Science and religion

[Scattered]

I don't expect so, but is anyone aware of any reasoning, logic or science about God or God's purpose? Actually, is there anything in religion (preferably Christianity) about God's purpose or purpose for humans?
Not too complicated please. I am a simple guy.

[Didymos Thomas]

Sure! There is a great deal of reasoning and logic about God, even his purpose. However, I would imagine that there cannot be science about God (unless you say all science is about God).
For considerations on God, from a Christian perspective, try the classics - Aquinas and Anselm.

You might call Aquinas "complicated", perhaps even Anselm, but I recommend them either way. Reading them certainly will not do any harm.

[NeitherExtreme]

Good quesiton... I've heard lot's of purposes that people think God has for man: For his own glory, to demonstrate his love to, to show that a free will (human) can love God, to have relationship with Him... Those are a few that I've heard before from a Christian perspective. All of those have some sort of reasoning behind them, though I'm not sure I'd call it science...

Fankly, I think it's a tough topic from a number of directions... And possibly one that can't be fully understood while we are still going through the experience. But I would assume that His purpose for humans during their natural lifetime would revolve around Jesus' two greatest commadments: Love the Lord, and Love everyone else.

While we are sugesting good books on the topic, I found (the first half anyway) of CS Lewis's THE PROBLEM OF PAIN to be very thought provoking...

[dpmartin]

Scattered
this for me is a work in progress so the clarity i am atempting may not be there.

Reason and Knowledge, or could it be the knowledge of the Reason that is needed. If we seek the knowledge for our own reason, rather than the Reason, surly we would find nothing but ourselves. So if the reason for all that is knowable how shall that be? Yes there are many out there that can give us very challenging synopsis. But no matter how many ways one can fold a flat piece of paper, it is still a flat piece of paper. To what good is this if one is trying to prove a flat piece of paper is a flat piece of paper. Tho it is good to be as skilled as one can possibly be, but showing how many ways one can fold a piece of paper proves skill, not that the paper is paper and is flat. This is not to say guys like C.S.Lewis, and others, don’t know what they are talking about. It is more like they serve those in need of the presentation that they are capable of providing.

Members of the science and religious community especially christian have a long history of animosity toward one another do to misunderstandings on one part or both. If the Reason for all things is the reason for all things then the reason should be the same on both parts. But I believe the science community does not desire the responsibility of proving the Reason rather they seek how things are and work so that man may use the knowledge of how things work and are for what ever purposes that the powers in the world may be to use. I believe that it is the general public that is under the impression that science is the answer to all things known, that miss leads them in to thinking that science must know all things.

This may be an over simplification :
science it seems always finds something smaller and discovers that it is made up of something smaller, it seeks the know what is biggest but it seem that it always discovers that it is a part of something bigger.
There is a program on tv called "planet earth" excellent photography, and there is a segment covering the empire penguins where the males stick it out through the winter at the south pole or near it. There it is, that which is made up of dirt and water executing a purpose for a reason. How does that knowledge and reason come in to dirt and water? And if you notice that those that were capable of not only obeying the reason but able to execute the purpose not only survived but maintained the possibility of new of the same.

The reason man is, is to know and obey his Creator, but as illustrated in Adam and Eve they fell short of that, just as if the empire penguin would make just one mistake and the purpose is lost. The Christ, Jesus is the one who did not make a mistake and is capable of not only surviving death, (the resurrection) but in Him make new of the same.

[Scattered]

You have offered nothing but dirt and water. Perhaps God gave humans (and penguins) more than that. You say that science knows no more than paper, perhaps it can know what God gave humans. No religion claims to know God's purpose for humans. What if it could be revealed by science? Wouldn't that make science a special thing. The realm of science includes reason and logic. The world seems to have been made to work that way. Is that perhaps not a message from God and about God? God shows us every day and in every way that this is a world of physical laws. Perhaps it is the preachers that have sinned by refusing to accept that truths that science has revealed.
You are incorrect about the schism between religion and science. That has only come from preachers since the time of Darwin. Before that, science fit with religion harmoniously enough to be referred to as the Book of Nature and was considered another kind of scripture that revealed God's creations. Maybe it even revealed something about God. It is too bad that the preachers felt threatened by science when perhaps it could have told them so much that is no where else.

