Does Science go against faith?

[Married_Richenbrachen]

all in the family, that's all.

Sorry, I couldn't tell from the Wiki link. You mean he is a Rothschild? Which one (Huxley or Darwin), or have I misconstrued?

Perhaps it is a long bow to draw, but I read a review on Henry Makow's (non-Christian) site of Darwin's share dealings - I'll quote from the site.

Very few books have discussed Darwin's finances, and only one did in detail: Darwin Revalued (1955) by Sir Arthur Keith. This rare book disclosed that Darwin made a fortune through investments. Reviewing Darwin's ledgers, Keith reported: "I note that in some of his earlier dealings there were small losses, but in all his later investments there were only gains, some of them on quite a big scale."

Charles Darwin - Stock Picker - henrymakow.com

I haven't read the book, so I'm relying on the article, but truth be told I don't trust any of these scoundrels. If any one of them make a fortune, you can bet it's through dishonest means. It seems very suspicious to me that while Darwin was destroying faith in the foundations of the bible, he was also getting quite lucky on the shares. If he was the spawn of one of those Rothschild villains, that further blackens his reputation and provides clear motive for his lies. I think I read his grandfather was a mason, 'though I can't remember reading if Charles was recorded as such.

 

[Hizikyah]

His father was a mason, but "supposedly" Charles Darwin never attended a lodge......i think he worshipped satan at home.

 

[zone]

Sorry, I couldn't tell from the Wiki link. You mean he is a Rothschild? Which one (Huxley or Darwin), or have I misconstrued?

The Darwin–Wedgwood family is actually two interrelated English families, descended from the prominent 18th century doctor, Erasmus Darwin, and Josiah Wedgwood, founder of the pottery firm, Josiah Wedgwood and Sons, the most notable member of which was Charles Darwin. The family contained at least ten Fellows of the Royal Society and several artists and poets (including the composer Ralph Vaughan Williams). Presented below are brief biographical sketches and genealogical information with links to articles on the members. The individuals are listed by year of birth and grouped into generations. The relationship to Francis Galton and his immediate ancestors is also given. Note the tree below does not include all descendants or even all prominent descendants.

Darwin–Wedgwood family - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Royal Society
In the beginning of Speculative Fraternity under the Grand Lodge system the Freemasons avowed their devotion to the sciences more boldly, and even dramatically. The Royal Society was in the British public mind synonymous with science, and for more than a century it, and its offshoots, were the only exponents and practitioners of science in Britain. It began in 1660 and took its first organized form at a meeting of scholars in Gresham College who had assembled to hear a lecture by Bro. Sir Christopher Wren. Sir Robert Moray was elected its first president, March 6, 1661 A.D.; he was made a Freemason at Newcastle-on-Tyne on May 20, 1641. Dr. Desaguliers, who later became its secretary for a long period of years, was the "father of the Grand Lodge System." and was one of Sir Isaac Newton’s closest friends. A lodge largely composed of Royal Society members met in a room belonging to the Royal Society Club in London. At a time when preachers thundered against these scientists, when newspapers thundered against them, street crowds hooted at them, and neither Oxford nor Cambridge would admit science courses, masonic lodges invited Royal Society members in for lectures, many of which were accompanied by scientific demonstrations.

Freemasonry and Science

 

[Hizikyah]

what do you call a scientist with "magic underwear?"

 

[zone]

what do you call a scientist with "magic underwear?"

Mitt Romney?

 

[Hizikyah]

Mitt Romney?

that exceeded my expectations!

 

[cordiolus]

To the OP, i think that it depends on your perspective of what faith requires and demands against what science says and to what degree you view things in a scientific manner.

For instance. A child is born and doesnt breathe. Three minutes later, the child breathes. You might say, if you are religiously minded, 'it's a miracle'.

I might say, scientifically minded, 'a child is born with flat lungs, squashed and stuck together like a deflated balloon, because there is no need for the child to have functioning lungs in the womb.When a child is born, a chemical is released which tells the lungs to expand and the baby's instinct is to cry, because deep crying is a fantastic exercise to get the lungs well expanded and working correctly, and in some children, the lungs don't open properly. Hence the doctors might use a replacement chemical which has the same effect as the natural one, in order to get the childs lungs working'.

In this kind of sense. I dont think science contradicts faith at all.

I believe a lot of science to be simply analysis and explanation of the world that God made. And if we can use what was given to us (our minds, resources, creativity) to the effect of doing good then science is very much a road worth exploring. As are spirituality and psychology in my eyes.

