OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 23, 2014, 10:05:10 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Poll
Question: If Science Disproved A Religious/Theological Belief of Yours, Would You Continue To Hold To It?
Yes - 19 (38.8%)
Maybe - 10 (20.4%)
No - 13 (26.5%)
None of the Above - 7 (14.3%)
Total Voters: 49

Pages: 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Science and Faith Poll  (Read 4651 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Asteriktos
Protostrator
***************
Offline Offline

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,293


Russians. Even when holding a cat they're dour.


« on: October 29, 2010, 05:29:40 AM »

There's an interesting article at the Pew Research Center website: How the Public Resolves Conflicts Between Faith and Science. In particular, I wanted to talk about this paragraph from the article:

"When asked what they would do if scientists were to disprove a particular religious belief, nearly two-thirds (64%) of people say they would continue to hold to what their religion teaches rather than accept the contrary scientific finding, according to the results of an October 2006 Time magazine poll."

Does this accurately reflect your approach or mindset?

I think part of the problem here is that some would say something along the lines of "Science couldn't disprove one of my beliefs". However, we shouldn't confuse what a faith group teaches with what we each believe: even if you believe that your faith group (or holy book, or whatever) is correct in all it teaches, there's still the chance that you could misunderstand or be wrong as an individual.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2010, 05:29:59 AM by Asteriktos » Logged
dattaswami
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 837



« Reply #1 on: October 29, 2010, 06:18:35 AM »

Science is good for finding out non-God items which pose as God. Any item which can be analysed by science is not GOd. God is beyond science and science cannot analyse God.
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #2 on: October 29, 2010, 06:38:33 AM »

Science is good for finding out non-God items which pose as God. Any item which can be analysed by science is not GOd. God is beyond science and science cannot analyse God.

For once we are in agreement!  Cheesy
Logged
Tallitot
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jewish
Jurisdiction: United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Posts: 2,457



WWW
« Reply #3 on: October 29, 2010, 06:44:31 AM »

Science cannot analyze G-d, but can analyze and explain G-d's creation.
Logged

Proverbs 22:7
dattaswami
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 837



« Reply #4 on: October 29, 2010, 07:13:56 AM »

There's an interesting article at the Pew Research ...........ches with what we each believe: even if you believe that your faith group (or holy book, or whatever) is correct in all it teaches, there's still the chance that you could misunderstand or be wrong as an individual.

Science is noble in admitting unknown things. Heisenberg is a noble scientist and winner of Nobel Prize, who admitted the uncertain phenomena under the uncertainty principle.  It is not certain whether the electron is a wave or a particle. It has dual nature.  Dual nature is not a precise answer and admits the concept of uncertainty or unimaginable nature.

The God of science

   According to science, inert energy is basic material of this universe, which creates, maintains and finally dissolves entire creation and is the God of science.  The design of the world doesn’t require the need of awareness because a long duration of time has set up the design of world perfectly by the theory of probability.  Scientists do not accept the necessity of an intellectual agent to design this wonderful world as philosophers imagine in Vedanta (Brahmasutras). If this is the end of the story, science could have easily disposed the proposal of Vedanta and the scriptures can be easily concluded as poetic imaginations of certain poets. It can be easily concluded that certain people have created this poetry to exploit the society in the name of God. Anyone can easily believe science and by this time the world should have been filled with atheists only and today, the minority should be theists.

 But surprisingly the majority is theists and minority is only atheists.  The atheists say that since majority is uneducated, theism exists due to possibility of easy exploitation of uneducated people.  But even educated people show majority of theists only all over the world.  What is the reason for this?  The reason for this is that the unimaginable God is showing miracles in the lives of several people to establish the existence of unimaginable God. 

Not only this, the unimaginable God is exhibiting unimaginable miracles through several devotees and also demons widely.  Not only this, God is coming in human form and is offering explanation of the miracles and concept of God.  Genuine miracles are many in the world and the minority of atheists is unable to dispose these miracles as magic.  You may write the correct answer through copying in the examination.  Some body might have also written the same correct answer without copying in the examination.  Since the answer is one and same, can you say that the other person who has written the correct answer also copied necessarily? The product may be same but the methods of production vary. Sodium chloride can be produced in several ways. You have produced it in one way.  I have produced it in another way.  The end product is the same sodium chloride.  You cannot say that I have also produced in your way only. 
Logged
dattaswami
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 837



« Reply #5 on: October 29, 2010, 07:15:40 AM »

Science cannot analyze G-d, but can analyze and explain G-d's creation.