[Scattered]

For Didymos Thomas:
Thomas Aquinus liked reason and was good at it, but he really did not have science available as a tool. There has been a lot of recent development in the understanding of science as it applies to humans, particularly in terms of life and genetics. With all that brand new knowledge, isn't it about time for a new testament of some sort. Clearly there are things we know about life that could not be conceptualized at the time of Jesus or the Bible. Do any of these new things reveal something about God? You might just be shocked.

For Neither Extreme:
The Christians insist though that we can neither increase or diminish God. If God so loves us, perhaps these things are for human benefit, not God's Perhaps a gift like his teachings. What could love for God and love for others do for us? The answer to those at least can perhaps be found in science fairly easily. What else might be found? Perhaps knowledge of God, humans and God's purpose? .... Nah. .... Or maybe someone already knows. Maybe I will start a thread about that question, since I have already wondered about it.

[Didymos Thomas]

I'll be honest with you: I have not the slightest idea how science could tell us anything about God, or religion. I don't see the two in competition as they seem to deal with entirely different things.
In your response to NeitherExtreme you say that science might teach us how loving God and loving others is good for us. Why do we need science to show us this is so? Are these not evident enough in of themselves?

You said "reasoning, logic or science" so I suggested someone who used reason and logic, at least logic as it was understood in his time.

[Scattered]

Yah, that's a problem, but wouldn't it be cool if it turned out that science did. What if science suggested that God existed and was just a logical consequence of what we already know of science, perhaps genetics? Maybe it is so already. Maybe it is an attribute of genetics that is just not well known. Wouldn't that be interesting?
Those things may be evident, but what do they mean in terms of science? Science is a tool. To use it, you must think in terms of science. It's funny that humans have survived by cooperation. It is out basic survival strategy. Wouldn't you think that the best basis for a cooperative system would be to love one another? It seems that Western culture is based on Christianity, based on a strategy of loving one another and Western culture has shown great success.
As for loving God, that seems a bit more complex to put in terms of science, but it is the foundation of faith. Some people think that faith is simply an irrational belief, but it is far more than that. In terms of biology, it appears to have a genetic basis. In terms of survival it appears to have an importance because people obviously have been willing to fight to the death over it. It shows the importance of the survival strategies that we call moralities and that are what religions husband. It is a reflection of our most basic survival instincts. We know logic, reason and science, but we don't consider something to be truth unless it satisfies us emotionally, at the level of right and wrong that we judge by instinct as well as intellect. Faith is our survival instinct, but it can use intellect as well.
Funny, but it seems that faith and love, the foundations of Christianity also seem to be the foundation of very critical, very Earthly survival strategies.
If these can be translated to science, what else can be translated to science?
We are entering a time of the great knowledge of life that genetics offers us. It tells us a great deal about humanity. What if perhaps this knowledge could tell us something about God? Didn't I hear somewhere that God is life. Maybe it would be worth examining this new knowledge. Maybe some of the old stories have literal truth if only we could understand it. Is it possible it would reveal something about not just humanity, but God as well? There is supposed to be a relationship between the two. But then we might have to decide between the truth of the Book and the truth of science. What if they looked similar in both, as love and faith do? Which would you accept if there were differences, even if the differences were small? The preachers say not to, that science is a lie if it disagrees any. What if it agreed though? Would they allow their authority to be diminished? They are only human. Maybe it wouldn't be diminished because it really comes from another source that they just need to trust? Perhaps the truth.
Oh, Thomas Aquinus had reason, but very limited knowledge of life as we have. Also, Kant pointed out limitations to logic if you base it on religious teachings, which Thomas Aquinus did. It might take quite a jump to see God in science. Still, there is another, different problem that is related to both religion and reason that I wonder about sometimes. We are dependant on our learned strategies for survival. (Oh, I'm primarily a biologist) These are commonly called moralities and currrently they are based on authority and prescidence. The authority of the Church, but authority is waning fast in this skeptical age. I think we may need moral systems based on reason and understanding or they will not be used. Those can be created with knowledge and they perhaps could be based on the same foundation as religion, love and faith since those do seem to work powerfully in a very sharp, real world. That is fine, but there is more needed. It would mean that God uses science. Could that be believable? Maybe more so than magic. Maybe it is time that magic will have to pass, vanquished by the emerging power of science. Still, just how would science find God? You've got to do that first. C.D. Darlington talked of the Three Forbidden Questions in Science. I suspect that God would end up being the Fourth. Then again, I solved the Third one... Maybe it is time for a new thread.