Science is just like everything else that we have; it can either be used selfishly or wisely.

 

[cordiolus]

I'd like to add to the effect of my last line. Faith can also be used either wisely or unwisely.

For instance, disallowing children having innoculations because a parent is against science, is quite an unwise move in almost all cases. Except obviously the rare instances where innoculation may make an underlying condition worse or in cases where children are at risk of severe reactions.

 

[CoooCaw]

I'd like to add to the effect of my last line. Faith can also be used either wisely or unwisely.

For instance, disallowing children having innoculations because a parent is against science, is quite an unwise move in almost all cases. Except obviously the rare instances where innoculation may make an underlying condition worse or in cases where children are at risk of severe reactions.

MMR is dangerous; too many people have too much invested to admit it

so they MIS represent those who resist this child abuse

 

[Married_Richenbrachen]

MMR is dangerous; too many people have too much invested to admit it

All vaccines are dangerous. It comes down to the old true faith and true science thing.

The example of Dr Wakefield from Britain comes to mind. He went and published (i.e. got through the peer review process some are so fond of trusting), with a link between MMR vaccines and autism. Obviously, (either with or without his knowledge) the truth went against the religion that all doctors in Britain must adhere to, so he lost his license to practice. A lot of money to lose for agreeing with the truth, don't you think? And some people have the audacity to declare scientists can still be unbiased.

 

[posthuman]

The example of Dr Wakefield from Britain comes to mind. He went and published (i.e. got through the peer review process some are so fond of trusting), with a link between MMR vaccines and autism. Obviously, (either with or without his knowledge) the truth went against the religion that all doctors in Britain must adhere to, so he lost his license to practice. A lot of money to lose for agreeing with the truth, don't you think? And some people have the audacity to declare scientists can still be unbiased.

if you believe Wakefield's claims were true, then why would you use this as an example to decry "peer review" ? his studies were published, ​right?
was Wakefield "unbiased"?

if you take the controversy surrounding a single study, and use it to declare all science untrustworthy, is it wrong for a secular person to take the example of a single person who claims to be "christian" and declare all Christians to be hypocrites, or liars, or ignorant, or whatever?

 

[Married_Richenbrachen]

if you believe Wakefield's claims were true, then why would you use this as an example to decry "peer review" ? his studies were published, ​right?

If such hefty financial penalties can be imposed against a man for simply questioning the status quo in such a minor way, how much more weight will be exerted against those who challenge the status quo in a major way (e.g. those who refute evolutionism or heliocentrism)? The fact that several studies on the borderline of challenging the consensus in minor ways make it past the censoring process, in no way exonerates the dishonest process. I'm sure there are hundreds of other such cases, whether in regards to university positions and those who can't accept evolutionism, or other matters of junk-science the establishment doesn't want challenged, but these simply don't make it into any media spotlight.

was Wakefield "unbiased"?

I doubt anyone is unbiased.

if you take the controversy surrounding a single study, and use it to declare all science untrustworthy, is it wrong for a secular person to take the example of a single person who claims to be "christian" and declare all Christians to be hypocrites, or liars, or ignorant, or whatever?

Your analogy is imprecise. We're not talking a case of someone who got something wrong. We're talking about someone undergoing significant financial penalty because of what he published (with more and more evidence indicating he was right). This decision was made by a board of 5, not a single person. A more accurate analogy would be a board of 5 Christian bishops making some declaration, and not a peep of dissent from any Christian in response. Then and only then could your hypothetical secular person declare all Christians to agree with such a position, and thereafter make judgement.

 

[Cobus]

Blain here is my take on science.... There would have been NO SCIENCE if God did not CREATE it. I am a fair CHEMICAL ENGINEER, it is my JOB! I work with chemicals EVERY day! So here is my take on science vs faith.

Only the scientists that smelled too much of their chemicals, are the ones that cannot understnad that there is something bigger than their SCIENCE! There is a LORD of science,... He made a LIVING CELL!

I can make chemical bombs, and I can make Soda Ash rise many feet, but I CANNOT with ALL my mechanical engineering and Chemical engineering and General knowledge and Faith and Science make ONE SINGLE LIVING CELL.. not Plant or Animal...

ONLY God can make LIFE! Only God can maintain LIFE, and only GOD CAN MAKE NEW CELLS FROM NOTHING! WOW God of LIFE, vs DEAD FOSSILS.... who wins? MY GOD WINS EVERY TIME!

There would have been NO FOSSILS if there were NO LIFE-GIVING, LIFE-MAKING and LIFE MAINTAINING GOD!!!Period!