Correct. Science is the logical analysis of the items existing in this creation based on only one authority that is perception (Pratyaksha Pramanam). Even in the ancient logic, all the authorities (Pramanas) are based on perception only. You see the fire giving smoke. This is deduction or perception. When you see the smoke coming from a distance and do not see the fire, you say that fire exists there and this is induction or inference (Anumana Pramanam). But this induction is based on your previous deduction only. Somebody says to you that fire gives smoke. If that person is your dearest, you believe it and infer the fire from the smoke. This is authority of word ‘Shabdha Pramanam’.

Though you have not seen the fire, your dearest person has seen the smoke coming from fire. Like this all the authorities are based on perception only. I do not find any scripture of any Religion, which contradicts the experience of perception. There are four ways of authority. 1) Sruthi, which is the original scripture. 2) Smrithi, which is the commentaries of Scholars on the original scripture. 3) Yukthi, the logical analysis based on deduction, induction etc., 4) Anubhava, the experience based on the perception of the items in this world, which may be direct or indirect. Out of these four ways, the fourth way is the most powerful. If anything contradicts the fourth way, that is not valid or it may be a misinterpretation based on misunderstanding of the Sruthi or Smrithi or Yukthi. Thus Science and Philosophy are not separate. The very frame of the spiritual knowledge is Science only. Thus Science is the basic foundation and over all underlying structure of all the Scriptures.

A true Scientist should always stand on the perception and should not deny the experience derived by perception. If he denies, he is not a scientist. All top most scientists were philosophers and spiritual people only. Those scientists have travelled along the river of Science and reached its end, which is the ocean of spiritual knowledge called as philosophy. Philosophy is pervading all the branches of Science. Every branch of Science gives Ph.D as the final degree. Ph.D means Doctor in Philosophy. If Science and Philosophy are different, why this word Philosophy is regarded so much by all the branches of Science? Philosophy means the essence of the knowledge of every branch that is experienced when one reaches the end of that branch.

Therefore, the spiritual knowledge, which is the ocean is the Philosophy in which all branches of Science and all the Religions merge and loose their identity. A scientist who has not reached the end of Science and who is still travelling in the river only denies the existence of the ocean, since he is still perceiving the limiting boundaries of his knowledge – river. Such river-travellers are called as atheists. They neither see the ocean nor see the other rivers. Even the follower of any particular Religion is in the state of this atheist only. He is no better than these atheists because he believes that God is a particular form only, which is a small part of this creation. Some other followers believe God as formless, who is the all-pervading cosmic energy. Since cosmic energy is also a part of the creation, their form of God is very big. These atheist-scientist believe that this creation is God. Thus all these are atheists only. All these atheists, who may be scientific atheists or religious atheists, will realize the true nature of God only when they reach the end of the Science or Religion.

A scientific atheist is contradicting his own authority, which is the perception. When the human incarnation performs the inexplicable miracles, how can they deny the perception of such miracles? You may do that miracle in an alternative way, but that does not contradict the different path of the original miracle. One may get first class by copying. Such false first class cannot contradict the genuine first class. The result is same, but the process is different. You may produce ash by putting a fine powder of wet salt in the grews of your hand like a magician. The same ash may be produced by a divine miracle also. Since the result is same, can you argue that the process also should be same? Since the first class result is same in the case of the original student and a fraud student, do you mean that the hard work of the original student is fraud?

Do you mean that the original and fraud students are one and the same? Therefore, the same result can have two different processes. Since the result is same, processes need not be same. Do you mean that a result has only one process? Is it not contradicting the very fundamentals of Science? A Chemical compound can be produced in several ways (Hess Law). Since the compound is same, do you mean that the alternative reactions are also one and the same? Same Chennai city can be reached by several ways. Since the end City is same, do you mean that all the paths are not different? Do you mean that all the paths are merged as one path only and thus there is only one path to reach the Chennai city? Therefore, conservative scientists and conservative religious followers can be categorized as immature analysts. The immaturity indicates their position in the river and maturity indicates their position in the end of the river, which is the ocean. Einstein, Newton, Heisenberg etc., are the top most scientists who have travelled and travelled along the Science River and reached the final spiritual ocean.
Logged
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,079


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #6 on: October 29, 2010, 01:45:47 PM »

There's an interesting article at the Pew Research Center website: How the Public Resolves Conflicts Between Faith and Science. In particular, I wanted to talk about this paragraph from the article:

"When asked what they would do if scientists were to disprove a particular religious belief, nearly two-thirds (64%) of people say they would continue to hold to what their religion teaches rather than accept the contrary scientific finding, according to the results of an October 2006 Time magazine poll."

Does this accurately reflect your approach or mindset?

I think part of the problem here is that some would say something along the lines of "Science couldn't disprove one of my beliefs". However, we shouldn't confuse what a faith group teaches with what we each believe: even if you believe that your faith group (or holy book, or whatever) is correct in all it teaches, there's still the chance that you could misunderstand or be wrong as an individual.
"Beliefs" is rather vague.

Is there any particular "belief" in Christianity that could be "disproven" by science?
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Asteriktos
Protostrator
***************
Offline Offline

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,293


Russians. Even when holding a cat they're dour.


« Reply #7 on: October 29, 2010, 01:55:06 PM »

Based on the article, I think they are including things like creationism as, if not a religious belief per se, at least a belief closely connected with a religious... perhaps it could be called a religiously-motivated belief.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2010, 01:55:46 PM by Asteriktos » Logged
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica Metropolitanate
Posts: 4,469



« Reply #8 on: October 29, 2010, 02:12:41 PM »

Based on the article, I think they are including things like creationism as, if not a religious belief per se, at least a belief closely connected with a religious... perhaps it could be called a religiously-motivated belief.

That understanding would change my answer from YES to MAYBE.  
« Last Edit: October 29, 2010, 02:13:10 PM by Punch » Logged

God did not create man equal.  Samuel Colt made man equal.  Blessed be the Peacemaker.
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #9 on: October 29, 2010, 03:41:05 PM »

Is there any particular "belief" in Christianity that could be "disproven" by science?
I'd say so.  Suppose we perfected a technique for recording the light, originating from earth, that had reflected back from various heavenly bodies.  In looking at what's coming in from those bodies ~1000 light years from us, we could observe what went on during Christ's time.  Suppose that we could rule out all possibility, through exhaustive observation, of a simultaneous three-person crucifixion anywhere within the time frame we'd expect it. 

Given that, I'd be hard pressed to maintain my current beliefs.
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #10 on: October 30, 2010, 03:17:25 AM »

Is there any particular "belief" in Christianity that could be "disproven" by science?
I'd say so.  Suppose we perfected a technique for recording the light, originating from earth, that had reflected back from various heavenly bodies.  In looking at what's coming in from those bodies ~1000 light years from us, we could observe what went on during Christ's time.  Suppose that we could rule out all possibility, through exhaustive observation, of a simultaneous three-person crucifixion anywhere within the time frame we'd expect it. 

Given that, I'd be hard pressed to maintain my current beliefs.

so for you, seeing is believing?
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,835


"My god is greater."


« Reply #11 on: October 30, 2010, 09:02:39 AM »

Is there any particular "belief" in Christianity that could be "disproven" by science?
I'd say so.  Suppose we perfected a technique for recording the light, originating from earth, that had reflected back from various heavenly bodies.  In looking at what's coming in from those bodies ~1000 light years from us, we could observe what went on during Christ's time.  Suppose that we could rule out all possibility, through exhaustive observation, of a simultaneous three-person crucifixion anywhere within the time frame we'd expect it.  

Given that, I'd be hard pressed to maintain my current beliefs.

Your real religion, or, perhaps, your meta-religion, is modern science then.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2010, 09:02:59 AM by Iconodule » Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #12 on: October 30, 2010, 10:56:00 AM »

Is there any particular "belief" in Christianity that could be "disproven" by science?
I'd say so.  Suppose we perfected a technique for recording the light, originating from earth, that had reflected back from various heavenly bodies.  In looking at what's coming in from those bodies ~1000 light years from us, we could observe what went on during Christ's time.  Suppose that we could rule out all possibility, through exhaustive observation, of a simultaneous three-person crucifixion anywhere within the time frame we'd expect it.  

Given that, I'd be hard pressed to maintain my current beliefs.

Your real religion, or, perhaps, your meta-religion, is modern science then.

