Foxjazz

Join Date 08/2004

Reconcilliation

How can faith and science co-exist simultaneosly

Is there a way to reconcile science and religion?
One can be religious without being scientific, or be scientific without being religious. One canâ€™t do both, not at the same time. They are two contradictory elements of thinking. Science knowledge is acquired by reason. Religion is acquired by making shit up. Another term one might use is faith. Faith = â€œmaking shit upâ€.

The problem with words, especially in the English language is that one word can have more than one meaning so things are unclear or uncertain. English was meant to be that way, mainly to confuse and render any topic utterly arguable simply because of the many misunderstandings the debaters engage upon. So without question, let me make my self clear. Faith not using the term loosely (not meaning confidence), but faith meaning totally and utterly without reason (in other words â€œmaking shit upâ€). Believing in object (A) without any reason to do so.

Integrity and how to have it. It is especially difficult have integrity after one has had an education if your family is made up of church people. The problem comes with yourself and how you choose to believe. Do you choose to believe with Faith (msu) or do you choose to live within reason and real world. The problem with the real world is that most people that live in it (msu). So one really has to think on how to live life and have a clear conscience while living it. If one wants to be humble, and real, you donâ€™t lie so no (msu). However if one isnâ€™t intelligent enough to reconcile the facts that reason and faith canâ€™t co-exist, then no problem. One just believes in what others mu.

Please donâ€™t take offence at the definition of faith I have provided here. This document is only meant to explain how critical thinkers think about integrity and life that surrounds them. It is unfortunate that many canâ€™t empathize or understand our world view. Integrity is a valuable part of the human experience. Without the need for it, I personally would gladly go back to church and sing the party line. However with the education I have received and the knowledge about the world that I have gained through reason, I could never step into a church and maintain integrity all at the same time. So I put it to you, how do you reconcile integrity with faith? I canâ€™t do it, and I am sure no one I know can really understand what I mean without first hand experience.

A belief system is a serious thing to examine. And for many it is hope of life after death. Why is that important, isnâ€™t the contribution we are making here and now important and significant? If you donâ€™t think it is, then what of integrity. This document only meant to shed light on people with no room for a belief system where there is life after death. Why is it so important for others to share the hope (or false hope as it would be to us). It definitely isnâ€™t from integrity, but faith. What we believe to be a false confidence of a type of Religion, whether it be Christ, Islam, or Buddha.

After much consideration the only resolution I can see of people of faith are two probable reasons they use faith.

1: Because it was what they were taught young in life and havenâ€™t gone to college and reasoned things out with philosophers.
2: Because they lack integrity.

Give me a third reason? And donâ€™t say Faith is real, faith is defined accurately above.
Now I know I have offended people. And that is why critical thinkers suffer.

Wait a moment, suffering. We critical thinkers suffer much more than the faith users. If we go to church we are seen as hypocrites. Or worse, people without integrity. Remember what Christ said about being humble? Why should any of this bother you if you abide by the teachings of your religious faith? Why bring it into question? Because having integrity is a requirement for being humble.

If you are unable to think for yourself, the faith users will go to someone of authority, say a preacher or a priest, and receive â€œreasonâ€ from these characters. Unfortunately, these characters donâ€™t use reason to conclude anything. They use what is taught them on faith (see definition above). Then the faith users go oh, ok then I will see ya in heaven.

So back to the primary question and reason for this document. If your intelligent, and know how to think, and you use faith as your primary tool for gaining knowledge, how do you reconcile that with integrity? I really want to know how its done, because I know that msu is not a reasonable way to gain knowledge.

religion

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

To me, you sound completely deluded. You talked about arrogance on your other blog. What is more arrogant than someone of our limited human abilities who feels that their knowledge of the universe is so comprehesive that they can dismiss the possibility of something existing? You use a great deal more faith to come to that conclusion than people who rely on thousands of years of religious culture.

You don't "know" God doesn't exist, you "believe" God doesn't exist based upon your own experiences and bias. There's no data to tell you there is no God. Lack of data isn't proof in ANY form of science. On the contrary, lack of data prevents a determination from being made. You discard scientific integrity when you disguise pseudo-scientific philosophy as science.

