Is Faith Compatible with Reason?

[the_bob_delusion]

Is faith compatible with science or reality?

Do you think you have to forego rational thinking to have faith?

Do you have faith based on reason?

If science contradicts scripture, which then do you accept?

Can you have faith and also accept science? e.g. Can you accept evolution if it goes against scripture?

When a Muslim tells you that Mohommad flew to heaven on a winged horse, is this based on reason/science?

[monman12]

IS: "scientist seek to either prove or disprove their theory ."

Incorrect.

"the concept of proof — real, absolute proof — is not particularly scientific. Science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it. Science accepts or rejects ideas based on the evidence; it does not prove or disprove them."

Thus in my case, lacking evidence from believers/indoctrinators  other than their "faith",  I totally reject the concept of any form of deity, but reason that they are free to believe in whatever they wish, but do wonder why they work so hard at it!

nɥºɾ

[clair.de.lune]

Spoiler

you'll go to hell monman

[icyfroth]

Faith is an intrinsic human emotion. Those that seek power over others exploit it by miseducation and brainwashing.

To question and to reason is another human condition.

Once reason and questing exposes mistruths blind faith is soon abandoned.

[the_bob_delusion]

---

@lakeland27 wrote:

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

I disagree LL.

Whilst both (theologian and scientist) may start with a theory for why something exists, a scientist searches for the proof. A theologist ignores the proof when it is presented.

---

yes but i'm not comparing theologians to scientists, i'm saying they once could work out of the same Monastery without conflict. they were able to wear both hats .. its only the revival in fundamentalism (in any church ) that's created the divide.

---

I get what you're trying to say but that's not the point being made. Ofcourse it's possible for a religious person to be a scientist. However they have to throw science and reason out the door when it comes to their religious beliefs. Let me ask you, so Mohommad flying to Heaven on a winged horse. Is this a scientific or anti-scientific claim? Adam is the first man on earth. Is this a scientific or anti-scientific claim?

[the_bob_delusion]

---

@izabsmiling wrote:

Theistic evolutionism acknowledges both God and Science .

---

And those who don't acknowledge evolution(theistic or non-theistic) is that against science and reason?

[icyfroth]

what?

[the_bob_delusion]

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

I disagree LL.

Whilst both (theologian and scientist) may start with a theory for why something exists, a scientist searches for the proof. A theologist ignores the proof when it is presented.

---

Do they?

And who determines that what a Scientist claims to be proof is in fact correct?

Proof is subjective depending on the technology available at the time, current definitions and man's interpretation of the results.

Anyone remember that place called Pluto?

---

Do you understand how science work? 

If a better theory or evidence comes up, you throw out the previous theory like yesterday's newspaper. It's always improving and self correcting. 

I don't get your point with pluto. 

How does faith work. You claim the truth without evidence and if contrary evidence comes in, you reject the evidence. 

[the_bob_delusion]

---

@izabsmiling wrote:

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

I disagree LL.

Whilst both (theologian and scientist) may start with a theory for why something exists, a scientist searches for the proof. A theologist ignores the proof when it is presented.

---

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

scientist seek to either prove or disprove their theory .

Possibilianism

by BIG THINK EDITORS

THE BIG IDEA FOR SATURDAY, APRIL 13, 2013

"I do not believe that science can disprove the existence of God; I think that is impossible.  And if it is impossible, is not a belief in science and in a God -- an ordinary God of religion -- a consistent possibility?" Thus spoke Richard Feynman, in agreement with other notable scientific minds, including Carl Sagan and Albert Einstein.

In other words, if we cannot conclude that God exists, but we also cannot conclude that God does not. There are indeed multiple possibilities of what happens to consciousness when we die. That is the idea of possibilianism, an idea recently popularized by David Eagleman. We may go to heaven or we all may just be sims. Neither of these possibilities can be proven or disproven, so we cannot discount them 100 percent. 

---

You're right. Scientist also cannot prove Santa or Unicorns do not exist. 

[the_bob_delusion]

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

Can I just clarify. Are you saying, there's no incidence where the scripture contradicts our understand of estalished natural science?

I'm asking you where scripture contradicts science?

Or are you just saying, people can ignore certain part of the bible or interpret it completely differently to what it reads? As it's interpretation that's the problem? see below.

So those religious that don't accept evolution and think the universe is 6000yrs old because it goes against their interpretation of the scripture, are they idiots or do not have reason or logic?  They are not idiots - but they confuse the word 'day' as it's written in Genesis - 'day' in that context means period - most Bible scholars agree. What does it mean when someone says  "in my day we didn't have all this crime/television/insert your own wording here. Are they talking about one specific 24-hour period during their life? No!

---

So you're saying those who thinks the universe is 6000yrs old or evolution did not happen are confused. Is that right? 

So you're saying that day means period, which could be billions of years. Is that your assertion?

Which part of the order of creation is remotely correct or is the interpretation incorrect again? Have you actually studied science? Can you tell me which of what Genesis said is actually scientifically correct? this should be easy for you . 

So why does God write a book to confuse people?

[izabsmiling]

"Science accepts or rejects ideas based on the evidence; it does not prove or disprove them."

Thanks MM ,I thought I worded it incorrectly.