I wouldn't go that far. If you could go back in time and determine beyond a shadow of a doubt that the gospel story is false, would you still believe it?
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,908



WWW
« Reply #13 on: October 30, 2010, 11:33:04 AM »

Is there any particular "belief" in Christianity that could be "disproven" by science?
I'd say so.  Suppose we perfected a technique for recording the light, originating from earth, that had reflected back from various heavenly bodies.  In looking at what's coming in from those bodies ~1000 light years from us, we could observe what went on during Christ's time.  Suppose that we could rule out all possibility, through exhaustive observation, of a simultaneous three-person crucifixion anywhere within the time frame we'd expect it.  

Given that, I'd be hard pressed to maintain my current beliefs.

Your real religion, or, perhaps, your meta-religion, is modern science then.

I wouldn't go that far. If you could go back in time and determine beyond a shadow of a doubt that the gospel story is false, would you still believe it?

In that case, it's not modern science that's beat you. You can't believe in a lie. So the question is loaded. We can think up situations, where we can determine as scenario where, maybe, if things were false, we'd lose our faith... In reality, for modern science to disprove our faith, it would have to somehow determine that there is no spiritual aspect to reality. I don't see that being possible, so we are right back to where we started. YAY!
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #14 on: October 30, 2010, 11:36:44 AM »

Is there any particular "belief" in Christianity that could be "disproven" by science?
I'd say so.  Suppose we perfected a technique for recording the light, originating from earth, that had reflected back from various heavenly bodies.  In looking at what's coming in from those bodies ~1000 light years from us, we could observe what went on during Christ's time.  Suppose that we could rule out all possibility, through exhaustive observation, of a simultaneous three-person crucifixion anywhere within the time frame we'd expect it.  

Given that, I'd be hard pressed to maintain my current beliefs.

Your real religion, or, perhaps, your meta-religion, is modern science then.

I wouldn't go that far. If you could go back in time and determine beyond a shadow of a doubt that the gospel story is false, would you still believe it?

In that case, it's not modern science that's beat you.

Well, if we could make time travelling into the past a reality, it would be science, would it not? This would not disprove God in general, of course, but it could disprove certain claims of certain religions.
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #15 on: October 30, 2010, 11:46:50 AM »


You can't believe in a lie. So the question is loaded.

If you limit the definition of the word 'belief' to imply a mere intellectual assent of a series of facts being correct, then no you can't (which I think, by the way, is an innacurate definition of the word used in the bible to describe belief/faith, 'pisteuo') But if you consider belief/faith to mean 'fidelity to a particular way of life based on application of it's practical reality' then facts are not necessary to form the basis of your belief.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2010, 11:50:32 AM by Ortho_cat » Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,908



WWW
« Reply #16 on: October 30, 2010, 12:11:56 PM »


You can't believe in a lie. So the question is loaded.

If you limit the definition of the word 'belief' to imply a mere intellectual assent of a series of facts being correct, then no you can't (which I think, by the way, is an innacurate definition of the word used in the bible to describe belief/faith, 'pisteuo') But if you consider belief/faith to mean 'fidelity to a particular way of life based on application of it's practical reality' then facts are not necessary to form the basis of your belief.

In concept, but to believe a pepperoni pizza is a cat, doesn't change the pizza. Belief isn't just a concept, it's based on reality.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,426


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #17 on: October 30, 2010, 12:34:25 PM »


You can't believe in a lie. So the question is loaded.

If you limit the definition of the word 'belief' to imply a mere intellectual assent of a series of facts being correct, then no you can't (which I think, by the way, is an innacurate definition of the word used in the bible to describe belief/faith, 'pisteuo') But if you consider belief/faith to mean 'fidelity to a particular way of life based on application of it's practical reality' then facts are not necessary to form the basis of your belief.

In concept, but to believe a pepperoni pizza is a cat, doesn't change the pizza. Belief isn't just a concept, it's based on reality.
Maybe the pepperoni is made of cat.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,908



WWW
« Reply #18 on: October 30, 2010, 12:36:02 PM »


You can't believe in a lie. So the question is loaded.

If you limit the definition of the word 'belief' to imply a mere intellectual assent of a series of facts being correct, then no you can't (which I think, by the way, is an innacurate definition of the word used in the bible to describe belief/faith, 'pisteuo') But if you consider belief/faith to mean 'fidelity to a particular way of life based on application of it's practical reality' then facts are not necessary to form the basis of your belief.

