Why science and religious fatih need not be in conflict: It's as easy as 1-2-3!

[Neo-Scholastic]

Not sure why I bother; but anyways…

1) Think about the core mystery of your religion.  (Okay, I'll break "think about" down for you; I realize you may be a little out of shape.)  Whatever it is that you think of as supernatural, consider how it is that anyone ever found out about that stuff.  I mean all of the priest class agrees you can't detect it with an instrument of science nowadays.

---

 The usual story is that the mystery itself reached out to some ancient scribe, possessed his body and wrote out everything He/they/it wanted known about itself .. and then went back into hiding.

---

At this point you have to decide whether your faith is in the core mystery of your religion or the claims of some ancient scribes. …

There are a couple of ways to address this.

First, the naturalist would have others dismiss all miracles as impossible based on his own indefensible metaphysical commitment to physical causal closure.
Next, the core mystery of the Christian faith is the resurrection. The scriptural records of Resurrection are not based on the personal ecstatic visions of a revered mystic; but rather, purport to be historical testimony of observed events surrounding the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Next, your point rests on the idea that apprehension of the divine is limited to some exclusive priestly class. The prompting of the Holy Spirit is He who calls all Christian believers to faith. As such faith is a kind of gnosis, analogous to memory or perception.

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God” –Eph 2:8

“So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” – Romans 10:17

Finally, core mystery of the Christian faith is the culmination of a long tradition, attested to by a unified narrative that traces across centuries and by various authors.  

“Then Jesus said to them, ‘O foolish ones, how slow are your hearts to believe all that the prophets have spoken. Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and then to enter His glory?’ And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, He explained to them what was written in all the Scriptures about Himself.” – Luke 24:25-27

2) Okay, if you got past step one you now realize that faith requires open ended-ness.  You can't dictate the details of God's nature or intentions.  If you're feeling a little insecure and humbled, you're actually on the right path now.  Keep it up.

That’s right. But I’m not seeing the problem.

“…That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.” – 1 Cor 2:5

“When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom.” – Proverbs 11:2

“Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up.” – James 4:10

“…the Scriptures say, ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; and discard the intelligence of the intelligent.’ So where does this leave the philosophers, the scholars, and the world’s brilliant debaters? God has made the wisdom of this world look foolish.  Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never know him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save those who believe.  It is foolish to the Jews, who ask for signs from heaven. And it is foolish to the Greeks, who seek human wisdom.  So when we preach that Christ was crucified, the Jews are offended and the Gentiles say it’s all nonsense. But to those called by God to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. This foolish plan of God is wiser than the wisest of human plans, and God’s weakness is stronger than the greatest of human strength.” - 1 Cor 1:18-25

Even Thomas Aquanis, after his epiphany, exclaimed, “All I have done is as straw!”

3) Next step, think about the nature of science.  It is not a body of facts.  It is a method of empirical investigation, the observational facts and theories which arise are always subject to reinterpretation.  But the beauty is in the openness of process and how readily one can assess the soundness of the experiments proposed to test the hypotheses.  You can trust science-the-method to investigate the nature of the empirical world more than any other method ever proposed.  In the absence of an authoritative alternative, scientific theory represents the best operating hypotheses for what's out there.  Embrace it, it won't bite - and cannot conflict with your religious faith if done correctly. You may now walk in faith regarding the central mysteries of who and what we are and any purposes you feel accrues to that, keeping in mind that little ole' you do not control the nature of that mystery; presumably the actual state of affairs is vice versa.  But by picking up and embracing the mantle of science you need not go blindly into the (empirical) world.  Rather you may stride confidently knowing you enjoy the fruits of a long history of careful investigation, which at its core is just as humble and open as you're now trying to be.  That's it.  Carry on.

This is indeed the glory of science that it can help illuminate for us the mind of God and His Providence through the book of nature. I simply do not understand this fanatical obsession to set faith and science as mutually exclusive.

I don’t get it, Whateverist. What’s your point?

[Aroura]

Couldn't get past step 1.

D- 

---

Not sure why I bother; but anyways…

1) Think about the core mystery of your religion.  (Okay, I'll break "think about" down for you; I realize you may be a little out of shape.)  Whatever it is that you think of as supernatural, consider how it is that anyone ever found out about that stuff.  I mean all of the priest class agrees you can't detect it with an instrument of science nowadays.

---

 The usual story is that the mystery itself reached out to some ancient scribe, possessed his body and wrote out everything He/they/it wanted known about itself .. and then went back into hiding.

---

At this point you have to decide whether your faith is in the core mystery of your religion or the claims of some ancient scribes. …

There are a couple of ways to address this.

