A friend of mine is a pretty die-hard Christian (shock horror, both of his parents are missionaries/vicars) and he often posts little sayings of some kind or another on Facebook, which I usually ignore. However, today he posted something that really irritated me for some reason:
"The more I look at science, the more in awe of God I become."
And just to make that worse, one of his Christian friends commented "Boom" as if he had made some kind of infallible argument. Somehow, I feel as though nothing I say will make any difference because they must be incredibly deluded already to believe that God just "invented" science. Basically, this is the guy who thinks he's a "modern and intelligent" Christian by saying that things like Noah's Ark are "just stories and aren't meant to be taken seriously by Christians". But if that is true, then why take ANY of the Bible seriously and where does he draw the line between stories and (what he believes is) the truth?
In the past I asked him and his friend where the evidence was. He claimed science (yes, seriously) helped prove Christianity and that Christianity was about "opening yourself" to it and believing, and then you "feel God" or whatever. How do you argue with someone like that??
What do you all say to religious people (not necessarily just Christians) who claim that science is just an invention of God? Is there a specific way to argue with someone who twists everything to awkwardly suit modern day thinking?
inside of your worldview certainly...
You dont deal in absolutes so you understand what I mean by a measure of belief right? You do not call it belief but thats what it is. it comes from a fundamentally wrong definition of belief. Very little belief is blind but is informed off of previous events, experiences, and truths that can be observed.
It was assumptions based off your statements. I apologize if it came off obnoxious and if I was wrong, I often am.
I feel that conversing with people that do not agree with me is terribly important and try to do so often.
those are definitionally beliefs though. You try and set them apart by saying one is faith and the other is predictions but definitionally they would be the same thing right?
I use him a lot but trofim lysenko had predictions regarding his rejection of mendellian genetics that were just wrong. That would fall into what you consider faith i assume because it was based on faulty evidence. regardless it was still a belief based on evidence, just wrong evidence.
belief is the same, what differs is what is used to justify those beliefs.
I do understand what you are saying though. I just disagree to an extent with your limited definitions of faith and belief. Maybe I'm just to "loose " with it though eh?
RE: "How do you know if I drop a ball it will fall? Everything takes a measure of belief even your reasoning."
Not at all, Josh - the simple formula, N+1, actually predicts that it is at least possible that at some point, the ball won't fall down, but will fall in some other of the 359 different directions instead. While we assume the ball will fall down, based upon what we know about the laws of gravity and upon simple, practical experience, those of us who understand N+1 never really believe it will, we always wait and see, and I'll admit it, I'm always astonished when it does --!
you are missing the point.
How can you trust your mind to perform those functions and come to that conclusion?
You have to believe in yourself and that the natural world is intelligible.
Certainly not the foundation of your structure but everything takes a measure of belief.
Much of the natural world is totally unintelligible, Josh, as well as counter intuitive - I give you the entire realm of quantum dynamics, that created the universe, as a prime example.
In the absence of other forces other than the earth's gravity, I would have an extream state of confidence that 'the ball' would fall. We are talking in the 'abstract' here though.
If you intrude another force into the experiment, such as a much larger massive body in orbit around the earth directly above the experiment site, one could obtain a predictable and theoretically computable other force that would accelerate the ball up, or in reference to the other body, 'down' in that gravity/acceleration gradient.
Sadly, for theists, that have rather limited physics experience, this might seem to be magical, and one more 'proof' of 'God's/god's' existence.
With ignorance comes a grasping at straws, and the over use of pat answers. For me It would take a fews days to remember how to use the equations for the prediction....LOL
Since I'm a theist I can't appreciate science?
Nope. It's like a blind person looking at a beautiful painting. If you did appreciate science you wouldn't be a theist. But what a theist does perfectly is cherry pick the science they like. E.g. using modern medicine instead of bleeding yourself with leeches, but then denying evolution and believing in magic (creationism).
So what you're saying, Joshua, is that you believe in both, science and magic. And you don't see a dichotomy there?
Or are you saying that the two are completely compatible? Can you give me an example of how science explains wooden staffs morphing into snakes? Or how a dead man can come back to life?
Upon what do you base your theism, the Bible, which is rampant with errors and plagiarized stories from other, older religions?
I see from your bio that you're from Waxahachie, Texas, the heart of the Bible Belt - most people call reading the Bible, "Bible Study," but I contend that real Bible Study involves researching where the Bible came from, who wrote it, who is said to have written it, yet didn't, and what the circumstances were, under which it was written. I would suspect you've never scratched that surface, but simply believed everything you've been told.
what older religions? what stories?
I'm glad you know me so well.