That isn't anything close to integrity; frankly it is dishonest and arrogant. When you make statements like:

"I could never step into a church and maintain integrity all at the same time. "

you show that you are ignorant of both history and science, pretending that faith is some compulsion that prevents people from being scientific. History laughs at you, given that the precepts of science you laud were framed by people who WERE people of faith, all the way back to those who invented the number system you use to calculate.

No, reading what you write here I couldn't trust you to have scientific integrity. No one steeped in the scientific method would claim that they could scientifically rule out the existence of something like God. You call belief and bias science, and by doing so destroy your own thesis. You confuse science with philosophy.

If you want to know how to reconcile the two, perhaps you should make a study of the people who are the foundations of your scientific body of knowledge. Read the biographies of people who were both people of faith and giants in scientific history. You'll find that faith doesn't destroy integrity and humility, on the contrary, it often edifies it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

You assume its up to me for posting a proof there is no God. However the burdon of proof is on those that actaully don't have any and even admit that they don't. Does it disturb you to find out that it is more likely there isn't a God?

Integrity is about being truthful, and working with the facts and real world systems. Faith isn't a real world system, its imaginary.
You may think I don't have respect for other cultures, but its not respect that is required of those other cultures, it is truthfulness.

It may be part of our history that these religions exist, however so is the hollocost and many evil things that were done in the name of religion. Its not like the evil has gone away.
If its not enough for you to affect the world in your current state, but must affect it in some afterlife, then too bad.

And I personally could not step in a church and keep my integrity in tact without wearing a sign (unbeliever here!). Then maybe I could keep it in tact.
I have respect for churches, I was raised with one. However the belief systems are really lame, controlling, seriously in need of a change.

And who the fuck cares invented what (no matter their religion) inventions of science had to start somewhere. And most of the sincere scientists are agnostics.

So what if I can't prove God doesn't exists. That is just the NOOB iest thing I have heard in a while. I never said I could, nor do I wish to. But I can prove that contradictions exists about Christian thought and world view of the God they claim. Which is another nail in the coffin of the Chtristian world view.

Who the hell do you think history was written by? The losers?
I am what I am, a humble atheist that still can't understand why some don't grow up.
Regards,
Fox

Successfully updated karma reason!

lol, it's amazing how easy it is to draw out someone pretending to be an intellectual. You mention that the last resort of a person of faith is just to blindly believe. Well, the last resort of an ignorant twelve year old is to say "So what" and call the other person a noob.

P.S. It's h-o-l-o-c-a-u-s-t. The first step in lording over people with your advanced intellect is making sure you can spell.

Successfully updated karma reason!

'Does it disturb you to find out that it is more likely there isn't a God?'

It disturbs me more to find that you think the existence of God is a matter of mathematical probability. So, oh monopoly holder of reason / intellect / integrity and the rest, what are your data and what 'facts and real world systems' are they based on? Let's see the equations and the mathematical proof. Ditto 'And most of the sincere scientists are agnostics'. Concrete data only, please - unsubstantiated claims will be treated as you 'making shit up'. Fail to comply, and you owe Bakerstreet an apology.

(I'm an atheist, by the way, so I have no religious axe to grind here, but I do recognise an arrogant pseudo-intellectual when I read one.)

Successfully updated karma reason!

I didn't reallize that spelling was a requirement to exercise logic.
You guys make this too easy,
Argument fallacies being used by backstreet.

Also it doesn't really matter how many scientists were agnostic or not.

Argumentum ad verecundiam

The Appeal to Authority uses admiration of a famous person to try and win support for an assertion. For example:

"Isaac Newton was a genius and he believed in God."

This line of argument isn't always completely bogus when used in an inductive argument; for example, it may be relevant to refer to a widely-regarded authority in a particular field, if you're discussing that subject. For example, we can distinguish quite clearly between:

"Hawking has concluded that black holes give off radiation"

and

"Penrose has concluded that it is impossible to build an intelligent computer"

Hawking is a physicist, and so we can reasonably expect his opinions on black hole radiation to be informed. Penrose is a mathematician, so it is questionable whether he is well-qualified to speak on the subject of machine intelligence.

No one cares that believers invented things. Its a non sequitur.

Also the math is easy. It is more probably that your neighbors God exists than your own. It is also more probably that you only wish God exists, and then make IT up yourself.
As I said before, the human mind is good at MSU.

