed the correct trial to have is opinions validated by a congress of others who fed at the same traugh. And the repeatable conclusion is the correct one, why? Who gets to decide that.

If everytime an apple falls from a tree, it falls down, are you going to question that the conclusion that apples fall down is wrong?

clax said:
Yes I question every thing

Which is fine, so do many scientists. Unfortunately, you not have done the due diligence to understand how science works before criticizing it.

clax said:
Forth, yes some "fact" as some people call it is based on some theory dreamed up by some guy who sits and ponders. These "facts" as somepeople call them, are not really fact but belong to a complex belief structure and fear of all things theocratic.

This is not generally true in science. I find it extremely ironic that you compare all science to theocracy yet you are using the internet, a computer, and living in a modern world full of technology that is based on SCIENTIFIC FACTS. It isn't some guy with a belief system who keeps trying things randomly until they work. That would take forever.

clax said:
In no way dose evolution disprove biblical oragin of the speices. Those who say it dose refer to six days of earth's creation, adding up of years in the liniage between adam and christ and so on.
These people are taking a spiritual text whose meaning is open to interpritation and inturpriting it their own way and saying it should be inturprated by everyone their way. And they try to disprove spiritual inturpritations with little understanding of spirituality by their own admission. (Sorry got of on a tanget) but what I am really saying is people attempt to use secular beliefs and consencus of people in academia who share their beliefs and say because smart people say so my beliefs are fact. Its okay to believe a theory, I do all the time, but because you believe it dosent make it fact, theory is
opinion.

Please go read about science before making such absurd claims that it is based on as much hard evidence as religion is.

clax said:
Last, this is philosophical more than anything. All anyone knows is what they see feel hear taste and smell. Some would say that a seed would grow because it was planted in dirt, others would say it is because God made it possable. Either way it is based on how that person percives the world. I know the seed was only an example but not all seeds can sprout, because they are not viable, so its only repeatable some times, even most times but not every time, why, is that something science can explain or is it chance and certain amounts of chance are regarded as inconsequential by such sciences

The point, even in your example here, is that the science has hard evidence proving what is suggested whereas the religion does not (saying the seeds that didn't grow didn't because of God).

clax · Jan 10, 2012

myp said:
That simply isn't true. I am guessing you have not had much research experience or been near researchers? I go to a large research university and let me tell you that you are far off from the truth here./

that is an assumption based on perception, and you pass it off as truth.

myp said:

If everytime an apple falls from a tree, it falls down, are you going to question that the conclusion that apples fall down is wrong?

Click to expand...

not the conclsion of the action but the perpose of it, the reason of it, just like isaak newton, and einstine questiond it.

myp said:

Which is fine, so do many scientists. Unfortunately, you not have done the due diligence to understand how science works before criticizing it.

Click to expand...

what on earth is there to understand, you have a question and you test it. I simply suggest that the answer that comes from the test is not always acurate, subject. To flaw, and only understood through the inturpritation of the people who gain the knowlege, and others accept it without question.

myp said:

This is not generally true in science. I find it extremely ironic that you compare all science to theocracy yet you are using the internet, a computer, and living in a modern world full of technology that is based on SCIENTIFIC FACTS. It isn't some guy with a belief system who keeps trying things randomly until they work. That would take forever.

Click to expand...

of course you find it ironic, you have put the condition that faith cannot exists in concert with your beliefs, and you are absolutly unwilling to accept that idea, because it would devalidate your beliefs.

Facts are facts, they aren't scientific, the prossess to discover them was.

also sientests give their life to study a tiny little section of science and maybe prove two or three things, science dose take forever.

Your claim is that all that we know is what is proven, so things we never knew before didn't exist before a scientest stumbled onto proof.

myp said:

Please go read about science before making such absurd claims that it is based on as much hard evidence as religion

Click to expand...

Again you have missed the target, I am not talking about evidence, I am talking about there being faith in sceince. No body would attempt to cure an illness if they didn't first believe that they could. If what you are saying is that there is an answer before you go and seek it, then why seek it, that is like looking for your your shoes wile you are wearing them

Click to expand...

myp · Jan 10, 2012

that is an assumption based on perception, and you pass it off as truth.

No it's not.

not the conclsion of the action but the perpose of it, the reason of it, just like isaak newton, and einstine questiond it.

Purpose and reason are different and you are mixing them up

what on earth is there to understand, you have a question and you test it. I simply suggest that the answer that comes from the test is not always acurate, subject. To flaw, and only understood through the inturpritation of the people who gain the knowlege, and others accept it without question.

Scientists KNOW an answer might not always be accurate. That is why there is rigorous testing. And other DO NOT accept it without question which is why there is peer-review. You really do not know how the process works, yet you insist on criticing it which is very annoying.

of course you find it ironic, you have put the condition that faith cannot exists in concert with your beliefs, and you are absolutly unwilling to accept that idea, because it would devalidate your beliefs.

