What is the necessity of science?

Donatello

Just as an aside, it was the CC that gave us the scientific method.

El_Duderino 09

Xizors Palace wrote: »

I can only be certain about the causes of sparrow decline by doing scientific studies. Science helps us understand sparrow population declines and can also help us understand how we can help sparrows. You can't understand the decline of inner-city sparrows by faith alone. QUOTE]


This is perfect. If you were to try to understand sparrow decline by faith alone, what would happen. I suggest you would end up with lots of schools of though on causes and solutions, (hypothesis) without any way to find out which are accurate and which aren't they could persist and be passed from generation to generation. Just like...

With the sparrows we would use scientific method to weed out the rubbish ideas and keep weeding out the inaccurate ideas based on evidence. Its hilariously obvious that what allows you to think you can know more about god by simply hypothesising, is the complete lack of evidence!

Zombrex

Donatello wrote: »

Just as an aside, it was the CC that gave us the scientific method.

For what purpose, if it wasn't necessary? Or if it was necessary what was wrong with that they were doing before, and did they stop doing it?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

The one that matches up with the reality I experience - a coherent explanation of life and answered prayer. The Christian explanation of good and evil in the world and our purpose/significance is more credible to me than that of the opposition. God's intervention in answer to prayer - or to my need, even without prayer - supports that understanding.

Ok so given that, back the original question. What is the necessity of science? Why can't we all just use the methodology you use (accepting the more credible answer)?

TravelJunkie

Do you think science is necessary Wicknight?


Perhaps you could even fill in the blank - Science is necessary for proving that ....

And when it comes to God, perhaps you think science is necessary to prove God? But what a short stick to measure him by! You surely wouldn't want that kind of saviour! In fact, he wouldn't be a saviour at all.

Now, on the other hand, if you're trying to make Christians say that science isn't necessary, well then you've had so many pages of this thread to do it in and still nothing.

Zombrex

TravelJunkie wrote: »

Do you think science is necessary Wicknight?

Yes.

TravelJunkie wrote: »

Perhaps you could even fill in the blank - Science is necessary for proving that ....

Science doesn't prove things, so the question is some what flawed.

But to be honest I'm more interested in your opinion than mine. I don't think things like theology, personal revelation, personal assessment etc work in providing accurate information about reality that we can have confidence in.

You guys obviously disagree.

So I'm interested what you think the necessity of science is (if you think it is necessary at all) given this. Why not just use these methodologies instead?

TravelJunkie wrote: »

And when it comes to God, perhaps you think science is necessary to prove God? But what a short stick to measure him by! You surely wouldn't want that kind of saviour! In fact, he wouldn't be a saviour at all.

What you or I want though is surely irrelevant, isn't it?

hinault

Science and a belief in God are not mutually exclusive.

Although many so called secularists and so called secularist scientists would wish it so.

One of the greatest pioneers of scientific thought, Michael Faraday, said that the pursuit of scientific fact was like a child rolling back a corner of a rug.
The more the rug was pulled up, the more one can see under it.

Faraday compared this metaphor to his pursuit of scientific fact.
The rug was Gods universe and as he began to understand it better more started to be revealed.

God wants man to understand His creation.
This is why He gave man the faculty of reason and enquiry.

PDN

Science is necessary if we want to gain a greater understanding of, and greater enjoyment of, the material universe in which we live. For Christians there is the added incentive, since we believe God created this universe, that science helps us appreciate what God has made.

We also recognise that science has its limitations. It can not determine or measure ethics or beauty. So we have philosophy, art, music and love - all of which go beyond the point where science has much usefulness.

Science can tell us little or nothing about God, sin, or salvation. Therefore, as Christians, we are grateful that we can learn about these things through revelation from God.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Science is necessary if we want to gain a greater understanding of, and greater enjoyment of, the material universe in which we live. For Christians there is the added incentive, since we believe God created this universe, that science helps us appreciate what God has made.

We also recognise that science has its limitations. It can not determine or measure ethics or beauty. So we have philosophy, art, music and love - all of which go beyond the point where science has much usefulness.

Science can tell us little or nothing about God, sin, or salvation. Therefore, as Christians, we are grateful that we can learn about these things through revelation from God.

Why are the principles of science necessary for gaining a greater understanding of the material universe?

You don't use science for gaining a greater understanding of God, so why not just use the methodologies you apply there to the material universe?

Zombrex

hinault wrote: »

God wants man to understand His creation.
This is why He gave man the faculty of reason and enquiry.

Same question I've asked everyone else. If you can come to understand the existence of God and what he wants without using a methodology like science what then is the necessity of science? Why not just use what ever you used to come to the understanding of the existence of God and what he wants?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Why are the principles of science necessary for gaining a greater understanding of the material universe?