And I believe Einstein is a good enough scientist to assert simply because He and Hawking are at the top of the list when it comes to science.
If you can't remeber all the scientists in your head, why not go for argument from authority fallacy. It works for me.

Fox

Successfully updated karma reason!

'Also it doesn't really matter how many scientists were agnostic or not.'
In that case, why did you bother claiming 'And most of the sincere scientists are agnostics' to support what might be (very loosely) termed your 'argument'?

'And I believe Einstein is a good enough scientist to assert simply because He and Hawking are at the top of the list when it comes to science.'
That would be the same Einstein who famously said, 'God doesn't play dice with the universe', I take it?

You have added nothing that provides tangible support for your claims. That said, to a degree I guess you are proof of your point - not only that people can MSU, but also that they can then delude themselves into thinking that their imaginings constitute an a priori truth.

Successfully updated karma reason!

'I didn't reallize that spelling was a requirement to exercise logic.'

It's not, but your argument is a million miles from logic. Besides, when you post a blog with a one-word title and a seven-word sub-title and include schoolboy howlers in BOTH, I think we're entitled to conclude that you are, at best, slapdash.

P.S. 'Realize' has one 'l'!

Successfully updated karma reason!

"And I believe Einstein is a good enough scientist to assert..."

Oh, then you'd agree with Einstein that:

"The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -Albert Einstein, Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, 1941

You'll say that doesn't matter, either, but it does matter, because your assertion that the two are exclusive is false. You say that in order for someone 'scientific' to go to church, they have to lack integrity, otherwise, they must be ignorant and not have gone to college.

Then, you say it doesn't matter how many important scientists were religious historically, since it would disprove your assertion that scientific thinking and faith are exclusive. I'm sure it makes you feel good to think that people of faith are either less intelligent than you or "lack integrity". In reality it is just you "making shit up" or, more aptly, "talking out of your ass."

If you don't believe, don't go to church. I'm not asking you to. If someone is trying to push it on you, deal with them directly. Don't, though, drift into the religion section and pose the idea that you can't be scientific and still be a person of faith, because it is dimwitted. If you took people of faith out of scientific history there wouldn't be much left.

But, again, you don't care, because such disproves what you are trying to say. Science to you, I suppose, is when faced with opposing data, ignore it, say "So what", and call them a noob. To me, it looks like you exist solely on faith. It just happens to be misplaced faith in your own mental superiority.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Einstein and "God does not play dice"

"Albert Einstein believed in God. Do you think you're cleverer than him?"

Einstein did once comment that "God does not play dice [with the universe]". This quotation is commonly mentioned to show that Einstein believed in the Christian God. Used this way, it is out of context; it refers to Einstein's refusal to accept some aspects of the most popular interpretations of quantum theory. Furthermore, Einstein's religious background was Jewish rather than Christian.

A better quotation showing what Einstein thought about God is the following:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

Einstein recognized Quantum Theory as the best scientific model for the physical data available. He did not accept claims that the theory was complete, or that probability and randomness were an essential part of nature. He believed that a better, more complete theory would be found, which would have no need for statistical interpretations or randomness.

So far no such better theory has been found, and much evidence suggests that it never will be.

A longer quote from Einstein appears in "Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium", published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941. In it he says:

The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted [italics his], in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.

But I am convinced that such behavior on the part of representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task...

Einstein has also said:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

The above quote is from a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954. It is included in " Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, and published by Princeton University Press. Also from the same book:

I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.

More of Einstein's comments on religion are available on the web at . Of course, the fact that Einstein chose not to believe in Christianity does not in itself imply that Christianity is false.

Successfully updated karma reason!

If your going to post something about Einstien. Make it complete.

" you said:
Then, you say it doesn't matter how many important scientists were religious historically, since it would disprove your assertion that scientific thinking and faith are exclusive.".

Actually it doesn't do that at all. The two are contradictory. It is humans that can hold two contradicting ideas and don't care that they do. That is whay I mean by integrity. Many don't care about integrity. Many would wrather hold two contradictory thoughts. Man are just controlling and enjoy being superior or so they fool themselves.

I would wrather enjoy critical thought. Being logically correct. And remaining humble in knowing that I wasn't good enough for an all mighty being to give two pennies whether or not I exist.

I would wrather worship the sun. I mean, after all, you can see the sun. G.Carlin

Successfully updated karma reason!

