Harmony of faith and science

[Alan Burns]

This is the first of a five part series to be released over the next five days exploring the harmony of faith and science.
Light from Light
See how the mysteries of physical reality discovered by science—especially the mystery of light—harmonize with the mysteries of faith.
(15 minute duration)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgnjgtsPmGQ

[Maeght]

Hated the music.

[jeremyp]

This is the first of a five part series to be released over the next five days exploring the harmony of faith and science.
Light from Light
See how the mysteries of physical reality discovered by science—especially the mystery of light—harmonize with the mysteries of faith.
(15 minute duration)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgnjgtsPmGQ

Science and faith are fundamentally opposed. They can't be in harmony.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

This is the first of a five part series to be released over the next five days exploring the harmony of faith and science.
Light from Light
See how the mysteries of physical reality discovered by science—especially the mystery of light—harmonize with the mysteries of faith.
(15 minute duration)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgnjgtsPmGQ

Science and faith are no more “in harmony” than architecture and morris dancing are in harmony. Science is indifferent the claims of religious faiths unless those claims happen to be scientific in character (young earth etc) when the faith claims are demonstrably wrong.

The video’s schtick is “sure some faith claims are inherently contradictory (Jesus fully god and fully human for example) but so are some scientific findings (light as both a wave and a particle for example) therefore the religious contradictions are true”. Nice try, but that ignores the inconvenient fact that the scientific findings rest on observation and testing whereas the religious ones are just unqualified assertions.

I also get a bit queasy by the way at the sight of religious faiths trying to credentialise themselves by stealing the clothing of science as if the two are epistemically equivalent.

They’re not though – not even close. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Science and faith are fundamentally opposed. They can't be in harmony.

No problem with science and enjoy both.
The war between science and religion? Load of shite.

[Dicky Underpants]

I also get a bit queasy by the way at the sight of religious faiths trying to credentialise themselves by stealing the clothing of science as if the two are epistemically equivalent.

They’re not though – not even close.

Hi blue

This seems especially true when considering the approach of Christian fundamentalists and biblical inerrantists. You know the drill:"the writers of the Bible knew the earth was a sphere before anyone else" etc (needless to say the Bible does not refer to the earth as a sphere).
However, there certainly seem to be limits with the fundie approach, hence the endless arguments to try and prove "by science" that evolution is not true and that Adam and Eve really existed. Whether any of this merry band have tried to enlist the investigations into 'Mitochondrial Eve' into their armoury, I don't know. They would have a bit of a problem pairing her off exactly with 'Y-chromosome Adam', though.

[Alan Burns]

second episode:
God and Nature
Learn how the cosmos, in its dance of order and openness, is a keyhole into which the doctrine of the Trinity fits perfectly.
(16 minute duration)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fen-a6SLiSE

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Science and faith are no more “in harmony” than architecture and morris dancing are in harmony. Science is indifferent the claims of religious faiths unless those claims happen to be scientific in character (young earth etc) when the faith claims are demonstrably wrong.

The video’s schtick is “sure some faith claims are inherently contradictory (Jesus fully god and fully human for example) but so are some scientific findings (light as both a wave and a particle for example) therefore the religious contradictions are true”. Nice try, but that ignores the inconvenient fact that the scientific findings rest on observation and testing whereas the religious ones are just unqualified assertions.

I also get a bit queasy by the way at the sight of religious faiths trying to credentialise themselves by stealing the clothing of science as if the two are epistemically equivalent.

They’re not though – not even close.

You appear to have dismissed any evidence forthcoming in the next four episodes without even having the opportunity to view them.

[Dicky Underpants]

second episode:
God and Nature
Learn how the cosmos, in its dance of order and openness, is a keyhole into which the doctrine of the Trinity fits perfectly.
(16 minute duration)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fen-a6SLiSE

Mercy on us! In one fell swoop to the doctrine of the Trinity being proved by science...hmm.

[Outrider]

Mercy on us! In one fell swoop to the doctrine of the Trinity being proved by science...hmm.

