No conflict between faith and science, eh?

[Faith No More]

I wish more theists were like him.

I'd just ask him..what about the beliefs he holds in his religion that...can't be tested (or verified or falsified) by investigation?  What basis would he have for holding those beliefs, and isn't accepting a conclusion before sufficient evidence has been provided...kind of the definition of unscientific?

I wish more were like that, too.  They're so passive about religion that I thought they only took me to church because that's just what parents do where they're from.  I had to outright ask them to find out they actually consider themselves Christians.

There are several questions I'd like to ask him, but we don't discuss personal things like religion in my family.  And since it's such a non-issue, I have no reason to probe further if they don't want to bring it up.

[FatAndFaithless]

I wish more theists were like him.

I'd just ask him..what about the beliefs he holds in his religion that...can't be tested (or verified or falsified) by investigation?  What basis would he have for holding those beliefs, and isn't accepting a conclusion before sufficient evidence has been provided...kind of the definition of unscientific?

I wish more were like that, too.  They're so passive about religion that I thought they only took me to church because that's just what parents do where they're from.  I had to outright ask them to find out they actually consider themselves Christians.

There are several questions I'd like to ask him, but we don't discuss personal things like religion in my family.  And since it's such a non-issue, I have no reason to probe further if they don't want to bring it up.

Fair enough, just curious.

[Minimalist]

This will just help religion die out faster.

[Pyrrho]

Dogmatic faith-based assertions as a way of describing reality are in conflict with the critical examination of reality, could be one way of putting it.  

Hypothetical:

What if there were a sect of Christianity that pared away all the obviously false crap from the Old and New Testament, all the miracles and magic and prophecy and shit like that, and was literally only the acceptance of Jesus Christ as your savior to achieve immortal life, and that's it.

The members of this sect used science, skepticism, and empiricism to discover and inform their ideas about all other aspects of their lives.  

Would this religion be 'in conflict' with science? I guess...technically not?  But that's only beacuse their claim (Jesus = immortailty) cannot be tested at all by science, and has no possible way (right now) of being verified.  I find the cognitive dissonance and the clashing methodologies of discovering things about the world to be more in conflict than any specific claim or set of claims.

If you strip away everything that conflicts with science and reason, you will totally eliminate the religion.  For example, believing things without proper evidence is unreasonable.  So no faith about anything would be possible in this imaginary "religion."

Further, your examples about Jesus and immortality very much conflict with modern science.  First of all, it is far from clear that Jesus ever existed.  (That is discussed in multiple other threads, for a start, see this.) And even if a man named Jesus did exist, upon what basis would one worship him? Why not worship your uncle Bob instead?  Additionally, the best idea for what the mind is, is that it is simply a subset of the processes of the brain.  Once the brains stops doing stuff, you are gone.  So no immortality.

Really, religion without bullshit is not religion.

[Whateverist]

Which interestingly enough, that's precisely what my father told me.  Of the few times he would ever speak in front of me, he would rip on creationists and say science trumps the bible on literal claims like that.  He's still a Christian, and I actually called him out on the conflict of him being a scientist and a Christian when I was fifteen and telling my parents I didn't believe in God.  He said it boiled down to faith and that I "just wouldn't understand."

The thing is, he's the smartest man I've ever met personally.  I mean, he has a Ph.D. in organic chemistry for Christ's sake, so he's certainly not ignorant of the principles behind empirical observation.  I just can't wrap my head around it, but my parents are so passive about religion that it's literally a non-issue.  I do notice he gets a little uncomfortable when I bring up religion, though.

I wish more theists were like him.

Me too.

I'd just ask him..what about the beliefs he holds in his religion that...can't be tested (or verified or falsified) by investigation?  What basis would he have for holding those beliefs, and isn't accepting a conclusion before sufficient evidence has been provided...kind of the definition of unscientific?