It's a sad reflection on your personal philosophy that you think an all-powerful God wouldn't care about mortals. What a sick perspective you must have. It makes me wonder if perhaps you think your parents didn't care about you, or other people who had power over you at one time or another. This seems to be some personal problems you are projecting on a being that you don't even believe in.

I think the main thing that is demonstrative of your problems is that you feel the need to put stuff like this in the religion section. Did people wander onto your blog and shove religion down your neck? No, you feel that you had to come to the religion section and educate the 'noobs'.

Seek help. Really. You've created this weird morality of anti-religion and faux-integrity off the top of your head. Look at it hard enough, and you'll see you are just bending reality in such a way to make you superior to everyone else. You're smarter and have more integrity, and come to the religion section to instruct us. Kind of scary, really, since you are just acting like your average person with a messiah complex.

There is no such thing as "logically correct". Logic is a product of your experiences and how your brain subjectively interprets them. You remove all doubt of your bias when you claim that 'logic' can somehow guide you objectively. You believe in what you believe, just like anyone else. You just make yourself the God in your little model.

...a model it is, and no more or less valid than anyone else's.

Successfully updated karma reason!

'Furthermore, Einstein's religious background was Jewish rather than Christian.'
What difference does that make? You cited Einstein within the context of belief in the existence of God, not the assertion of any particular flavour of such a belief. You are defending your position against an argument that was never presented.

And there is much evidence that Einstein did believe in a God, such as your own quote: 'I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists'.

'I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.'
Ah - here we have it. This is your BELIEF. Not your knowledge, not your understanding, certainly not your scientific deduction, but your BELIEF. And, as such, it is worthy of the same respect and consideration as those of people who believe differently. No less, but certainly no more.

'I would wrather worship the sun. I mean, after all, you can see the sun. G.Carlin'
Stupid argument. If something being visible is your only criterion, that means that air, electromagnetic radiation, subatomic particles, gravity et al are equally disputable. (Plus, you could at least try to get spelling right when you're quoting somebody - it's 'RATHER'.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Perhaps the spelling mistake is understandable. It seems it wasn't a quote at all, merely an obviously half-remembered attribution. Here's the nearest I can find:
'Overnight I became a sun-worshipper. Well, not overnight, you can't see the sun at night. But first thing the next morning, I became a sun-worshipper. Several reasons. First of all, I can see the sun, okay?'

But that's not all. This is where it goes:
'So to get around a lot of this, I decided to worship the sun. But, as I said, I don't pray to the sun. You know who I pray to? Joe Pesci.'

I don't have any problem with this kind of humour (I am an atheist after all), although I guess I've seen it done a lot better. My point is simply that you must be desperate if you are relying on a comedian's material to support your argument for believing in the non-existence of God.

P.S. I've only just noticed this ... You say ...'Man are just controlling and enjoy being superior or so they fool themselves.' And just below it you say ... 'I would wrather enjoy critical thought. Being logically correct.' And I say ... guilty of the very crime of which you accuse others! Oh man, you crack me up.

Successfully updated karma reason!

What I see here is someone with a subjective, philosophical belief promoting it as objective and superior to that of other people. What I DON'T see, however, is how it is superior. Where's the proof that your life is somehow better, or that you are more honest or have more 'integrity' than the people you oppose?

To draw such a conclusion without proof or 'objective' evidence is to do the same thing you consider religious people of doing. You declare that people of faith who also pursue science have less integrity. Care to prove it? Care to prove that objectivism is somehow superior in terms of the quality of life or lack of horror?

Would you like to look at nations like the now-defunct Soviet Union? China? Between the two they dwarf any other nation in the history of mankind in terms of murdering and torturing their citizens. Hundreds of millions of people between the two. Are they evil and lack integrity because they adhere to a belief in God? Not hardly.

So, if you are truly as honest as you suppose, you'll admit that it is an adherance to an ideal, be it religion, or a political philosophy, etc. that is the real problem. Once you admit that, and then look back at the way you deal with other people's beliefs, I think you'll see that you have the same sad stolidness and self-superiority that is the root of all these ills.

If, on the other hand you want to be truly honest and interested in respect of Mankind, you'll accept that good and bad comes from all these philosophies, even your own. In the end what harms us is taking a subjective value and making it superior without bothering to offer anything but intellectual rhetoric.