Let's be fair, the implication is that nothing in science expicitly contradicts the Trinity, not that science somehow validates it - I've not watched it, I struggle with videos because I can't make out the sound most of the time, even if I can get them to stream over my internet connection.

O.

[Dicky Underpants]

Let's be fair, the implication is that nothing in science expicitly contradicts the Trinity, not that science somehow validates it - I've not watched it, I struggle with videos because I can't make out the sound most of the time, even if I can get them to stream over my internet connection.

O.

Well, a lot of the 'argument' seems to hinge on Dante's mystical vision that everything in the universe is interconnected. So far so good; modern science does indicate this - so far. However, to go on to extrapolate from this that three beings mentioned in the Bible which by religious definition are beyond the universe, must be interwoven as a unity is a mighty leap too far. Apart from the fact that the Trinity was a made up doctrine by scholastics, the important thing is that we can have no knowledge except of phenomena; what lies beyond the universe we cannot know.
The rest of the video seemed just religious woo, but among which I was pleased to see a firm assertion of the Filioque doctrine, about which Vlad is unconcerned. The presenter seemed very concerned to get his doctrinal credentials right 🙂

[Alan Burns]

Third episode:
Seeds of Life
Discover how St. Augustine’s interpretation of Genesis prefigured and fits together with evolutionary biology.
(13 minute duration)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ubn3M0M0-k

[jeremyp]

AB,

Science and faith are no more “in harmony” than architecture and morris dancing are in harmony. Science is indifferent the claims of religious faiths unless those claims happen to be scientific in character (young earth etc) when the faith claims are demonstrably wrong.

The video’s schtick is “sure some faith claims are inherently contradictory (Jesus fully god and fully human for example) but so are some scientific findings (light as both a wave and a particle for example) therefore the religious contradictions are true”. Nice try, but that ignores the inconvenient fact that the scientific findings rest on observation and testing whereas the religious ones are just unqualified assertions.

I also get a bit queasy by the way at the sight of religious faiths trying to credentialise themselves by stealing the clothing of science as if the two are epistemically equivalent.

They’re not though – not even close.

I'm going to stick up for science here. The wave-particle duality is not a contradiction. Quantum objects are modelled by mathematical functions that look like waves in some aspects and look like particles in others.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hey Dicky,

This seems especially true when considering the approach of Christian fundamentalists and biblical inerrantists. You know the drill:"the writers of the Bible knew the earth was a sphere before anyone else" etc (needless to say the Bible does not refer to the earth as a sphere).
However, there certainly seem to be limits with the fundie approach, hence the endless arguments to try and prove "by science" that evolution is not true and that Adam and Eve really existed. Whether any of this merry band have tried to enlist the investigations into 'Mitochondrial Eve' into their armoury, I don't know. They would have a bit of a problem pairing her off exactly with 'Y-chromosome Adam', though.

Pretty much, yes. The approach seems to be twofold.

First: “Science has found out some pretty amazing stuff – religion claims some pretty amazing stuff too, therefore their “amazing stuff-ness” are equivalent.” There’s no attempt to justify the claims religions actually make, just an unspoken “virtue by association” attempt.

Second: “Here’s something a religious text says – if I ignore the other stuff it says that’s plainly wrong (ie, the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy), then twist and jemmy it hard enough then voilà – quantum physics! (or whatever)”   

It’s fodder for the non-reasoning perhaps, albeit with quite high production values – presumably funded by the “Word on Fire Institute” evangelical outfit behind it.     

[bluehillside Retd.]

Jeremy,

I'm going to stick up for science here. The wave-particle duality is not a contradiction. Quantum objects are modelled by mathematical functions that look like waves in some aspects and look like particles in others.

Yes I know – I was attempting to paraphrase their “argument” (“the video’s schtick is…” etc) rather than describe the actual science accurately, but could have made that clearer.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You appear to have dismissed any evidence forthcoming in the next four episodes without even having the opportunity to view them.

Yes.