In concept, but to believe a pepperoni pizza is a cat, doesn't change the pizza. Belief isn't just a concept, it's based on reality.
Maybe the pepperoni is made of cat.

touche'  Cheesy
Logged


I'm going to need this.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,426


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #19 on: October 30, 2010, 12:38:27 PM »


You can't believe in a lie. So the question is loaded.

If you limit the definition of the word 'belief' to imply a mere intellectual assent of a series of facts being correct, then no you can't (which I think, by the way, is an innacurate definition of the word used in the bible to describe belief/faith, 'pisteuo') But if you consider belief/faith to mean 'fidelity to a particular way of life based on application of it's practical reality' then facts are not necessary to form the basis of your belief.

In concept, but to believe a pepperoni pizza is a cat, doesn't change the pizza. Belief isn't just a concept, it's based on reality.
Maybe the pepperoni is made of cat.

touche'  Cheesy
A pizza I'm sure Alf would love.
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #20 on: October 30, 2010, 12:51:36 PM »


You can't believe in a lie. So the question is loaded.

If you limit the definition of the word 'belief' to imply a mere intellectual assent of a series of facts being correct, then no you can't (which I think, by the way, is an innacurate definition of the word used in the bible to describe belief/faith, 'pisteuo') But if you consider belief/faith to mean 'fidelity to a particular way of life based on application of it's practical reality' then facts are not necessary to form the basis of your belief.

In concept, but to believe a pepperoni pizza is a cat, doesn't change the pizza. Belief isn't just a concept, it's based on reality.

So long as you eat the pizza, does it really matter whether you 'believe' (in the term of intellectual assent) it is a cat or a pizza if it provides you with the same taste and nutrients to your body either way?

I believe that faith/belief/pisteuo (in the traditional religious sense) is not based on evidence or even actual reality, but on application of it's practical reality.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2010, 12:52:20 PM by Ortho_cat » Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,908



WWW
« Reply #21 on: October 30, 2010, 12:56:40 PM »


You can't believe in a lie. So the question is loaded.

If you limit the definition of the word 'belief' to imply a mere intellectual assent of a series of facts being correct, then no you can't (which I think, by the way, is an innacurate definition of the word used in the bible to describe belief/faith, 'pisteuo') But if you consider belief/faith to mean 'fidelity to a particular way of life based on application of it's practical reality' then facts are not necessary to form the basis of your belief.

In concept, but to believe a pepperoni pizza is a cat, doesn't change the pizza. Belief isn't just a concept, it's based on reality.

So long as you eat the pizza, does it really matter whether you 'believe' (in the term of intellectual assent) it is a cat or a pizza if it provides you with the same taste and nutrients to your body either way?

I believe that faith/belief/pisteuo (in the traditional religious sense) is not based on evidence or even actual reality, but on application of it's practical reality.

If it's not based on anything, but the spiritual experience alone, you would be more of a universalist. Afterall, it's not what you believe, but experiencing the divine?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Manalive
Иоанн
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Russian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Moscow Patriarchate
Posts: 288


It is later than we think.


« Reply #22 on: October 30, 2010, 01:24:18 PM »

Yes, I would continue to hold onto the belief. There will always be another scientific theory to come along and disprove the last theory. Besides, you wouldn't have a mathematician or biologist teacher grade your paper on Poetry or Literature would you?  Smiley
Logged

"Lay hold of the pathway... rugged and narrow as it is."- St. John Chrystostom
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #23 on: October 30, 2010, 02:30:51 PM »


You can't believe in a lie. So the question is loaded.

If you limit the definition of the word 'belief' to imply a mere intellectual assent of a series of facts being correct, then no you can't (which I think, by the way, is an innacurate definition of the word used in the bible to describe belief/faith, 'pisteuo') But if you consider belief/faith to mean 'fidelity to a particular way of life based on application of it's practical reality' then facts are not necessary to form the basis of your belief.

In concept, but to believe a pepperoni pizza is a cat, doesn't change the pizza. Belief isn't just a concept, it's based on reality.

So long as you eat the pizza, does it really matter whether you 'believe' (in the term of intellectual assent) it is a cat or a pizza if it provides you with the same taste and nutrients to your body either way?

I believe that faith/belief/pisteuo (in the traditional religious sense) is not based on evidence or even actual reality, but on application of it's practical reality.

If it's not based on anything, but the spiritual experience alone, you would be more of a universalist. Afterall, it's not what you believe, but experiencing the divine?

Personally, I believe that Christianity is superior to other religions because the message of Christ speaks more fundamentally and completely to the human condition than any other belief systems before or after. In his own words,

"I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly."

