A recent survey, conducted in November 2008, of over 50,000 adults, shows a 10% decline, since 1990, in the number of Americans who call themselves Christian, and an increase to 15% in the number of those with no religion.
From an article in the Christian Science Monitor on the above survey:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0310/p01s02-ussc.html
“Today, 76 percent of the US population call themselves Christians, compared with 86 percent in 1990, according to the third American Religious Self-Identification Survey (ARIS), released Monday by Trinity College in Hartford, Conn. Among Christians, the survey confirms that many are shedding denominational loyalties for a more generic Christian allegiance.
One in every 5 US adults chose not to identify a religious identity: 15 percent chose “no religion” and the other 5 percent declined to name one.”
A link to Trinity College for more details and where you can obtain a copy of the survey:
http://www.trincoll.edu/AboutTrinity/News_Events/trinity_news/030909_Religion.htm
1) Do you agree that this trend is accurate?
I believe it is and is very likely to increase over the next 10 to 20 years.
In the next 20 years what percentage of Americans, or the country you live in, will say they have no religion:
a. 50% or more
b. At least 25%
c.15% or less
2) I have not seen any data but I also read about more church closings, and an overall decline in church attendance, at least on every other day not called Easter, or Christmas.
My perception is that in particular small Churches are having a very difficult time, losing members to “mega-Churches” (Churches with 2,000 or more members) and those simply losing their faith.
Which do you think is most likely:
a. There will be a dramatic decrease in the number of church members.
b. Church membership will decline but not dramatically. Some church will close but others will gain parishioners.
c. There may be a short period of decline but then a revival of those joining Churches.
3) I think the more alarming trend for religious leaders is their loss of influence and whether there is a dramatic drop in the number of people who use the Bible, and God’s guidance, in their daily lives.
I would not be surprised if the majority of Americans do not read the Bible daily and do not use it, or prayer, to follow God’s guidance in their lives.
How many Americans do you think use the Bible, and prayer, to understand, and follow, God’s guidance in their daily lives?
a. 50% or more
b. less than 50%
My guess is that in 20 years less than 25% of Americans will use Scripture to guide their lives.
What is your guess?
27 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 10, 2009 at 11:30 am
umphrey1012
I think these things are so hard to actually define. Take for example a country like Ireland. I think Southern Ireland is something like 99% Catholic. But are they really? Do 99% of the people go to church or actively use the Bible as a guiding document? Probably not.
If you asked me, I guess I’d say I’m Catholic (it would really depend on who I was talking to). But I am actually an agnostic/atheist and so that’s kind of odd. It’s one of those questions that has too many cultural ties along with it to try and get a really good statistical answer I think.
But speaking in broad strokes, I’d say true church power will continue to decline for the relatively near term, but I believe there will be something pretty major that will happen in the future that will scare a lot of people towards religion. I am imagining something like true human cloning, existence of life elsewhere in the universe, incredibly extended life. Something probably science related that will kind of shock people into trying to go back to religion as a way of coping.
Or God may come and visit… either or.
March 10, 2009 at 12:17 pm
edfromct
umphrey1012, thanks for taking the time to leave a comment.
“It’s one of those questions that has too many cultural ties along with it to try and get a really good statistical answer I think.”
I agree.
You bring out a good point. Just going to church, or saying you believe in God, may not mean that much if you don’t follow, or look to, your God’s guidance in your daily life.
“Something probably science related that will kind of shock people into trying to go back to religion as a way of coping.”
It does seem to true that for many people it’s only when they fear their life may end that they try to renew their acquaintance with God. 🙂
As long as science keeps finding answers to question, and continues to improve our daily lives, than I think more people will continue to have more faith in it than in religion, and God.
If scientific advances are mis-used, and increasing death and destruction is the result, I think more people will turn back to religion.
March 10, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Joe
I think your last two paragraphs are the big point for a lot of people. While we certainly are better off than 100 or 500 hundred years ago, has science really improved our daily lives? I’d say yes, but then again, I’m a scientist 😉 Trying to play devil’s advocate here.
Science and religion aren’t two ways to reach the same goal. They aren’t mutually exclusive. So religious people look at science and ask, ‘how does this make me a better person, or how does it affect my relationship with God or what does it do for my soul?’ Scientists look at religion and say, ‘how does this make my computer run faster or how does this clean my drinking water?’
Science and religion aren’t meant to answer the same questions. So I think in the whole debate, there is a lot of straw man arguments going on. I guess my point with all of that, is that even though science may be making people’s lives better, it’s not a replacement for God. Science can’t (nor should it) nourish your soul. I don’t believe you need religion to do that either, but science certainly won’t do it for you.
March 10, 2009 at 2:11 pm
edfromct
Hi Joe, thanks for taking part in the discussion.
I agree that Science and Religion should not be mutually exclusive, but there does seem to be a competition right now between the religious community and the scientific community.
I appears to me that as more people come to accept evolution as being correct many/some will turn away from religious faith, or at least they will turn away from church doctrine.
I think there is a correlation between gaining faith in the process of science and losing faith in following church doctrine in our daily lives.
