Paradise Cafe Discussions - A Place For Bible Research And Christian Encouragement

Hi Folks

This image became popular on Digg today, and I thought we could discuss it here.

http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/images/S...charts.jpg

Although it makes what appears to be a valid point, in reality the line between "faith" and "science" is not so clear.

For instance, where does "evolution" (taught by "science") fit into this? I would suggest that evolution fits the description given here of a "faith"!

Yet, guess who pronounce it - scientists!

Now, I don't really want to start up another debate between Old Earth and Young Earth, but even if Young Earth Creationists turn out to be completely and utterly wrong, I think they have raised some very valid points, one of which is that...

Everything we observe is based on certain pre-suppositions (or assumptions).

Christians look at the Universe and see evidence, in one shape or another, of God's involvement.

Athiests look at the Universe and see apparent design only.

Take, for instance, the idea that there is no centre of the Universe. Isomam kindly posted a link on the "Young Earth" thread, which highlights what mainstream scientists believe about the idea of a centre. Here is the link:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Re...entre.html

I would suggest this is a must-read for anyone, of whatever viewpoint, because it highlights the reasons it is believed.

Further along the article, the author explains why no centre is pre-supposed:

"The idea that the universe should be uniform (homogeneous and isotropic) over very large scales was introduced as the "cosmological principle" by Arthur Milne in 1933. Not long before that, it had been argued by some astronomers that the universe consisted of just our galaxy and the centre of the Milky Way would have been the centre of the universe. Hubble put an end to that debate in 1924 when he showed that other galaxies exist outside our own. Despite the discovery of a great deal of structure in the distribution of the galaxies most cosmologists still hold to the cosmological principle either for philosophical reasons or because it is a useful working hypothesis which no observation has contradicted. Nevertheless, our view of the universe is limited by the speed of light and the finite time since the big bang. The observable part is very large but it is probably very small compared to the whole universe, which may even be infinite. We have no way of knowing what the shape of the universe is beyond the observable horizon and no way of knowing whether the cosmological principle has any validity on the largest distance scales possible."

In other words, the "cosmological principle" is held either (a) for philosophical reasons, or (b) because it is a useful working hypothesis which no observation has contradicted.

In other words, it is an assumption. This is perfectly valid for creating models, for if we look again at the flow chart for what is "science", one can "get an idea", and in turn create a theory from it - that's fair enough.

However, it is also equally scientific to question the original assumption, present an alternative model, and follow the same scientific method for exploring that alternative.

Note also that apparently "it is a useful working hypothesis which no observation has contradicted".

This is where a catch 22 situation exists. Let me explain:

Peer-reviewed papers have been appearing now for 30 years, showing that redshift may be "quantized", the implication of which is that our galaxy is essentially the centre of the universe.

This research has been virtually ignored by the scientific community. Why is that? Could it be because of (a) philosophical reasons, as one of the reasons the author of the link provided by isomam suggests?

Here is where the catch 22 exists. Despite appearing in peer-reviewed journals for the past 30 or so years, since this evidence is virtually ignored by mainstream science (for "philosophical reasons", I suspect), it is labelled as "pseudo-science", because it is not mainstream... and therefore rejected by the mainstream.

And so, when evidence to the contrary is ignored, "no observation has contradicted" the assumption that there is no centre!

This is a catch 22, because, if you ignore evidence to the contrary, of course you will be left with "no observation" that contradicts!

My point is this... science, too, has things it takes on "faith" (otherwise, what does "philosophical reasons" actually mean?).

This is why I cringe whenever I hear someone use the word "pseudo-science". What does that mean? If it is repeatable, testable and observable, then it's science!

There are certain things that are not repeatable, testable and observable, such as God's creation of the Universe. We can't repeat that in a lab. So we develop theories about it.

But that is all they could ever be - they may fit the facts as we know them, but that doesn't mean it's the only possible way God could have done it.

If something else also fits the facts, that too is a valid way God could have done it!

Thus, to propose an alternative theory is not pseudo-science, but is also science. It is the scientific method.

So please just bear in mind that science has its assumptions, too. As the author of the link points out, these may be not for scientific but for "philosophical reasons".

Think about the implications of that phrase to science.

Hi isomam

I agree with you, in that "faith" and "science" are not mutually exclusive.

Many scientists believe in God, which is encouraging.

On the other hand, certain people such as Richard Dawkins (who seems to represent a vocal part of the athiestic section of scientists) believe that faith and science are not compatible.

