[Negative. I never said that Faith & Science were opposed to each other... I merely pointed out that --- BY DEFINITION --- Science cannot have an opinion on the Super Natural, as it is not a testable proposition.]
"True faith and your science are opposed by default."
Prove it. I totally disagree.
"Contrariwise, your godless brand of "science" automatically assumes that reality is nature itself...."
You misinterpret my position. I DID NOT SAY that science was 'godless' (in fact, I REJECTED that, and stated my belief that they are compatible). I merely said that Science cannot take a position on subjects (such as the Super Natural) that fundamentally are un-testable. Consequently, Science takes no position --- either for the proposition or against --- that there is a God.
By the way, Johannes, if 'Nature isn't real'... then what is it? Unreal? Do we live in an unreal dream?
"You live in an illusion of so-called "knowledge." It is ultimately based upon faith, and not even real faith."
Negative. Reproducible results do not rely upon 'faith'.
"The philosophical godlessness you call "science" is certainly not knowledge if it remains truncated and stunted here in nature, informed by nothing beyond it."
You deliberately misstate my position once again... Science is neither 'godless' nor necessarily 'godfull', per se. As I said, if conclusions are not based upon reproducible results from testing... if belief in a Super Natural explanation for things relies upon faith, not reproducible test results, then science can take no position pro or con that explanation. It is simply beyond the pervue of science.
"There is no real certainty at all in the domain of science. To put it another way, there is no real knowledge - at all."
<Chuckle.>
"You know this is true, and if you do not then you are simply ignorant of your inherent ignorance."
<Double Chuckle!>
"In ignorance you force me to pay for programs that teach your ignorance as if it is the final reality."
I 'force' you to do nothing. I can only hope that you can think.
[Science can only concern itself with the natural, testable world.]
"Then "science" is just the study of ignorance. You don't even know if you exist as you think of yourself, so lost are you and everything you think you are."
Repeat that to yourself the next time you get on an airplane, start a car, open your refrigerator, or go to a doctor....
[Negative again. Faith in a God, and belief in the objective rules of Logic, and the Scientific Method of testing, need not be mutually exclusive....]
"They are mutually exclusive as you have formulated this godless "science" of yours."
Now, you are just lying... you KNOW that I EXPLICITLY STATED that I do not believe they are incompatible, it is quite possible to rely upon science for reliable (reproducible) information about the natural world... and rely upon Faith for answers about the Super Natural, where science can have no say.
"It is impossible to be a consistent modern "scientist" and person of real faith because your science begins with the assumption that naturalism undergirds all "reality," including the origin of all things."
Now you are just insulting other people's religious beliefs....
"Even were God to exist and to have made all things, including nature, your "science" must, BY DEFINITION, refuse to acknowledge Him unless He meets this godless "science" on its naturalistic terms."
Negative. There is no such 'definition'.
"Science, to see God, demands that the Supernatural God become natural."
Now you ALMOST get it... but you misstate things. Science does not 'demand' anything of a God. (But yes, if that God's existence is not detectable in the natural world by testing that results in reproducible results... then science can have no official position.) (It's very hard to conclusively prove a negative, you see....)
"Not by faith, but by reason, I see that the vast majority of modern "scientists" are necessarily condemned."
Whatever. When you can prove this through testing, I'm sure scientists --- and everyone else --- will be overjoyed to sit up and pay attention.
"They are condemned because the very minute God should meet science on its own terms, to appear in nature, "science" would be forced to assume He is not Super Natural, investigating Him "scientifically," and doubting that He is what He is. Modern science is cut off from reality, trapped only in nature - away from the Supernatual God of All Reality."
As I said... THE SUPER NATURAL IS NOT WITHING THE PERVUE OF SCIENCE. Don't take it personally, no one else does. This state of affairs leaves the field open to mystics such as yourself (perhaps you should be happy).
"I think you ought to be free to embrace this philosophical tragedy of yours where God is simply ignored. But you ought not be free to force me to pay for it in any way where it makes claims contrary to what I am and what I know exists beyond nature. After all, you really don't have certainty enough to make these judgments for me, that you can control my purse as you aim to do."
Now you are just blabbering in what appears to be some kind of self-righteous funk. I don't 'control your purse' (nor have I ever expressed a desire to do so). But I do find it kinda interesting that you carry one!
"Moreover, I think there should be a complete separation between Church and state, where the Church exists with complete autonomy and sovereignty. It should have nothing at all to do with the state, save for its location. And it should be free to speak its mind against any politician or anything else in the entire world."
Fine by me. Sounds good.
"Just as the Church cannot infringe upon the message of your "science" religion, you ought not be able to infringe upon the message of Truth."
Explain how this mutually 'non-infringing' policy would work. Posit that there is some social problem or issue under discussion by public leaders and the general public... and various religions have various official positions, and various scientists have various suggestions for policy actions to address the problem.
Just where does 'not infringing' come in?
If you are saying that all people should be free to speak their minds, then I'm all for it.
"I ultimately don't think it possible for us to co-exist,"
(Are you plaining on moving off to some pre-technological world somewhere? Foraging for fruits and nuts in a pre-science 'Eden'? Well, good luck, Johannes. Write if you find the time... and the materials.)
"and that our increasing disunity has your faithlessness and my faithfulness as its basis. In this year's election, the faithful will vote for Bush and heathens will go for Kerry."
LOL! Well, as Mark Twain famously once said: There are at least 100,000 religions in this world. Each, and everyone of them, claims that they --- and they alone --- have the 'One True Way to Heaven'. They can't ALL be right!
Good luck with your choice of a particular 'One True Way', Johannes. |