"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”

Here Christ calls us to action, urging us to live the life he showed us how to live, and to see for ourselves whether his message resonates with our hearts. Far from an intellectual assent, the actualization and realization of these words in my life is what my 'faith' is based upon.

Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,835


"My god is greater."


« Reply #24 on: October 30, 2010, 04:48:36 PM »

Is there any particular "belief" in Christianity that could be "disproven" by science?
I'd say so.  Suppose we perfected a technique for recording the light, originating from earth, that had reflected back from various heavenly bodies.  In looking at what's coming in from those bodies ~1000 light years from us, we could observe what went on during Christ's time.  Suppose that we could rule out all possibility, through exhaustive observation, of a simultaneous three-person crucifixion anywhere within the time frame we'd expect it.  

Given that, I'd be hard pressed to maintain my current beliefs.

Your real religion, or, perhaps, your meta-religion, is modern science then.

I wouldn't go that far. If you could go back in time and determine beyond a shadow of a doubt that the gospel story is false, would you still believe it?

In that case, it's not modern science that's beat you.

Well, if we could make time travelling into the past a reality, it would be science, would it not? This would not disprove God in general, of course, but it could disprove certain claims of certain religions.

Only if you begin with a materialistic view of reality, and assume that whatever empiricist methods reveal is the ultimate reality of a given phenomenon. How would you know that your time travel is not producing a distorted vision?
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #25 on: October 30, 2010, 05:17:56 PM »

Is there any particular "belief" in Christianity that could be "disproven" by science?
I'd say so.  Suppose we perfected a technique for recording the light, originating from earth, that had reflected back from various heavenly bodies.  In looking at what's coming in from those bodies ~1000 light years from us, we could observe what went on during Christ's time.  Suppose that we could rule out all possibility, through exhaustive observation, of a simultaneous three-person crucifixion anywhere within the time frame we'd expect it.  

Given that, I'd be hard pressed to maintain my current beliefs.

Your real religion, or, perhaps, your meta-religion, is modern science then.

I wouldn't go that far. If you could go back in time and determine beyond a shadow of a doubt that the gospel story is false, would you still believe it?

In that case, it's not modern science that's beat you.

Well, if we could make time travelling into the past a reality, it would be science, would it not? This would not disprove God in general, of course, but it could disprove certain claims of certain religions.

Only if you begin with a materialistic view of reality, and assume that whatever empiricist methods reveal is the ultimate reality of a given phenomenon. How would you know that your time travel is not producing a distorted vision?

Well we could walk around Jerusalem and correlate history to confirm specific people, places, etc. Then we could ask around if anyone knows who Jesus is...maybe go find Pontius Pilate and see what he knows...would be kind of fun. Your point's still valid though, there could be supernatural things influencing our experiences, although there is also the remote possibility that satan planted all the evidence for evolution as well...
« Last Edit: October 30, 2010, 05:19:36 PM by Ortho_cat » Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #26 on: October 30, 2010, 06:52:34 PM »

i cant answer this poll question because science will never disprove anything the Orthodox Church teaches
Logged
Asteriktos
Protostrator
***************
Offline Offline

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,293


Russians. Even when holding a cat they're dour.


« Reply #27 on: October 30, 2010, 08:40:14 PM »

i cant answer this poll question because science will never disprove anything the Orthodox Church teaches

The poll doesn't say anything about Orthodoxy. It says: "If Science Disproved A Religious/Theological Belief of Yours..." So unless you're claiming to be infallible, you certainly could have one of your beliefs disproven.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #28 on: October 30, 2010, 11:09:14 PM »

i cant answer this poll question because science will never disprove anything the Orthodox Church teaches

The poll doesn't say anything about Orthodoxy. It says: "If Science Disproved A Religious/Theological Belief of Yours..." So unless you're claiming to be infallible, you certainly could have one of your beliefs disproven.

but im Orthodox ....

so i believe what the Church teaches ...
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #29 on: October 31, 2010, 03:47:58 AM »

i cant answer this poll question because science will never disprove anything the Orthodox Church teaches

The poll doesn't say anything about Orthodoxy. It says: "If Science Disproved A Religious/Theological Belief of Yours..." So unless you're claiming to be infallible, you certainly could have one of your beliefs disproven.

but im Orthodox ....

so i believe what the Church teaches ...

