Skip to comments.Science and faith: the conflict
Posted on 04/04/2009 11:41:33 AM PDT by Cvengr
Brain-scanning experiments carried out by scientists last week revealed that religious faith is embedded deep within key parts of the brain. This suggests that belief in a higher power evolved at some early point in human history.
Scientists argued that it explained the widespread nature of religion among human cultures, but the findings also highlighted a growing tendency for science to be used as a way of attacking religion.
It comes at a time when the gulf between science and religion could not seem any wider.
...The mounting debate over evolution and creationism has now left many people asking whether science and religion can ever coexist, or even if scientific research will eventually bring an end to religious belief entirely. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Be very cautious when people seek to counterfeit relationship with God, now on physical, soulish, and spiritual levels on their terms, instead of God's terms.
Conspiracy theorists have long accused the Human Genome Project as closely associated with demonic attempts to counterfeit the human for demonic habitation. While easily dismissed as lunatic fringe, every once in a while those at the heart of the Project tip their hand as to their intentions and modus operendi.
This area of research is likely to be aggressively pursued by anybody falling into the category of 'antichrist'.
If one believes atheistic socialism and totalitarian tyranny jeopardizes our physical and rational freedom, just wait until the same megalomaniacs seek control over the human spirit.
Rubbish & lies. Just more premise-based “research” with unsupported assumption after assumption attempting to reduce people to little more than pondscum in their eyes. It’s fully intentional, and they have been pulling this kind of stunt for years. This is NOT what the experiment really showed, this is their narrow interpretation of it.
I haven’t read their study, but finding a region of the brain generating feelings of faith no more disproves God’s existence than finding a region of the brain generating the sensation of purpleness proves rainbows don’t exist.
I didn’t grasp all the details of the experiment, nor the testing performed. Is there a publicly available publication of their efforts?
Then why dont you write a paper refuting this interpretation, and submit it for peer-review?
I am sure you have all the falsifiable evidence to support your assertion.
“For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark age and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore, put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.” Ephesians 6:12,13.
The coming onslaught against Jesus and His Gospel message will hopefully be the last one which Christians must endure before He returns to judge the world.
Come quickly, Lord Jesus!
if you knew how much stuff I have to do right now!
“the findings also highlighted a growing tendency for science to be used as a way of attacking religion”
it’s right there in the article anyway
They are different things.
This whole discussion is covered very well by A. S. Eddington in his essay “The Domain of Physical Science”.
Science does one thing: it measures pointer readings. Is the light on or off? How far did the ball fall?
That sort of stuff.
Religion and faith, on the other hand, talks about things science can’t measure. Truth. Beauty. Love. Hope.
Physical science looks at the bricks the building is made of. Mysticism and religion are about the patterns, the final architecture of the building.
And exactly what evidence do they have for this assertion?
And if they can refute the findings in this study why did they not submit that for peer-review?
That is how real science works.
I don’t put my faith in science anymore. The things that’s I’ve read in the news papers or seen on TV that was supposed to be based on good science, only to be proven wrong years later are too numerous to count or remember.
Science seems to be like water. It’s liquid, ever changing. Or maybe much of it has to do with one’s political goals as to the outcome of one’s study. I don’t know.
it is WRONG.
If a scientists came & told me the sky was red, I would still know he was WRONG. I wouldn’t care if a million scientists all said the same thing. They would be WRONG, because I have a personal understanding that the sky is blue.
You failed to answer my question.
What evidence do you have to that it is wrong?
Science and Faith are by definition at odds with each other.
Science means, don’t believe it if you can’t prove it.
Faith is about believing without proof or even in spite of proof.
Nevertheless, each human must believe in both science and faith, depending on the circumstances, to be an effective person today.
Faith and Reason are complementary, not incompatible.
I hope this information is helpful
“Science investigates difficult questions about unknown fields, and scientists are human, so it is inevitable that scientific findings will not be perfect. However, science works by investigating more and more, which means results get checked and rechecked with further findings. The reason some findings change is because they get corrected. This process of correction helps make science one of the most successful areas of human endeavor. The people who cannot be trusted are those who are always right.”
That is the beauty of science. If you think that you have a better explanation for a theory then you simply gather your evidence and submit a paper for peer-review.
If it withstands that review, and is published then the scientific community, as a whole will try to repeat your experiment and verify your findings.
If you show that your paper provides a better explanation, then it replaces the old one.
Science is not a stagnate thing it is a search for knowledge.
Here is a brief explanation of the peer-review process:
“What is peer review?
Science and engineering journals are a primary means by which engineers and scientists present their work. Before their work appears in a journal, experienced writers and reviewers know that a solo draft is only a draft and that the purpose of peer review is to stimulate the writer to rethink the entire document.
Peer review is:
· the process scientists use to examine the work of fellow scientists before it is published or accepted within the scientific community.
· the process used by the scientific community to assess a scientific paper, report, project, or proposal by seeking comments on it from independent assessors (”peers”) working in the same field.
· the process by which manuscripts submitted to health, biomedical, and other scientifically oriented journals and other publications are evaluated by experts in appropriate fields (usually anonymous to the authors) to determine if the manuscripts are of adequate quality for publication.
· the procedure by which academic journal articles are reviewed by other researchers before being accepted for publication.
· written, critical response to a study, data, or report provided by scientists and other technically-qualified professionals.
And what you posted to me all brakes down to just what I said.
Science seems to be like water. Its liquid, ever changing.
Have a good one!
Yes it is, and that is a very good thing.
Nothing to fear, or mistrust scientific advancements helps make this a better world for all of us.
It would be very detrimental if science was unchanging, and stagnate.
Do you not agree?
The words faith and believe in the Greek as used in Scripture describing the essential element for eternal life through Christ, are from the same root.
Epistemologically, faith is not synonymous with divorcement from logic, truth, or rationality.
Science is hinged upon the reproducibility of conclusions of its hypotheses by empirical observation. If reproducible, some are tempted to substitute those conclusions as objects of faith. In many cases, perhaps temporally over years, decades, centuries, millennia, such assumptions never meet with contradiction in empirical observation. They then have utility as hasty solutions to managing empirical resources, but the scientific method fails to provide absolute truth, justice or righteousness in its assessments of all rational and spiritual phenomena.
It isn’t accurate to state faith is about believing without proof or even in spite of proof. That issue touches upon justification. In rationalism, a logical proof is used to justify the conclusions based upon logical rules of inference.
In regards to the human spirit, we are justified by faith alone in Christ alone.
This may appear to be an empty argument without an object of substance to the unbelieving mind, and frequently to the believer who has not yet grasped the significance of the spirit, until one is exposed to the spiritual domain where very real persons exist, including angels, both fallen and elect, as well as principalities, authorities, thrones, dominions, and other powers.
Faith is also not to be confused with psychological certainty, nor is belief, although when faith is coupled with volition, psychological certainty frequently accompanies its expression.