semi-random thoughts for the day...

All of these came out in response to some of the comments in this thread on the reconciliation of religion and science, and John Calvert's belief that any who maintain the definition of science as only allowing observable, natural causes, are inherently "secular humanists" no matter what they profess. I, of course, deny this assertion utterly, but some replies took it far too much the other way, asserting that faith was unreasonable. It isn't. "Hope IS Unreasonable" [Robert Fripp], but Love is greater than both).

I'm starting to see in this thread some serious generalization problems and over-application of words to mean far more than they really do mean.

Jon Davies: Science looks for the most reasonable explanations, and God is not a reasonable explanation for anything that we know of.

I fully disagree with this sentiment.  It is fully possible to be "reasonable", to use the skills of reason, to conclude that God may have been responsible for something objectively deemed coincidental.  That application of reason starts with an axiom that is faith-based (that God exists and intervenes in subtle ways in people's lives), but it is still reasonable.  It is not scientific because the axiom it is built upon is not scientifically supported by non-anectdotal evidence, but it is still reasonable.  Science and certain faiths may be antithetical, but science and reason are not mutually bound. Reason is a tool used by scientists. It is also a tool used in matters of faith.

It is the precise means by which a proper moral code is derived from the specific teachings of Christ in the Gospels.  It is not scientific, but it is logical and rational and follows a specific scientific principle -- does it conflict?  In science's case, the question is "does the conclusion conflict with the evidence?".  In the application of a religious belief to a moral code, the question is "does the action or conclusion conflict with the initial words that Jesus spoke, as accepted in the Gospels?"  (with added questioning on how does one reconcile the differences between the old and new testaments.  *some* people can not recognize the contradictions at all; others fall back on the old testament over Jesus's own teachings when it suits them -- I have little respect for either interpretation).

continues: So, I do think that religious people—of any degree—cannot maintain their beliefs while acknowledging the supremacy of science.  (And scientific reasoning is supreme.)

I handle that fine, thank you very much.  I accept that much of what happens in my life is coincidental, and that it is *my choice* to credit God to these miracles when they happen.  I accept God in my life because I see no reason NOT to.  I could just as easily be an athiest, but there have been events in my life that are "too coincidental", and rather than live in uncertainty, I accept *on faith* a certain degree of certainty by letting God take the credit.

But in matters of science and specifically evolution, as much as I would *like* to apply that on a massive scale, I can and will not.  I can *believe* in a "God of the Gaps" when it comes to the mutation process and "positive" mutations (as opposed to the negative ones which are the only kind according to anti-evolutionists), but I accept it is not scientific in the slightest and surely does not belong in a science classroom.  Coincidence and (naturalistic) causaility are all that matters in science because science is based on what is observable.  If "designing at the mutation event" is indistinguishable from "random mutation resulting in a positive effect", then Occam's Razor demands the latter.  (note, some would believe the "simpler" case is to accept that God did it, rather than "it just happened".  I disagree with this interpretation.)

I liked's BC's take in comment #21985.

I have been thinking that a personal God conjured by the evangelical Christians - one who wants to be involved with humans in a personal way - is likely to be more interested in the humans who are capable of thinking in rational or scientific ways. After all, the creator is more likely to be delighted in seeing problem solving and discovering than in predictable mouthing of “praise.” Another analogy: those of us who are parents enjoy when our children are discovering the world around them. Who needs a child who is constantly asking us for things and telling us how great we are? I imagine that the God that Calvert worships gets a little weary of the narrow-minded creature that Calvert represents.

and I don't see it in any way limited to "evangelicals".

Jon Davies [#21988]: What does the God that you believe in actually do?

God is present in my mind when I have a (moral) choice.  His teachings present themselves in an emotional way that allow me to make the right choice without going through the entire logical process of consequence and causality [good of the many over the one, enlightened self-interest, thou shalt not bear false witness ("lie")] to determine what I should do.  The choice is clear at a more pure level.

Yes again, that is *my interpretation* of how my consciousness works and I choose to credit God rather than leave it random.  It is an act of faith that has been repeatedly confirmed by *my interpretation* of the events in my life.  And yes that is slightly circular logic and again is not valid for scientifically justifying the existence of God (I see no reason that I should have to, btw, which already separate's me from the Dembskis' and Wells' of the world).  Maybe someday, psychological studies will eventually determine the causal nature of how our brain works to be able to make such large leaps of logic correctly (and how many can be fooled by the same leaps when they are incorrect).  For now, I'll credit God.  If in my lifetime they figure it out, I'll instead thank God for both the knowledge we have and the fact that we have it, as I do with as other former "gaps" of knowledge now filled.  I am willing to change my faith as appropriate to my experiences.  Maybe its rare as maybe those like me don't speak out as much on this, but as a not-uncommon exception to the generalizations, I wish that would be more respected.

continued: but why make the jump to have faith that there is one?

Quite the opposite.  I was raised with faith and saw no reason to discard it, no reason to "jump" to athiesm.  I certainly modified it as I grew older ("I discarded childish things" -- 1 Corinthians 13), and it is hardly blind faith by any means.  It is not difficult for me to maintain my faith because of science.  

It *IS* more difficult for me to maintain the identity of my faith as a form of Christianity in the face of the lies, deceits, and political motivations and actions of those who (falsely) claim to act as Christians.  "Too many people have lied in the name of Christ for anyone to heed the call." -- Graham Nash, 1977.

I wish Stan Gosnell could find another term to use instead of lumping biblical literalists and fundementalists together with those of us who are far more reasonable under the label "Christians" [#21967].  The bible in no way EVER stated that Blind Faith is the way into salvation.  That is a dogma that was established long after the Bible was written and a dogma discarded by most Christian sects over the centuries including the Catholics.  The Bible *repeatedly* states (in both testaments) that "Agape", Love, is the most important means to peace with the Father.

Faith is a choice, but Love is an even greater and more difficult choice, and many people with Faith seem incapable of expressing Love. I fully believe those who honestly live in Love will find Peace, regardless of their Faith (or lack thereof). I believe it would be unreasonable for God not to permit that; if we are "in his image", then God is at least as reasonable as his creation.

The Service Economy...