Successfully updated karma reason!

In the post where it said Einstein and "God does not play dice"

I will link it to ya so you can understand it better:
Link

So you think einstein needs help. That's classic.

Successfully updated karma reason!

'So you think einstein needs help. That's classic.'
You're delusional. Who said that? Certainly nobody here. Suggest you take your meds.

'I will link it to ya so you can understand it better:'
And you have the gall to describe yourself as 'remaining humble'? Ha! 'remaining hypocrital' would be closer.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Again, this is just a made-up philosophy, no different than any other, with no more objective evidence than any other that it is superior. "Logic" is posed as objective, when in reality the leaps made between facts are simply the product of personal, subjective experience.

So, maybe this DOES belong in the religion section. It relies on nothing more than religion, really, and obviously there is a messiah, too. It certainly is self-inflated and full of condemnation like many religions.

Successfully updated karma reason!

'So, maybe this DOES belong in the religion section.'

Spot on, BakerStreet. Foxjazz's faith in the absence of any objective proof puts his belief system squarely in the religion section. What's more, (1) his refusal to entertain the idea that his beliefs might not be innately 'superior', and (2) his zeal for abusing and belittling all those who do not subscribe to his fancies puts his approach shoulder to shoulder with many of the less tolerant religions.

Like Foxjazz, I am an atheist. Unlike Foxjazz, I acknowledge - or at least try to - that my belief that there is no supreme being is no better informed, justified or justifiable than the theological beliefs of anybody else. We just have different kinds of faith. Science, by definition, doesn't address this area of our experience. Foxjazz tries to use science to justify his faith, and in so doing demonstrates that he really doesn't understand the basic first principles of science at all.

Despite denying it earlier, he continues to attempt to drag this thread down the 'scientists are atheists, and they should know' path. He may puff and blow, but this is a hugely inaccurate argument. However, even if it WERE true, it would not reinforce his argument any more than the news that the Archbishop of Canterbury subscribes to the Grand UnificationTheory would bolster contemporary physics.

Incidentally Bakerstreet, if Foxjazz only knew, you and I rarely seen eye to eye - obviously it takes an argument of this degree of bias, intolerance and general lack of comprehension to unite us!

Successfully updated karma reason!

Ah, did I hurt some feelings. Step on some toes? Make you question your belief systems just a little. Well good.

I am glad you furry can come to terms in agreement with Bakerstreet. You calling yourself an atheist, and then calling if faith. You don't have a clue.

As I have stated before in many previous posts. Atheists are WITHOUT faith. So call yourself someting else. Maybe a faith based atheist. That is more suited to the your world view thant just plain atheist.

I wrote the things above and then give you the quoted link that Einstein said those things. Now when you thought I said those things, you insult me. But when you learn that Einstein really said those things, you insult me again.

Excuse me for being humble.

Fox

Successfully updated karma reason!

'Ah, did I hurt some feelings. Step on some toes?'
Of course not. That you imagine you could suggests you are suffering not from humility, but from acute self-importance.

'You calling yourself an atheist, and then calling if faith. You don't have a clue. As I have stated before in many previous posts. Atheists are WITHOUT faith. So call yourself someting else.'
It's you that has no clue. Science can, by definition, contribute nothing in respect of issues that cannot be observed, measured, empirically tested. One's faith in what exists outside the physical world is, again by definition, not scientifically testable. So, whether one believes in a supreme being or does not, it is a matter of FAITH, not science / logic / reason etc. BakerStreet has faith that there is a God 'out there'. You have faith that there is NO God 'out there'. Same process, different outcome. Only agnostics qualify for exemption, because they don't ask the question. In a sense, to go back to the inflammatory terminology you used in your original post, they are the only ones who don't MSU.

'I wrote the things above and then give you the quoted link that Einstein said those things. Now when you thought I said those things, you insult me. But when you learn that Einstein really said those things, you insult me again.'
Gobbledegook. And, by your own admission, irrelevant - 'Also it doesn't really matter how many scientists were agnostic or not.' So what does Einstein's personal belief system contribute to your point? Nothing.

'Excuse me for being humble'
When you are, I will.

Until then, I am quite happy to excuse your arrogance.

Successfully updated karma reason!