What does the Church teach about evolution?
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #30 on: October 31, 2010, 04:08:45 AM »

Based on my experience, this is the conclusion that I have come up with regarding the topic of this thread.

The more that a person believes a particular scientific theory will marginalize their religious belief system, the less likely they are to accept the theory, or 'believe' in it. I'll use evolution as an example.

For example, some people have established two distinct worldviews in their mind; evolution/atheism and creationism/theism. In their mind, if they are to believe in evolution, then they must necessarily throw all their beliefs out the window and become an atheist. I have seen articles online that attempt to show how a person who believes in evolution must logically reject the entire message of the bible. It is these who accept this false dichotomy, IMO, who are nearly unable to be persuaded to believe in evolution, regardless of how many facts they are presented with. In their mind, there is always the possibility that Satan planted all the evidence on earth that supports evolution in order to lure people away from God and the bible (or perhaps God is 'testing our faith'; i.e. tricking us). No matter how unlikely these scenarios are, since they believe evolution will jeopardize their whole belief system, they will reject it, because there is still that possibility for alternate explanations, however unlikely.

Therefore, if any scientific theory contradicts (in their mind at least) the plain reading of the scripture, this theory must be rejected. Basically this person is putting their interpretation of scripture as the highest standard of evidence; thereby declaring themselves infallible. A very shaky foundation to say the least.

Logged
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,079


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #31 on: October 31, 2010, 09:15:13 AM »


For example, some people have established two distinct worldviews in their mind; evolution/atheism and creationism/theism....It is these who accept this false dichotomy, IMO, who are nearly unable to be persuaded to believe in evolution....
Richard Dawkins accepts this false dichotomy, and yet he believes in evolution. Grin
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,835


"My god is greater."


« Reply #32 on: October 31, 2010, 01:29:57 PM »

For example, some people have established two distinct worldviews in their mind; evolution/atheism and creationism/theism.

It's also a false dichotomy to assume that one must choose between Darwinism and modern "creationism", period. What both of these worldviews have in common is a crudely reductionistic view of the material world. It is because of a poor philosophical grounding that some Christians feel the need to either reconcile Darwinism with Christianity, or invent stories of Satan planting dinosaur bones.  The true falsehood of Darwinism can only be perceived by someone who understands the more general problems introduced by the dualist worldview called "modern science."
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #33 on: October 31, 2010, 02:17:04 PM »


For example, some people have established two distinct worldviews in their mind; evolution/atheism and creationism/theism....It is these who accept this false dichotomy, IMO, who are nearly unable to be persuaded to believe in evolution....
Richard Dawkins accepts this false dichotomy, and yet he believes in evolution. Grin

He respects ministers who are religious yet still believe in evolution (theistic evolution) yet he doesn't respect those who reject evolution wholesale.
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #34 on: October 31, 2010, 02:20:33 PM »

For example, some people have established two distinct worldviews in their mind; evolution/atheism and creationism/theism.

It's also a false dichotomy to assume that one must choose between Darwinism and modern "creationism", period. What both of these worldviews have in common is a crudely reductionistic view of the material world. It is because of a poor philosophical grounding that some Christians feel the need to either reconcile Darwinism with Christianity, or invent stories of Satan planting dinosaur bones.  The true falsehood of Darwinism can only be perceived by someone who understands the more general problems introduced by the dualist worldview called "modern science."

Theistic evolution is one possible option, which poses that God 'got the process started' and perhaps tweaked it along the way, or at least intervened at some point while humans were evolving to provide them with a soul. I really don't like to go down this path though, as far as attempting to reconcile religious views with science. I respect evolution as the dominant scientific explanation of the origins of species, whether God started it or guided it along the way I have no problem accepting.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #35 on: October 31, 2010, 02:44:29 PM »

the Church teaches a young earth in which nothing died before man sinned, and since this is a reality that is totally gone to us - our world is wholly changed - science has no possibility of actually proving this wrong.
Logged
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,079


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #36 on: October 31, 2010, 02:50:25 PM »


For example, some people have established two distinct worldviews in their mind; evolution/atheism and creationism/theism....It is these who accept this false dichotomy, IMO, who are nearly unable to be persuaded to believe in evolution....
Richard Dawkins accepts this false dichotomy, and yet he believes in evolution. Grin