First, the naturalist would have others dismiss all miracles as impossible based on his own indefensible metaphysical commitment to physical causal closure.
Next, the core mystery of the Christian faith is the resurrection. The scriptural records of Resurrection are not based on the personal ecstatic visions of a revered mystic; but rather, purport to be historical testimony of observed events surrounding the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

First, naturalists don't dismiss all miracles as impossible, just like atheists, there simply has been no evidence that there is anything beyond the supernatural.  You've listed a number of miracles, which have all had natural explanations provided to you, yet you continue to state that it is we who have closed minds and are ignoring the evidence.
In this case, since there are no (valid) historic documents to back it up (including the one making the claim in the first place), there is literally no difference.
Hence why you had to use the word "purport".  They claim to be historical testimony, but with no contemporary corroboration (seriously, I know you know this), and no it could just as easily be the former with Paul.
Joseph Smith also claimed to have historical testimony of observed events. Why aren't you a Mormon? I could claim I saw a UFO, and aliens took me up and mind rape me.  With no corroboration, this claim is meaningless.
I have more to say on this topic, and this was a bit disorganized, but I don't have endless hours to argue the same points over and over.  I've got a child to teach how to think, not what to think. 

[Whateverist]

I don’t get it, Whateverist. What’s your point?

It's like Aurora said, you're hung up on step 1.  You willfully choose to assume that the mystery you call God reached out in the past through scribes and miracles to make a one-time statement regarding His nature and intentions.  You therefore do not concern yourself with the messiness of the mystery directly and go directly into scholarly lawyer mode, keen to make your case based on the historical record.  If the mystery had anything to say to you, you'd never notice since you've decided what it is and what it means.  It can go bugger itself for all you care.  Definitely a man of zero faith but sterling intellect, once you accept your starting premises .. which sadly few here do, myself included.
..

[Crunchy]

Whateverist Wrote:
I feel like you are suggesting that any effort to make the thinking easier for those who can not 'taste' what they are already thinking is probably pointless.  I don't disagree but sometimes I'm tempted to interject something between the la-la-la's even if they do have their fingers in their ears.

You're right. I sometimes get negative when I see so much stupidity in the world. I can't blame you for wanting to interject reason and even though it will be rejected by many, it's worth the effort to get it out there. 

[Neo-Scholastic]

...you're hung up on step 1.  You willfully choose to assume that the mystery you call God reached out in the past through scribes and miracles to make a one-time statement regarding His nature and intentions.  You therefore do not concern yourself with the messiness of the mystery directly and go directly into scholarly lawyer mode, keen to make your case based on the historical record.  If the mystery had anything to say to you, you'd never notice since you've decided what it is and what it means.  

Oh. I see you are using the word 'mystery' the way I use the 'divine'. Am I willfully choosing to make certain assumptions? Perhaps. But I tend to think of my experience as being more similar to how I cannot help but hear my own name even if spoken in the din of a crowd. When people recall their past, are they willfully choosing to remember? Faith is like that..the Holy Spirit reveals itself in an unmediated veridical way.

Earlier you made a point about the supernatural. Since the line between natural and supernatural seems fuzzy depending on where one is at in time, I prefer to talk about the uncanny. Uncanny experiences are ubiquitous. Every family has a story to tell. Now clearly parting seas and walking on water take the uncanny to a whole 'nother level, but I would not say that spiritual experiences are in any way one-time events.

In any case if you want to describe me as 'stuck' on some lower level of consciousness, I suppose I could reply with something about those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness or some such thing, but i doubt that would get very far nor do I think it would be very sporting.

[Simon Moon]

First, the naturalist would have others dismiss all miracles as impossible based on his own indefensible metaphysical commitment to physical causal closure.

That is not the methodological naturalist view.

I do not necessarily state the miracles are impossible, only unsupported by evidence.

And when told by theists that miracles can't be tested scientifically, all I can do is wonder, why I should accept them as being true?

Next, the core mystery of the Christian faith is the resurrection. The scriptural records of Resurrection are not based on the personal ecstatic visions of a revered mystic; but rather, purport to be historical testimony of observed events surrounding the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Sorry, but ancient scriptural accounts of a bunch of prescientific, superstitious people, is hardly good evidence for miracles. Especially considering the amount of time that passed between the alleged events, and the time they were recorded, by anonymous non-eyewitnesses.

The texts that contain the stories, purporting to be historical testimony, is a bit circular. Again, hardly good evidence.

I can interview 1000's of people still living, that purport to have been abducted by aliens.

Should I believe them? Do you?

[Crunchy]

Neo-Scholastic Wrote:
Oh. I see you are using the word 'mystery' the way I use the 'divine'. Am I willfully choosing to make certain assumptions? Perhaps. But I tend to think of my experience as being more similar to how I cannot help but hear my own name even if spoken in the din of a crowd. When people recall their past, are they willfully choosing to remember? Faith is like that..the Holy Spirit reveals itself in an unmediated veridical way.

You're missing the point which is why your not getting past step one.

The first point is about accepting other people's texts on faith vs. your own experiences. You did not experience the resurrection so it's not your experience. That's the whole point.
You accept that an old book is both a literal and accurate account of an event and you accept this on faith alone. That's the bad kind of faith.
It`s not your experience. 
Now of course we accept most of our history from texts (and artifacts), but this does not extend to accepting accounts that go against the laws of physics exactly because it goes against our experience of reality. We discern between historical text. You've chosen one on faith (probably because of cultural influences) and ignore your own or anyone else's experience.