I agree with your statement that “there is a lot of straw man arguments going on”. God can be seen as the hand behind the process of science. However many religious leaders seem to saying that either you believe in God or in evolution.
I don’t think the majority of Americans will stop believing in God. I do think they will increasingly turn away from church doctrine.
“Science can’t (nor should it) nourish your soul.” This is true if you see the soul as a kind presence(?) in your body. I think of my soul as being part of my psychological make up. When I feel great my soul/spirit is uplifted. In this way a scientest can feel their soul/spirit fly when they make a discovery, in that eureka moment. Things that give us confidence, uplift us, can be said to feed our soul.
March 10, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Joe
“I don’t think the majority of Americans will stop believing in God. I do think they will increasingly turn away from church doctrine.”
Yeah, I’d agree with this. And when I think of how pervasive religion is, I generally try and think of the actual power of the church. If the Pope went out tomorrow and made some crazy demand, how many people would actually do it?
As for the soul thing, I guess it does carry with it a lot of different connotations. I’d agree with you that discovery is certainly uplifting and certainly that is accessible to everyone. But I guess what I was getting at is that (outside of drugs) science doesn’t on it’s own fulfill you. Buying a new computer doesn’t make you happy (well… actually it does make me happy!) and won’t make your life better. But if you’ve got true faith and go to church and such, that’ll make you feel better. Again, just playing devil’s advocate here, but I think that’s basically the argument.
March 10, 2009 at 7:08 pm
danielle
Ed,
Very interesting post. I actually have one in my drafts that I’m working on with some similar thoughts.
I’ll have to finish it up and get it posted so I can hear your thoughts on it.
March 10, 2009 at 9:13 pm
edfromct
Joe, I agree that religious faith, which is an enity, is different then faith in science, which is a process.
I can’t judge how anyone else feels. My faith in Science, and evolution, I see as similar, it terms of it’s affect on me, as the affect religious faith has on people who believe in God.
March 10, 2009 at 9:16 pm
edfromct
Danielle, It is a very complex topic and I do look forward to reading your blog entry on the status of religion in America.
March 11, 2009 at 8:14 am
lovewillbringustogether
Refreshing to hear Umphrey and Joe’s comments as well as your own Ed.
I largely agree although currently i would put myself most firmly in the ‘religious’ (ie having a faith in God over any one kind of church or doctrine, while admitting to following, as best i can, Christ’s principles (not always so well demonstrated in mainstream Christianity i fear) category.
I would agree with you Ed on your comment re: the uplifting of what you define as your soul (being a part of your psychological make-up)
i would beg to differ as to what your Soul truly is though.
As humans we have (at least) two distinct ‘identities’ and they are not both ‘contained’ in the physical brain wherein our mind and emotions mainly reside and through which we mostly ‘feel’ things such as ‘great’ or happy, refreshed or ‘uplifted’. That is the domain of our physical ‘self’ and what many people ‘imagine’ is their Soul.
The Real ‘Soul’ is not of flesh – it is a much more ‘ethereal’, intangible substance that remains in close proximity to but is not ‘contained’ in our body.
It communicates with our physical self, but not in the same way we ‘hear’ human voices or the ‘voices’ in our head – that is in our psychological make-up , it is not ‘of the spirit’.
Perhaps the best ‘scientific ‘example’ might be, for comparison, a resonant circuit – one where a certain electric current is passed through a coil and induces a ‘complimentary’ current in another coil in the vicinity of the original.
Our spirit/soul is able to ‘induce’ reactions from our body and our body is able, in limited quantity/quality to induce a ‘reaction’ in our Soul.
Emotions such as happiness, sadness and Joy are primarily physical and have little direct ‘consequence’ on the Soul but are associated with such things as ‘love’ (not selfish love but unconditional. compassionate kind), beauty and truth, or peace, elements of the ‘highest’ human/God values with which our Soul can resonate most strongly.So while there may be some correalation between doing good and feeling good and ‘uplifting one’s soul’ it is more of an indirect correalation and what we feel may have little to do with how much our soul actually is ‘moved’ or lifted to a higher ‘energy.
Just feeling happy wont do much for the development of our soul – as many who take drugs could ‘testify’.
it is my understanding that many people and also churches don’t fully appreciate this ‘subtlety’.
Spirit is said to reside ‘in’ us – but the word ‘in’ is not an exact explanation.
many misinterpret just how our spirit is ‘in’ us – or we are ‘in’ it.
<B
March 11, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Joe
I guess the first question that comes to mind from lovewillbringustogether’s comments is how do you know this to be true? You seem very certain about this nature of the soul. You mention a scientific example, but this seems a bit off to me because we can actually measure the presence of EM fields but I don’t know that we can measure the presence of a soul.
To my mind, the soul is a word ascribed to some sense of our being. I don’t actually believe it is a thing but rather a macro view of our ‘being’. I’d say the same thing of the word spirit. At the end of the day, I believe we’re all just a collection of atoms and that there isn’t any greater internal force at work.