He respects ministers who are religious yet still believe in evolution (theistic evolution) yet he doesn't respect those who reject evolution wholesale.
In his TED lecture on "Militant Atheism", Dawkins characterizes Christians who also believe in evolution (like the Pope, or Catholic biologist Ken Miller) as "deluding" themselves. (Dawkins argues that evolution, and science in general, is "deeply corrosive" to religion.) That's a strange way of showing "respect". Smiley
« Last Edit: October 31, 2010, 02:51:16 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #37 on: October 31, 2010, 03:33:41 PM »


For example, some people have established two distinct worldviews in their mind; evolution/atheism and creationism/theism....It is these who accept this false dichotomy, IMO, who are nearly unable to be persuaded to believe in evolution....
Richard Dawkins accepts this false dichotomy, and yet he believes in evolution. Grin

He respects ministers who are religious yet still believe in evolution (theistic evolution) yet he doesn't respect those who reject evolution wholesale.
In his TED lecture on "Militant Atheism", Dawkins characterizes Christians who also believe in evolution (like the Pope, or Catholic biologist Ken Miller) as "deluding" themselves. (Dawkins argues that evolution, and science in general, is "deeply corrosive" to religion.) That's a strange way of showing "respect". Smiley

He does show different faces depending on who his audience is apparently.
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #38 on: October 31, 2010, 03:34:20 PM »

the Church teaches a young earth in which nothing died before man sinned, and since this is a reality that is totally gone to us - our world is wholly changed - science has no possibility of actually proving this wrong.

Are you sure about this?
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #39 on: October 31, 2010, 03:56:38 PM »

the Church teaches a young earth in which nothing died before man sinned,
Nothing?  Nothing is pretty absolute.  Where does the Church teach this?
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #40 on: October 31, 2010, 08:07:53 PM »

the Church teaches a young earth in which nothing died before man sinned, and since this is a reality that is totally gone to us - our world is wholly changed - science has no possibility of actually proving this wrong.

Are you sure about this?

yes
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #41 on: October 31, 2010, 08:10:09 PM »

the Church teaches a young earth in which nothing died before man sinned,
Nothing?  Nothing is pretty absolute.  Where does the Church teach this?

the fact that God did not create death is the standard teaching of the Church ... I'd be interested in seeing where the Saints or hymns teach otherwise ...

http://oldbelieving.wordpress.com/2010/05/16/the-entire-creation-was-created-incorrupt/
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #42 on: October 31, 2010, 08:35:18 PM »

the Church teaches a young earth in which nothing died before man sinned, and since this is a reality that is totally gone to us - our world is wholly changed - science has no possibility of actually proving this wrong.

I'm pretty sure science is able to show that this isn't a young earth and that there was death before mankind was on the earth from the fossil record alone...
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,835


"My god is greater."


« Reply #43 on: October 31, 2010, 08:45:30 PM »

the Church teaches a young earth in which nothing died before man sinned, and since this is a reality that is totally gone to us - our world is wholly changed - science has no possibility of actually proving this wrong.

I'm pretty sure science is able to show that this isn't a young earth and that there was death before mankind was on the earth from the fossil record alone...

Yes, a reductionistic, materialistic natural philosophy would produce such a picture. Likewise, I'm sure in the future "science" will prove that the universe is cyclical (the "big bounce" theory). Fortunately, we Christians don't rely on the ideology of Francis Bacon and Isaac Newton to interpret the creation for us.

As jckstraw72 said, the Fall of man produced profound changes in the creation. It's rather naive to assume that we can get an accurate picture of the pre-Fall creation by empirically examining the corrupted creation today.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #44 on: October 31, 2010, 08:53:36 PM »

the Church teaches a young earth in which nothing died before man sinned, and since this is a reality that is totally gone to us - our world is wholly changed - science has no possibility of actually proving this wrong.

I'm pretty sure science is able to show that this isn't a young earth and that there was death before mankind was on the earth from the fossil record alone...

Yes, a reductionistic, materialistic natural philosophy would produce such a picture. Likewise, I'm sure in the future "science" will prove that the universe is cyclical (the "big bounce" theory). Fortunately, we Christians don't rely on the ideology of Francis Bacon and Isaac Newton to interpret the creation for us.

As jckstraw72 said, the Fall of man produced profound changes in the creation. It's rather naive to assume that we can get an accurate picture of the pre-Fall creation by empirically examining the corrupted creation today.

I was going to type a long winded response, but I don't think this is the type of 'argument' i should continue, especially considering my fledgling faith.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.171 seconds with 74 queries.