Earlier you made a point about the supernatural. Since the line between natural and supernatural seems fuzzy depending on where one is at in time, I prefer to talk about the uncanny. Uncanny experiences are ubiquitous. Every family has a story to tell. Now clearly parting seas and walking on water take the uncanny to a whole 'nother level, but I would not say that spiritual experiences are in any way one-time events.

 
Yes but again, neither you nor anyone you know has ever experienced resurrection, literal water walking or parting of seas. You're taking the stories found in an old text on faith, and ignoring your own experiences with reality. This is why you are now in conflict with science when you don't need to be.
Uncanny stories abound, but unless you're trying to invoke the god of the gaps argument, all we can say about that is "I don't know". I think perhaps it's the not knowing that distresses you.

In any case if you want to describe me as 'stuck' on some lower level of consciousness, I suppose I could reply with something about those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness or some such thing, but i doubt that would get very far nor do I think it would be very sporting.

It has nothing to do with levels of consciousness. It has to do with accepting the uncanny claims of some ancient scribes on faith. That is a misuse of faith.

[Whateverist]

...you're hung up on step 1.  You willfully choose to assume that the mystery you call God reached out in the past through scribes and miracles to make a one-time statement regarding His nature and intentions.  You therefore do not concern yourself with the messiness of the mystery directly and go directly into scholarly lawyer mode, keen to make your case based on the historical record.  If the mystery had anything to say to you, you'd never notice since you've decided what it is and what it means.  

Oh. I see you are using the word 'mystery' the way I use the 'divine'. Am I willfully choosing to make certain assumptions? Perhaps. But I tend to think of my experience as being more similar to how I cannot help but hear my own name even if spoken in the din of a crowd. When people recall their past, are they willfully choosing to remember? Faith is like that..the Holy Spirit reveals itself in an unmediated veridical way.

Earlier you made a point about the supernatural. Since the line between natural and supernatural seems fuzzy depending on where one is at in time, I prefer to talk about the uncanny. Uncanny experiences are ubiquitous. Every family has a story to tell. Now clearly parting seas and walking on water take the uncanny to a whole 'nother level, but I would not say that spiritual experiences are in any way one-time events.

In any case if you want to describe me as 'stuck' on some lower level of consciousness, I suppose I could reply with something about those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness or some such thing, but i doubt that would get very far nor do I think it would be very sporting.

Nah, I don't think that (my bold) fits you at all and 'levels of consciousness' isn't something I think about in general.  But I do think that the need for certainty warps perception, and it always is there to tempt us.  I think your certainty regarding the nature of divinity closes a door for you, perhaps one you're happy to close.  I prefer "mystery" to "divinity" because the latter already assumes more than I want to grant going in.

[Harry Nevis]

Earlier you made a point about the supernatural. Since the line between natural and supernatural seems fuzzy depending on where one is at in time, I prefer to talk about the uncanny. Uncanny experiences are ubiquitous. Every family has a story to tell. Now clearly parting seas and walking on water take the uncanny to a whole 'nother level, but I would not say that spiritual experiences are in any way one-time events.

In any case if you want to describe me as 'stuck' on some lower level of consciousness, I suppose I could reply with something about those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness or some such thing, but i doubt that would get very far nor do I think it would be very sporting.

The line isn't fuzzy because it doesn't exist, because there is no supernatural.  Uncanny experiences happen, and people can be very imaginative in "explaining" them. Others are less imaginative and swallow these stories whole.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I do not necessarily state the miracles are impossible, only unsupported by evidence...And when told by theists that miracles can't be tested scientifically, all I can do is wonder, why I should accept them as being true?

You are right they are not tested scientifically, precisely because naturalism, even methodological kind, deliberately rules out attributing any effect to any type of cause other than material or efficient causes. You are also ruling out particular purported miracles just because they happened in the past. It is a matter of historical record, the Emanuel Swedenborg accurately described the timing and exact timing of a fire in Stockholm even though he was in Gotenburg, hundreds of miles away at the time making it otherwise impossible to know those things. To me that is certainly uncanny and by the common definitions of AF qualifies as a documented miracle.

Sorry, but ancient scriptural accounts of a bunch of prescientific, superstitious people, is hardly good evidence for miracles. Especially considering the amount of time that passed between the alleged events, and the time they were recorded, by anonymous non-eyewitnesses. The texts that contain the stories, purporting to be historical testimony, is a bit circular. Again, hardly good evidence.

That is your opinion, most likely based on scholarly sources you trust. It is most certainly a minority opinion, but it would be futile attempting to dissuade you using research I find more trustworthy. The question for both of us, is whether or not we believe those sources only because we like their conclusions.

I can interview 1000's of people still living, that purport to have been abducted by aliens. Should I believe them? Do you?

The UFO phenomena is undoubtedly real. What exactly it means I haven't a clue.