Unfortunately, even though Dawkins' opinion may well be in a minority, many people believe he represents the majority of scientists.

In terms of our earlier discussion, the thing that annoys many Creation scientists (both Old and Young Earthers) is that, while they are perfectly willing to admit their pre-suppositions (that somehow God was involved), many athiestic scientists are much more reluctant to admit theirs (i.e. that there is no God, and that we are not special).

This is why Creationists (especially Young Earthers) spend so much time questioning the assumptions in the first place - it's because those assumptions go a long way towards defining how science see things.

True science is the quest for truth, but like any other human endeavour, science performed by humans is subject to human reasoning, human fallacies, and on a more basic level - the quest for funding!

In the end, as I said, I agree... science and faith are not mutually exclusive. It is people like Richard Dawkins, and the designer of the image I linked to, that are trying to make it so.

I see it as a "gestalt" thing: the sum being greater than the parts...and there are so many parts...

Hey, trying to explain the parts never will explain the processes...or the "glue" that holds things together; but it will take an eternity when approached from that aspect, plowing through almost infinite minutiae. You end up explaining parts by means of other parts and not their interrelatedness. Knowing the mind of God, everything else kind of falls into place. You may not get onto the lecture circuit; but who cares? You know.

;)

gus

First of, I am one of those rather odd-balls :insane: who believe that Science and faith must go hand in hand. :albert::rabbi: To me the complexity of what we do know about the universe and the way it all fits together like a beautiful and well oiled machine proves that something must have created it. It's like opening up a watch and seeing all the little cogs turning and marveling at the ingenuity of the watchmaker. In school Biology, Physics and Chemistry were my favourite subjects (never mind I almost failed Physics and was lousy at mixing chemicals correctly, I still loved just listening to the teacher explain how things worked), and to me never once did they dilute my faith in God, they only amplified it.

The diagram you showed to me is a bit inaccurate, because though most people will follow their dogmas through blinders which restrict their view of the world, there are those who allow faith to grow and change with the things they learn. Who do not cast off so called evidence against such things. To me it doesn't matter if they do or do not prove a world-wide flood, the tale is not about that. It's about God becoming displeased, but giving us a second chance and making a promise to never do such a thing to us again. To allow us to grow and give us the chance to follow him :worthy: or to fall back into sin :evil:. It shows He cares about every living thing, not just people.

I do believe that in time Science and Faith will find a common ground, because everyday new things are found in science, and old ideas are cast aside. Theories are made and broken, and our views are allowed to expand.

I once presented this very argument in a church seminar on whether or not a good Christian should follow and believe in science, and they kicked me out. :P Very obviously they felt a good Christian did not. :whistle: Wow, were they ever mad. But that shows that some do still wear the blinders, though Scientists do the same thing. They can explain how things work, so therefore it proves to them that there is no God because there is a mathematic equation they can use to explain how it works, or even show you. :readthis: The issue is both parties go in with a pre-bias to not believe that which the other one believes. To me God must have a very mathematical mind for there to be so much math in the world and in the universe. It doesn't stop him from being an awesome God in my mind, it makes him more so :thumbup:

Hi Interpretum,

Great thread!:nicethread: I was going to address this in another thread but you stole my thunder.

Love those two models you displayed.

On Richard Dawkins I observe a man who is in extreme denial of his unbending faith in atheism (thus, evolution.) If you have never read up on Antony Flew, I highly recommend it. Flew made history by surprising the scientific community in being the first world reknowned atheist to become a deist and in an interview said the following:

"It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."

What caught my interest was that while Flew is open-ended about his belief in science, Dawkins isn't, which makes me suspect that faith transcends all intelligent thought and therefore should also be open to continual reproof.

Anyway, just thinking outside the box again :thinking:,

Love,

sw

I was blessed to have a Biology professor who was both an avid evolutionist and an avid Christian. At the end of the the class, she stated that upon arrival in heaven, someone (Evolutionist or Creationist) is going to be very surprised. However, she expected both groups to be there.

I find the Creation-versus-Evolution and Old Earth/Young Earth discussions interesting, but I do not count them as salvation issues.

Hey, Wick. Those who're not "outside the box," ought to be familiar with the box they're in. The world is full of those whose little box is inside a bigger box which is inside a crate.

You seem to have been extracted from the crate.

Good work!


gus

Yes and for good reason. My Armageddon car was a crate too! :funnyface:
:heartbeat:
sw