 

[Starcrash]

For instance. A child is born and doesnt breathe. Three minutes later, the child breathes. You might say, if you are religiously minded, 'it's a miracle'...

In this kind of sense. I dont think science contradicts faith at all.

Your example demonstrates the exact opposite of your point. It's not a miracle if it has a perfectly natural explanation. Faith needs some measure of uncertainty.

There are already examples in which faith is used, such as when a healing is unexplained (cancer going into remission on its own, for instance). In these cases, a scientific explanation is neither appreciated nor wanted because it removes the supernatural and puts the healing in the realm of natural. Because of this, we see hostility towards science from "the faithful".

 

[cordiolus]

I think that what I wrote, and how you replied, perfectly demonstrates my point, which was that the OP question depends largely on the individuals perspective. Like how mine differs to yours.

 

[cordiolus]

I would go so far as to say that, like the baby story, the only factor in decidong whether something is a miraculous unexplainable incident or a quirk of human biology is the extent of knowledge that is readily availabe in that given scenario.

A few hundred years ago a child might have eaten mouldy bread and their infection disappeared. I'm sure that people would have believed that to be a miracle back then, and not simly the effect of the pennicillum in the mould.

 

[Cobus]

cordiolus, the fact that MOLD can cure is already a miricle. Is mold not also LIVE MATTER? And then we get the drug that can relief pain, ANY PAIN.... Oh and are people with the missing lmb in wartime happy? Or is it the DRUG that is happy in them???

Jesus healed without mold or drugs, he healed by WORD! Jesus said.... STAND UP YOUR SIN AR FORGIVEN.... and the LAME MAN WALKED.... there is no science, NO SCIENCE in this event. Oh the WORDS upset the ones that could walk there, but it was a NEW LIFE for the one that was carried there on a stretcher....

Can we at least acknowledge that Jesus had the power to GET RID OF THE MAN's SINS even BEFORE HE DIED ON THE CROSS?
That is PROOF that JESUS is the ONLY GOD! He said to a lame man (palsy?) that was carried for a long distance by his mates on a stretcher.... SON, THY SINS BE FORGIVEN THEE. ARISE AND TAKE THY BED AND GO THY WAY INTO THINE HOUSE.... WOW! And Jesus not only did that, he also SAW IN THEIR HEARTS THAT THEY WERE NOT VERY FOND OF HIM SAYING THE MAN'S SINS ARE FORGIVEN..... How did He know their hearts... Science or GOD?

Nope science does not come CLOSE to GOD! Just like the SCRIBES, the then EDUCATED SCRIBES did not come close to Jesus!

 

[IntoTheVoid]

Blain here is my take on science.... There would have been NO SCIENCE if God did not CREATE it. I am a fair CHEMICAL ENGINEER, it is my JOB! I work with chemicals EVERY day! So here is my take on science vs faith.

Only the scientists that smelled too much of their chemicals, are the ones that cannot understnad that there is something bigger than their SCIENCE! There is a LORD of science,... He made a LIVING CELL!

I can make chemical bombs, and I can make Soda Ash rise many feet, but I CANNOT with ALL my mechanical engineering and Chemical engineering and General knowledge and Faith and Science make ONE SINGLE LIVING CELL.. not Plant or Animal...

ONLY God can make LIFE! Only God can maintain LIFE, and only GOD CAN MAKE NEW CELLS FROM NOTHING! WOW God of LIFE, vs DEAD FOSSILS.... who wins? MY GOD WINS EVERY TIME!

There would have been NO FOSSILS if there were NO LIFE-GIVING, LIFE-MAKING and LIFE MAINTAINING GOD!!!Period!

One slight problem with all that.. No one has ever claimed man made life in the first place!

 

[posthuman]

I doubt anyone is unbiased.

We're not talking a case of someone who got something wrong.

obviously the biotech / pharmaceutical industry has significant influence and bias not necessarily toward the public interest. that's a separate issue.

you have bias, too.