I suspect the religious beliefs he holds are on par with beliefs we hold about who we are and what we value. True "faith" is about embracing the truth as you find it. Religious "belief" tend to be more specific. Belief is at odds with faith. I think most atheists are more faithful in the sense of being open to the truth/reality as we find it. The downfall of atheists tends to come from adopting a "nothing-but" stance. The trick is to embrace all kinds of truth, intra-personal as well as inter-personal, while knowing where and how each applies. You can't and shouldn't ignore the observer (you) any more than you do empirical observations. A full life needs to include both.

Theists stop at belief in doctrine rather than remaining faithful to the truth they humbly do not fully possess. I wonder if atheists who take a nothing-but empirical evidence stance are also afraid of something.

[Pyrrho]

This will just help religion die out faster.

It doesn't work that way.  Since they tend to breed like rabbits, a few dying prematurely makes no significant difference.  There is a reason why successful religions discourage birth control.

[Minimalist]

What they say and what even the fucking catholics do are two different things.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/05/...h-control/

82 Percent Of Catholics Say Birth Control Is ‘Morally Acceptable’ Despite Catholic Institutions’ Crusade Against It

[FatAndFaithless]

I'd just ask him..what about the beliefs he holds in his religion that...can't be tested (or verified or falsified) by investigation?  What basis would he have for holding those beliefs, and isn't accepting a conclusion before sufficient evidence has been provided...kind of the definition of unscientific?

I suspect the religious beliefs he holds are on par with beliefs we hold about who we are and what we value. True "faith" is about embracing the truth as you find it.

Okay, but... I'd be wary about using a term like 'true faith' though, since everyone uses it slightly differently. I'm using 'faith' as 'belief in a proposition without evidence', like some people have 'faith' that prayer works or that their healing crystals help their asthma.

I have no problem with people believing things about themselves that are unconfirmable to us other people, because we have no way of investigating what it's like to be another person. I'm talking about claims about the reality that we all share, outside of ourselves. The OP is talking about science specifically, and since science isn't in the business of making claims about peoples' intrapersonal beliefs (or even truth statements, for that matter), and is focused on describing and discovering the external reality we all seem to share, I'm not sure what use bringing in intrapersonal beliefs serves.

Religious "belief" tend to be more specific. Belief is at odds with faith.

Depends verrrry heavily on your current usage of the terms. Many theists would say their faith is their religion, some theists might say 'faith' is identical to 'trust', or any number of other definitions.

I think most atheists are more faithful in the sense of being open to the truth/reality as we find it.

Again, that's no definition of faith I've ever encountered. Believing something only once evidence is provided isn't 'faith', it's just being rational.

The downfall of atheists tends to come from adopting a "nothing-but" stance.

I can agree with you here in the sense that I don't think science will solve everything, but the methods of investigation and confirmation and verification that science employs have been proven throughout history to be the single most reliable way of obtaining the closest things to facts about reality that we've ever been able to grasp, so far. I'm not saying there couldn't be a better method somewhere, and to use your words I'm open to reality and improvement as we find it, but that's nowhere near anything I'd call 'faith'.

The trick is to embrace all kinds of truth, intra-personal as well as inter-personal, while knowing where and how each applies.

I'll refer to my above comments, I'm not really too interested in verifying or debunking 'intrapersonal truths' as by definition they're different from individual to individual, and its rather useless for me to try and 'test' something you believe to be true about yourself.

You can't and shouldn't ignore the observer (you) any more than you do empirical observations. A full life needs to include both.

Sure, but I myself as an observer can be extremely flawed, and while I certainly do have confidence in my own ideas and judgments, I always attempt to compare those ideas and judgments not only to other peoples' judgments, but also any sort of verifiable evidence (if there is any, depending on the claim).

Theists stop at belief in doctrine rather than remaining faithful to the truth they humbly do not fully possess. I wonder if atheists who take a nothing-but empirical evidence stance are also afraid of something.

I'll admit I'm not quite sure what that means.

[Pyrrho]

What they say and what even the fucking catholics do are two different things.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/05/...h-control/

82 Percent Of Catholics Say Birth Control Is ‘Morally Acceptable’ Despite Catholic Institutions’ Crusade Against It

They still have plenty of children, even if they don't follow the rules.

See:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2723861/

[TheRealJoeFish]

Also see: