One of my good friends is going to college to study physics. However, she mentioned to my priest that she was uncomfortable with reconciling her religious views with some of the aspects of physics. Frankly, having to study the behavior of atoms on such an in-depth level could easily be the best proof that God exists, or grounds for becoming an atheist.
I think that one of the reasons that science and religion are viwed as diametrically opposed is that science is based on experimentation and physical "proof" while faith and religion are based upon faith, which is marked by its intangibility. But all scientific experiments start with a hypothesis: a basic intangible belief. And doesn't it require some faith in a hypothesis in order to cntimue to test and record data?
Robert Gephert, the bishop for the West Michigan region of the Episcopal Church, started out as a high-school chemistry teacher. Catherine Jefferts-Schori, the presiding bishop of the entire ECUSA, was a marine bioligist. Instead of seeing Science and faith as irreconcialable forces, I think that there is much to be learned from trying to create a balance between them.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
And doesn't it require some faith in a hypothesis in order to cntimue to test and record data?
I think that depends on your definition of faith (and it would have to be a rather loose one, at that). A hypothesis if simply a "what if?" question and perhaps a speculated answer based on past experience and other information. You then find a way to test it and see if what you thought would happen actually happened.
Other than that, I agree with a lot of what you have to say, though I see things just a tad differently. Instead of being polar opposites, I see science and religion as more or less mutually exclusive. Science deals with the world around us, what it tangible, what can be seen or felt or tasted, and attempts to explain them and find patterns and classify things.
Religion generally deals with morals, the concept of one or more "higher beings," and what happens after death. You're looking at intangibles and abstract thoughts.
The only time that science and religion really overlap and really clash is when dealing with things that are as of yet at least partially unknown. The religious people immediately go to "God did it," while the scientists still try to find a concrete answer.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
"Science deals with the world around us, what it tangible, what can be seen or felt or tasted, and attempts to explain them and find patterns and classify things."
But in Christianity, wasn't Jesus' life and ministry on earth important because he was God living and leading an everyday life, preaching and healing ordinary people? His parables reflect the everday activities of the people he preached to. Religion is often used to make the ordinary life more purposeful.
I think the main division between the two is that faith really cannot be "tested" or "proved"
His parables reflect the everyday activities of the people he preached to. Religion is often used to make the ordinary life more purposeful.
Indeed it is, but it's still abstract in the sense that you're dealing more with morals and how to act than anything else.
I think the main division between the two is that faith really cannot be "tested" or "proved"
Which is why I see science and religion as two different things that don't generally overlap.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
How are the seen and unseen mutually exclusive? That's pretty much saying that in order to believe in God, you can't have any sort of physical experiance. If you come to science with a faith in God, science is just finding out the stuff that God made works; it can lend a deeper insight into His nature.
The supposed "exclusiveness" and opposition between faith and science is all in your preconceptions and point of view.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." - Barry Goldwater
"... the ostensible means [diversity] of acheiving a desired end had become the end itself." - Clarence Thomas
What I said:
Instead of being polar opposites, I see science and religion as more or less mutually exclusive. Science deals with the world around us, what it tangible, what can be seen or felt or tasted, and attempts to explain them and find patterns and classify things.
Religion generally deals with morals, the concept of one or more "higher beings," and what happens after death. You're looking at intangibles and abstract thoughts.
Science, in and of itself, does not deal with morals or aspects of the spirit. It looks to explain things like "how to birds fly?" "how can fish breathe underwater?" and find a way to make practical things to help people. Science answers the question "can we do it?" and is not, in and of itself, concerned with "should we do it?"
Religion, on the other hand, deals with morals, right and wrong, etc. It asks the question "should we do it?" While religious people do sometimes ask things like "how do birds fly?" it usually gets answered with something along the lines of "because God made them that way," which isn't really much of an answer when you're looking for the mechanics of flight and want details.
Science and religion clash when religion tries to impose the "because God made it that way" view on science.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
subscribe to the "God did it" school of scientific thought. However, those that do set the example for everyone else.
A hypothesis requires little faith, if any at all. The main thing required for a hypothesis is knowledge, as a hypothesis is simply, and this is a rather simplified definition, "a highly educated guess" Now, if you would like to call faith a guess, then by all means, continue to guess about God's existance. On the other hand, if you feel that you need no proof for the existance of God, you just "know" that he exists, that's faith. "Just knowing" is not evidence, therefore, any speculation based on "just knowing" is not a hypothesis, but a leap of faith.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
"A hypothesis requires little faith, if any at all."
It does require a faith in causality, and a certain faith that mysteries can be explained objectively. Also faith in the scientific method is very common.
"On the other hand, if you feel that you need no proof for the existance of God, you just "know" that he exists, that's faith."
The concept of faith is central to religion. Some religious people are confused on that and try to explain the experiences that they have had through faith as proofs. That is a mistake because this type of proof is entirely subjective and will rarely if ever be accepted by those who do not first have some faith.
Proof is a logical concept and is not possible in the material world. 'I think therefore I am' is as far as you can get without making assumptions. Faith is not proof, but it can be stronger than theory. Just like a Hypothesis is needed for a theory, faith is needed to test the validity of the existence of God. Those that have a seed of faith often find that it grows when tested.
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much."
Oscar Wilde
I think we're agreed on all but the first point. I'm not sure, but it sounds like you just repeated what I said.
A theory, by the way, is not the same as a Theory. There is a drastic difference.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
I don't always reply to something to start an argument, sometimes it is just to refine a point.
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much."
Oscar Wilde
Evidence doesn't always have to be seen in my opinion.
I believe there is proof for God in the way we live our lives as he says to and seeing what he does in our lives.
I know this isn't the subject, but if you're catholic I wouldn't wonder why it's hard for your friend to believe in God.
my friend isn't Catholic. We're both Elpiscopalian (which has many similarities to Catholocism, but a couple of really important differences). Second, I don't think that faith in a higher being should be "easy". For my friend, having to study the basic mechanics of lifemade it a little "harder" to believe in God.
My point is simply if she is catholic I understand her conscience not agreeing.
It makes it clear in the Bible religion is destruction of man.
And sadly the Catholic church is very much a religion full of superstition and tradition.
Don't get me wrong I'm a Christian and of course at times it's hard to believe, usually it's because of my selfishness but when I am in such a mood or have such thoughts I search them out and gain even more strength, I believe God intends us to question him so he can give us answers.
I think in your friends position it's more likely her professors pushing their opinions on her because when I study more in depth mathematics I am drawn closer to God and see that this universe and earth is made perfectly for us, something Divine that we cannot completely understand brought it about.
are rooted in "superstition and tradition." Actually, my friend seems to be doing prety well in college and really enjoys what her professors have to say. I'm glad that you have such a spiritual connection through mathematics: the only prayers I have when doing math are "Jesus, please let me pass this test!"
That's a rather christian thing to do: Bash Catholics.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Hey man I'm not trying to bash them, I sort of was one of them at a time haha, which is why I dont agree with the Catholic doctrine and the way they do things.
It sounded like Catholic bashing. As MUCH as a I adore basing religion, and you all know I do, it's really not a nice thing to do.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
haha, well I guess if it's not a nice thing to do and you do it, you must not be nice right?
I'm simply trying to tell my opinion of the truth, and I can't say that catholicism is correct in my opinion and not be lying.