You don't use science for gaining a greater understanding of God, so why not just use the methodologies you apply there to the material universe?

For the same reason that you don't take the methodologies you apply to solving a mathematical equation and then use them to decide whether you like a painting, or whether should ask a girl out or not.

PDN

Wicknight, I'm genuinely struggling to try to believe that you are asking a serious question in this thread, rather than just acting the maggot.

Are you seriously suggesting that a methodology, in order to be valid in any area of life or knowledge, must therefore be valid in all areas of life and knowledge?

user1842

Graph says it all

Fanny Cradock

Your unscientific graph says nothing substantive other than you are pushing a conflict thesis. You might actually want to look into the history of modern science and the current trends in religious adherence.

user1842

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Your unscientific graph says nothing substantive other than you are pushing a conflict thesis. You might actually want to look into the history of modern science and the current trends in religious adherence.

Never said it was scientific, that's the whole point. But then the earth is flat and the centre of the universe. What the graph is meant to show are that ideas explained by religion are now being explained by science and that this is an inverse relationship.

Tea 1000

Wicknight wrote: »

If that is the case why isn't theology just the "science" of everything? Why bother with science at all?

What would happen if you tried to study the natural world with the methodology deployed in theology?

What would happen if you tried to study plant life using Chemistry? Or elements using Physics? Or for that matter, what if you tried to study History using Mathematics?
On Valentines day, do you go to your loved one and inform her that you'll only love her to the tune of what you can determine from scientific tests that you're about to perform on her?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

For the same reason that you don't take the methodologies you apply to solving a mathematical equation and then use them to decide whether you like a painting, or whether should ask a girl out or not.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that?

Are you saying that questions such as whether God exists and what he is like is nothing like the question of whether, say, atoms exist and what they are like?

I would group these questions as questions about the correct nature of reality, and thus consider them pretty much the same. If you disagree I think you are wrong but it isn't really the purpose of this thread to convince you of that, so there isn't much more to say about it.

PDN wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that a methodology, in order to be valid in any area of life or knowledge, must therefore be valid in all areas of life and knowledge?

No.

But like I said I'm not sure how you think the questions about the existence of God and what God is or is like is vastly different to any other question about reality.

If you think so fair enough, I think that is rather bizarre but I'm guessing I can't convince you otherwise.

Feel free then to ignore the question in this thread as the question itself is not really going to make much sense to you if you genuinely think that questions about the existence of God and what God is are wholly different to other questions about the correct nature of reality, and therefore require completely different methodologies to assess. I'm imagining most people if they thought about it wouldn't take that position, and the question in this thread is for them.

Zombrex

dmclean1842 wrote: »

Never said it was scientific, that's the whole point. But then the earth is flat and the centre of the universe. What the graph is meant to show are that ideas explained by religion are now being explained by science and that this is an inverse relationship.

That isn't really the point of the question in this thread.

user1842

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't really the point of the question in this thread.

Agreed but im finding it hard to find the point

Zombrex

Tea 1000 wrote: »

What would happen if you tried to study plant life using Chemistry? Or elements using Physics?

Well chemistry and physics are not methodologies, they are groupings of scientific models. Both are studied using scientific methodologies.

Are you taking PDN's position, that studying of reality with relation to God is a wholly different domain to studying reality in relation to anything else?

If so this thread really isn't for you.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

But like I said I'm not sure how you think the questions about the existence of God and what God is or is like is vastly different to any other question about reality.

If you think so fair enough, I think that is rather bizarre but I'm guessing I can't convince you otherwise.

That's exactly my point. I don't think questions about God are different from any other question about reality (unless one is so stupid as to limit reality to that which can be comprehended by science).

Things that lie outside the realm of science are still reality. Ethics are reality. Art and beauty are reality. Love is reality. So is God. These are all areas of reality that lie beyong the useful application of science.

Science can say something about atoms because we can observe and measure atoms objectively. But it cannot say anything useful about beauty or love because it cannot objectively observe and measure them.

If science ever progresses to a point where it can observe or measure God then it might have something useful to say on that subject. But until then we depend on revelation.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Well chemistry and physics are not methodologies, they are groupings of scientific models. Both are studied using scientific methodologies.

Are you taking PDN's position, that studying of reality with relation to God is a wholly different domain to studying reality in relation to anything else?

If so this thread really isn't for you.

That is not my position.

Zombrex

dmclean1842 wrote: »

Agreed but im finding it hard to find the point

The point is in the first post.

To clarify, what is the necessity of science if we can explore reality to a satisfactory degree of accuracy just using what ever methodology religious people use to determine the correct religion, correct God, correct nature of God etc etc?

Why not just use that methodology, given that most I assume here believe it works well enough?