Wakefield's papers were scrutinized by journal editors and science staff for accuracy, and published. that was only the beginning of "peer review." once they were published, "peers" that read the journals considered his findings and some tried to replicate them. some with success, some without. those papers are published, too.

i think it's clear you're alleging that outside interests at that point, worried of a financial fallout resulting from his findings, launched a public smear campaign that cost him his license to practice in the UK. that would be something separate from the "peer review" process, wouldn't it?

here's where i see evidence of bias, since you're at this point using the example to declare "peer review" to be a suspect process. in Wakefield's case "peer review" isn't finished taking place. as late as this year studies in Venezuela, Wake Forest and New York have been published confirming Wakefield's initial findings. Where is the massive cover-up?

how do you know if Wakefield is 'someone who got something wrong' or not? do you look to see if other scientists replicate the study and confirm the findings? then that's peer review that you're depending on too. or do you just pick some scientists and put them in the "OK" box because their findings fit your worldview, but if other science raises questions for your understanding of the universe, you just put them in the "obvious conspiratorial frauds because they are wearing lab coats" box? if that's the case, then i guess you're not really depending on "peer review" -- well precisely, "a peer of one" review. that jives with your attitude towards it, but it's a logically suspect way to go about reasoning.

if you're calling scientists liars and frauds on principal, not on the basis of demonstrable & coherent evidence, that's not much different from a person with an atheistic worldview questioning the integrity of all creationist scientists purely on the basis of their belief system.

 

[Married_Richenbrachen]

you have bias, too.

I mostly agree with what you said. Perhaps I wasn't accurate in describing the "peer review process" as *the* method of censorship. By all means, its part of the censorship program, but it doesn't make up the whole. To me, Wakefield's findings were borderline. He supports vaccines in general, but believed the double/triple dosing for MMR could be harmful, I understand. My point was that if such a censorship program was launched for such a minor challenge to establishment doctrines, how much more a major challenge - say the Earth is still?

i think it's clear you're alleging that outside interests at that point, worried of a financial fallout resulting from his findings, launched a public smear campaign that cost him his license to practice in the UK. that would be something separate from the "peer review" process, wouldn't it?

True. But others have been alleging vaccine harm for years, yet many haven't paid them heed because they weren't suitably qualified, or if they were, the data for their claims hadn't gone through peer review.

here's where i see evidence of bias, since you're at this point using the example to declare "peer review" to be a suspect process. in Wakefield's case "peer review" isn't finished taking place. as late as this year studies in Venezuela, Wake Forest and New York have been published confirming Wakefield's initial findings. Where is the massive cover-up?

Wakefield has suffered seriously financial penalty, and has been demonised as a liar. As stated above, this part of the truth censorship might not be directly attributed to peer review. However, how many others have said similar things in the past and been ignored, simply because they lacked Wakefield's qualifications or peer review? Suppose some doctors know the harm vaccines can cause, but don't want to lose their livelihoods, so inform their patients, but never in a documented way. How would this be any less a source of truth than Wakefield's peer-reviewed article?

how do you know if Wakefield is 'someone who got something wrong' or not?

Anyone who says vaccines can cause harm, is someone who got something right. Not necessarily everything.

do you look to see if other scientists replicate the study and confirm the findings?

I suppose I now take the view that every man-made intervention in life should be treated as dangerous, until proven safe. I'm not aware of any study proving vaccines safe.

then that's peer review that you're depending on too.

Agreed. There probably is some truth that makes it through the peer-review process. But this would be a very limited sample of truth, compared to the whole available.

or do you just pick some scientists and put them in the "OK" box because their findings fit your worldview, but if other science raises questions for your understanding of the universe, you just put them in the "obvious conspiratorial frauds because they are wearing lab coats" box?

There is a 3rd box - the undecided one. But essentially, yeah (note it's the findings that go in the boxes, not the scientists). Either the findings will support or attempt to disprove what I know is true, or will be outside of my knowledge. Just because one's conclusion is false doesn't mean he is in on the conspiracy. His results may be true, he may just have interpreted them incorrectly due to his indoctrination. On the other hand, those consistently presenting misleading ideas may be higher up on the conspiratorial agenda.

if that's the case, then i guess you're not really depending on "peer review" -- well precisely, "a peer of one" review.

Agreed. God gave us all a mind. On judgement day, He will be asking me why I did what I did, and my saying "But everyone else did it, or a lot of scientists said it was true etc." will not be valid excuses. The same applies to all, although Christians will be judged for their works, not salvation.

that jives with your attitude towards it, but it's a logically suspect way to go about reasoning.

I don't think so. If everyone critically questioned what they were told, irregardless of who told them, I think we'd weed out a lot more of the lies.

if you're calling scientists liars and frauds on principal, not on the basis of demonstrable & coherent evidence, that's not much different from a person with an atheistic worldview questioning the integrity of all creationist scientists purely on the basis of their belief system.

Its bigger than the scientists. These are just workers in a matrix that is much bigger than them. Some are in on the game, I'm sure (like Darwin), but the bulk just do what they do because they're good at it (i.e. good at the results side, not usually the interpretation side) and it enables them to support their families.