First, it’s the output of an evangelical organisation. They’re interested in propagandising a faith position rather than providing a dispassionate evaluation of the evidence so it’s right to be sceptical.

Second, what I’ve seen so far is a hopeless mix of poor reasoning and no reasoning at all so it’s unlikely that they’d have changed tack to a reason-and evidence-based approach later on without revisiting and revising the failings of the first videos.

Third, as NS will remind us attempting to use naturalistic method like reason and evidence (however incompetently) to justify non-naturalistic claims is a fool’s errand – technically a category error. You may as well use aerodynamics to justify fairies.

Apart from all that though…       

[Nearly Sane]

AB,

Yes.

First, it’s the output of an evangelical organisation. They’re interested in propagandising a faith position rather than providing a dispassionate evaluation of the evidence so it’s right to be sceptical.

Second, what I’ve seen so far is a hopeless mix of poor reasoning and no reasoning at all so it’s unlikely that they’d have changed tack to a reason-and evidence-based approach later on without revisiting and revising the failings of the first videos.

Third, as NS will remind us attempting to use naturalistic method like reason and evidence (however incompetently) to justify non-naturalistic claims is a fool’s errand – technically a category error. You may as well use aerodynamics to justify fairies.

Apart from all that though…     

I would, indeed, remind people of that if the videos attempted to do that. They don't even do that.

[jeremyp]

Jeremy,

Yes I know – I was attempting to paraphrase their “argument” (“the video’s schtick is…” etc) rather than describe the actual science accurately, but could have made that clearer.

To take this further, when science finds apparent contradictions, scientists react in a completely different way to faitheists. An apparent contradiction is taken as a clue that they have got something wrong and they try to find ways to reconcile it.

Faitheists seem to revel in having contradictions: the fully god, fully man thing is a case in point, or the Trinity. You come up with a way reconciling the contradiction and they will have none of it. They want contradictions because they think it makes their beliefs more of a mystery.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I would, indeed, remind people of that if the videos attempted to do that. They don't even do that.

Well yes – they're "not even wrong" – but nonetheless that is what they think they're doing (hence my "however incompetently"). No doubt AB will tell us that we're dismissive because of an atheistic bias or some such, but I find it dispiriting nonetheless that impressionable minds could be taken in by this guff.   

[Alan Burns]

Episode 4:
Animals, the Human Animal, and God
Explore how the science of language illuminates both the evolutionary connection and spiritual difference between animals and human beings.
(15 minute duration)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lFSkT4RNus

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Episode 4:
Animals, the Human Animal, and God
Explore how the science of language illuminates both the evolutionary connection and spiritual difference between animals and human beings.
(15 minute duration)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lFSkT4RNus

I this episode any less poorly reasoned than the preceding three?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Is this episode any less poorly reasoned than the preceding three?

That is for you to decide

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

That is for you to decide

Why would I given the reasons I set out above, namely:

First, it’s the output of an evangelical organisation. They’re interested in propagandising a faith position rather than providing a dispassionate evaluation of the evidence so it’s right to be sceptical.

Second, what I’ve seen so far is a hopeless mix of poor reasoning and no reasoning at all so it’s unlikely that they’d have changed tack to a reason-and evidence-based approach later on without revisiting and revising the failings of the first videos.

Third, as NS will remind us attempting to use naturalistic method like reason and evidence (however incompetently) to justify non-naturalistic claims is a fool’s errand – technically a category error. You may as well use aerodynamics to justify fairies.
     
 

[ekim]

This topic seems to be Christianity oriented.  There have been physicists like Fritjof Capra and Niels Bohr who have sought to draw parallels between Hindu mysticism, Taoist mysticism and scientific mysteries.  ........ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tao_of_Physics

[Sriram]

In fact it is wrong to try to reconcile science and mysticism. One is about sensory experience and the other is about extra sensory experiences. They don't need to be  reconciled. They are two parts of the same spectrum of life. There is nothing to reconcile between the colors 'red' and 'violet'.