[Scattered]

Maybe not time for a new thread. This one is a bit whacked, but it amused me to write it.
.
I think I'm like a lot of people. I know and I feel that the world is in trouble. It's not just global warming or economic whiplash. It's not just humans, nature is under siege, but it does seem to be the caused by humans. It's seen in racism, religious conflict and the cultural divide. It's seen in paralyzed politics and economics of the moment. The level and intensity of celebrity fascination is downright scary. It's hard to make sense of values and the secular verses sacred conflict we see in the technological world is comparable to the conflict between Islam and the West. That's just the mainstream conflict without looking at the extremes of morality and politics that want not just acceptance, but ascendancy.
They don't talk about those tests they did in the 70's where they put too many rats in a cage and they all went insane. It would seem all too familiar to us. The only hope is that somehow we could all work together. That is the only way we could possibly solve the massive problems we already face let alone achieve some thing more. But how could that happen? Perhaps facing the global calamity of global warming? It doesn't necessarily seem like even that will be enough. Besides, wouldn't it be better if we all pulled together not because of a common disaster, but to achieve some goal so grand that we all could agree and value it enough to work together?
We need someone or something to pull us together or a leader to guide us. We don't need another sport star, starlet or musician. We don't even need a great artist or scientist. We need a moral leader. One whose vision can validate and clearly express the positive values of humanity that are universal. They will have to also be a scientist because that is where so many problems and solutions lie. They will have to understand genetics, because we learn every day that they are what we are made of. They will have to have the humanism of a holy man because they must feel humanity's faith and mortality. They will have to have the courage of a sergeant to stare truth in the face and the moral commitment of a dedicated preacher to tell it. They will need to reconcile race, religion and value without favor. They will need the will to bare the burden and
lead their people. They will need a vision to lead to.
If there is such a person, they must be alive now, because this is when they are most needed. Can such a person exist? Could they survive without being destroyed, because they would be so unusual that certainly there would be trials for them? How could a person like that be found? Maybe place an advertisement on the internet for a philosopher/scientist/priest/warrior. Does such a person exist and how could they be recognized. If you met them, would you accept their leadership? But then, that is not how humans work. Some more gifted individuals, gifted enough to be our leaders, are the ones that must find this person. But how and where? Something can be said about the where. They will come from a center of culture and science. An person with that knowledge and wisdom must come from a center of culture. They must stand on the shoulders of giants. They must be at the forefront of knowledge. Their humanism and wisdom will not be so localized. It may have to be found within or come from knowledge of the greatest people of all of humanity. What more will it take to create this person? What crucible will they be made in? What forge will shape them?
Sometimes at night when I lie awake in fear for humanity and in fear for the future of my young children, I ask these questions and hope ... hope that this is possible. I hope that there is someone who has found a path and that there are people to protect and aid them until they can lead us, but somehow I doubt it. I hope that some day they will appear to us like a prophet of old and tell us the truth that can take us beyond our limitations and ignorance, a path to a bright tomorrow. Most of all, I hope that we will not destroy them when they try to help us.
Inquiring minds ... are so easily distracted.

[Aedes]

Scattered,
A great leader is absolutely nothing without followers.