Wolfsbane mentioned some aspects of his methodology in his post,

"The one that matches up with the reality I experience - a coherent explanation of life and answered prayer."

I'm sure others could expand on the methodology that lead them to the belief that their religion is a correct accurate representation of reality.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

That is not my position.

That appeared to be your position given this post

PDN wrote:

For the same reason that you don't take the methodologies you apply to solving a mathematical equation and then use them to decide whether you like a painting, or whether should ask a girl out or not.

Can you clarify?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

That's exactly my point. I don't think questions about God are different from any other question about reality (unless one is so stupid as to limit reality to that which can be comprehended by science).

Things that lie outside the realm of science are still reality. Ethics are reality. Art and beauty are reality. Love is reality. So is God. These are all areas of reality that lie beyong the useful application of science.

Science can say something about atoms because we can observe and measure atoms objectively. But it cannot say anything useful about beauty or love because it cannot objectively observe and measure them.

If science ever progresses to a point where it can observe or measure God then it might have something useful to say on that subject. But until then we depend on revelation.

Which brings me back to the original question.

What is the necessity of science? Why bother with science at all?

If you can determine accurate knowledge about something you can't even observe or measure, surely it would be easier to, using the same methodology, find out accurate information about things we can observe and measure?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

The point is in the first post.

To clarify, what is the necessity of science if we can explore reality to a satisfactory degree of accuracy just using what ever methodology religious people use to determine the correct religion, correct God, correct nature of God etc etc?

For goodness sake! It's been clearly enough explained to you.

The methodology we use to determine our views of God etc. is revelation. In other words, in an area where science has so far contributed nothing, we have a revelation from God.

Since that revelation was limited to a certain subject, albeit the most important subject possible (our possibility of having a relationship with God and being saved) then it is clearly not possible to apply that same methodology to areas where no such revelation has been given (eg the nature of atoms).

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

For goodness sake! It's been clearly enough explained to you.

No need to get snippy.

PDN wrote: »

The methodology we use to determine our views of God etc. is revelation. In other words, in an area where science has so far contributed nothing, we have a revelation from God.

Well revelation isn't really a methodology, so perhaps you aren't understanding the question.

How did you assess the accuracy of the revelation, and the question of whether you were getting a revelation from God in the first place? That would be the methodology. You don't need to tell me, it is just important that you know so we are all on the same page (if you are genuinely interested in further discussion)

PDN wrote: »

Since that revelation was limited to a certain subject, albeit the most important subject possible (our possibility of having a relationship with God and being saved) then it is clearly not possible to apply that same methodology to areas where no such revelation has been given (eg the nature of atoms).

Again the revelation itself is not a methodology, as I explained above. Hopefully the question will be clearer now.

user1842

PDN wrote: »

For goodness sake! It's been clearly enough explained to you.

The methodology we use to determine our views of God etc. is revelation. In other words, in an area where science has so far contributed nothing, we have a revelation from God.

Since that revelation was limited to a certain subject, albeit the most important subject possible (our possibility of having a relationship with God and being saved) then it is clearly not possible to apply that same methodology to areas where no such revelation has been given (eg the nature of atoms).

I cannot agree with this. Science in my opinion is slowly replacing Religion and eventually will be able to explain God. The more we explore science the more we explain Religion.

This is what happened in the past and in my opinion is happening now, we just cannot see it.

To use Religion to explain Science make no sense as Science in my opinion is the refined accurate evolution of Religion.

Zombrex

dmclean1842 wrote: »

I cannot agree with this. Science in my opinion is slowly replacing Religion and eventually will be able to explain God. The more we explore science the more we explain Religion.

This is what happened in the past and in my opinion is happening now, we just cannot see it.

To use Religion to explain Science make no sense as Science in my opinion is the refined accurate evolution of Religion.

Do you believe in the existence of a particular god?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Well revelation isn't really a methodology, so perhaps you aren't understanding the question.

And I think you're now nit-picking.

How did you assess the accuracy of the revelation, and the question of whether you were getting a revelation from God in the first place? That would be the methodology. You don't need to tell me, it is just important that you know so we are all on the same page (if you are genuinely interested in further discussion)

We all have our own methods for determining how to assess whether we believe a revelation to be genuine or not.

For example, if I read an article in a magazine that purports to present a truth (be it the National Enquirer or the New Scientist) then I assess it by asking questions. Does this magazine have a good track record? What do people that I know and trust say about it? Have other 'truths' presented from this source proved useful or not? Does the person communicating this 'truth' to me appear to have a bias or an agenda? These are all part of how we screen and assess information.

Again the revelation itself is not a methodology, as I explained above. Hopefully the question will be clearer now.

Not really. Because it still seems incredibly naive (I'm being charitable in choosing that term) to think that someone's method of assessing a revelation in the Bible should somehow do away with the need for science.