I NEVER said faith can't coexist with my beliefs. You are once again making things up.

also sientests give their life to study a tiny little section of science and maybe prove two or three things, science dose take forever.

So what? That does not invalid it.

Your claim is that all that we know is what is proven, so things we never knew before didn't exist before a scientest stumbled onto proof.

I NEVER said that. Again, you are misattributing what people are saying.

All that aside, what YOU don't understand (or at least from what I read here) is that there is a difference between a scientific conclusion about something and faith. And there more certainly is a difference, even the Church will tell you that.

clax · Jan 10, 2012

All I am saying, is that you have a list of beliefs that you believe because you want to, no fact at all exists, and we are similar in that regard.

You convenced yourself god dosent exist, prove it, I say he may or may not, you say it is fact he dosent, well if it is fact it must have not just consequetial evidence but stone cold solid evidence.

It is my opinion that God exists, I have no evedence to back it up.

Therefore it is your opinion that god dosent exist, being your lack of proof.

If we can accept that we might make some forward movement.

myp · Jan 10, 2012

clax said:
All I am saying, is that you have a list of beliefs that you believe because you want to, no fact at all exists, and we are similar in that regard.

That's simply not true. I find it disappointing that you are not even willing to do yourself the favor of actually reading about how these things happen, but if you want to live with your blind intuition I can't stop you.

clax said:
You convenced yourself god dosent exist

I never said that. I don't understand why you keep responding to things that I never said. Anyway, unless you want to have an open discussion, I think we are done here because not only do you not want to do your due diligence on the issues, but you don't even want to read what I am saying.

clax · Jan 10, 2012

myp said:
That's simply not true. I find it disappointing that you are not even willing to do yourself the favor of actually reading about how these things happen, but if you want to live with your blind intuition I can't stop you.

I never said that. I don't understand why you keep responding to things that I never said. Anyway, unless you want to have an open discussion, I think we are done here because not only do you not want to do your due diligence on the issues, but you don't even want to read what I am saying.

I was under the understanding that you were trying to refutiate existance of God. I apologize for the asuumption.

Not doing the due dilligance is something we are both guilty of. You refer to religion as a blind institution, that shows ingnorace. if for you to know something others have to know and agree in your peerage, that is what proof really is, then you are also in a blind istitution.

Christanity says faith will be rewarded, if you ask why faith and not dis-faith, you do not undestand the concept.

Through study and application of knowledge a conclusion can be reached, exactly what has to occur in a religious endevor.

This is why I say science is faith, without a desire to explain an action in nature you would have no fact. Its not the other way around. The faith comes in when people decide to do something about answering the question why. If people never think there is an answer why spend all the time in attempting discovery.

There is no due dilligance nessacary, its a stark simple concept. I want something, I believe I can get it if I do these things that others have done, or that lead in a way in which I can find what I want, or what ever methodology you use.

Experimintation (for example) is applied to a belief. Hence medical reserch, a very close friend of mine is reaserching addiction in the VFW to find a type of drug to help people on heroin, have an easier time getting off of the drug. Why would anyone sit for years on a reaserch team to solve a problem that they didn't have any faith in solving.

You make it seem like science is the stumbling around in the dark banging into walls until you find a door, and if you never find it you will continue stumling until it kills you.

myp · Jan 11, 2012

clax said:
Not doing the due dilligance is something we are both guilty of. You refer to religion as a blind institution, that shows ingnorace. if for you to know something others have to know and agree in your peerage, that is what proof really is, then you are also in a blind istitution.

You make way too many assumptions considering I never "referred" to religion as a blind institution, etc. All I am saying is it is based on faith, whereas science is not. THAT IS NOT REFUTABLE. Most official church positions realize and accept it too.

clax said:
This is why I say science is faith, without a desire to explain an action in nature you would have no fact. Its not the other way around. The faith comes in when people decide to do something about answering the question why. If people never think there is an answer why spend all the time in attempting discovery.

Curiosity is not the same as faith.

clax said:
Experimintation (for example) is applied to a belief. Hence medical reserch, a very close friend of mine is reaserching addiction in the VFW to find a type of drug to help people on heroin, have an easier time getting off of the drug. Why would anyone sit for years on a reaserch team to solve a problem that they didn't have any faith in solving.

Science is not about faith. Scientifically, he may very well know it might not work and there are experiments where scientists almost certainly know they won't work but do them just to see what happens.

clax said:
You make it seem like science is the stumbling around in the dark banging into walls until you find a door, and if you never find it you will continue stumling until it kills you.

In some regards that is exactly what it is

. Faith in that situation is believing that there is a door in front of you. Nothing wrong with that, but clearly the two aren't the same.

Deists and scientists: peaceful coexistence

Similar threads