That being said, I’ve seen many incredible things that can’t necessarily be explained by science and my view of the way things work. However, I don’t know that I’d immediately ascribe these occurrences to the presence of a soul as you describe it.
Very interesting stuff though!
March 11, 2009 at 2:05 pm
edfromct
Love, that is one of the clearest explinations of the soul that people who believe in God talk about.
I can understand the idea that the “real soul” induces an effect on our psychological soul in the same way a resonanting current has when it induces “complimentary’ current in another coil”.
“The Real ‘Soul’ is not of flesh – it is a much more ‘ethereal’, intangible substance that remains in close proximity to but is not ‘contained’ in our body.”
In M theory, at least as well as I understand it, there are multipule copies of ourselves existing right next to us, in other dimensions, that we can’t see or feel. The fact that we can’t see it, and may never see it, this real soul, or record it on any instrument, does not prove it does not exist.
Science identifies sub-atomic particles, that can’t be seen, by the effect they have on other particles.
Do you think it is possible that some day the existance of the real soul could be proven scientificaly?
We have MRI machines that record which parts of the brain “light up” when we think or perform a task.
It might be possible to record this interaction between the real soul and the psychological soul when the interaction occurs. We would see a chemical reaction in our brain than be able to deduce what caused it.
Our psychological soul is far more complex than just feeling happy or sad. Taking a drug can create a temporary feeling but won’t have a long term effect. We could continue to take drugs, and live in a drug enduced state, but that is not a very appealing soulution.
Can we devlop a long term cure when our psychological soul is ill without involving our real soul?
What is the likelyhood that, once we indentify the chemical reaction in our brain that causes our psychological soul to be ill, we will be able to cure this illness by re-wiring the brain?
I think there is a good chance we will be able to do so, but this is unlikley to happen in my lifetime.
March 11, 2009 at 3:03 pm
edfromct
Joe, I also don’t believe in the God given soul, since I don’t believe God exist. I don’t have religious faith, my faith is in the process of science and evolution. Faith is the key word.
The kind of evidence that the religious faithful experience is different from those who have faith in scientifically “proven” theories.
Many of the scientifically proven theories I believe are valid I don’t begin to really understand. I could not myself test the evidence that supports them. I rely on the process of critical peer review. I also can see the technology these scientific theories produce. That is what my faith is based on.
My perception is that for the religious faithful their faith is based on feeling their God’s presence when they pray.
My definition of the words soul and spirit matches yours. I agree we are a collection of particles of matter but I don’t think the word “just” adequately describes this. 🙂
I accept that one day someone may find a way to scientifically validate the existence of God, and the God given soul. Until then I would have to feel the presence of God before I could believe he exist.
As long as believers in God feel his presence then their faith in him is validated. That is way I think the belief in God is unlikley to go away, but the belief in specific church doctrine may well. That is the trend we are seeing, as evidenced by the survey conducted by Trinity College.
March 11, 2009 at 9:10 pm
lovewillbringustogether
Thank you for your ‘open’ mind and really excellent questions Ed
I still believe we have much in common!
Joe – How do i KNOW this to be true?. It depends how you define ‘know’ i guess (and being a former atheist with a strong scientific interest i think i know your definition quite well – you don’t have to explain unless you feel compelled to) 🙂
In strict scientific terms i don’t ‘know’ this to be true.
But on the basis of fifty years of observation, reading, personal self-inspection and a developing Faith and an understanding of how the human world actually is this is my intuitive ‘knowledge’ on the subject as i understand it at this point in time. it is an on-going process 🙂
Back to Your Q’s Ed and hopefully they might also answer any further questions (or at least pose some more i could answer directly) for Joe and any others ‘interested’.
I admit to holding some hope that Science may indeed one day be able to ‘detect’ such things as ‘soul’ and ‘spirit’ and their interaction with our physical/mental (mind) being. I actually see there is some degree of convergence between modern physics and the more ‘Ancient’ concepts of how our world actually exists – M Theory being just one particular avenue, Qunatum Theory being another.
Einstein found it very difficult to reconcile Quantum theory (or some ‘assumptions’ and parts of it with his understandings of what ‘God’ might be or do (‘God does not play dice with the Universe’) but i don’t hold quite the same reservations – i believe God is big enough to ‘fit’ any Scientific Theory within ‘Him’ and His ‘Creation’. (Please don’t call me a Creationist in the ‘common’ sense!) We are the finite minds that cannot ‘fit’ certain seemingly incompatible theories inside of us.
Quantum theory at it’s most basic is saying that our ‘physical world’ is not quite as it seems – not all that ‘solid’ and ‘fixed’ or rather i should say ‘permanent’ Once the various wave-form probabilities of the quantum world have been ‘decided’ (observed) it can seem to stay ‘fixed’ but up until that time it is simply a ‘probability of occuring’ – more of a mathematical ‘certainty’ (or UNcertainty) than any fixed physical ‘object’.
I’m being unnecessarily ‘simple’ in the conceptualising to help advance the idea of why there may be ‘more’ than the physical world we can see touch and experiment on. -please forgive me for this 🙂
In our day to day ‘normal’ world it is very difficult to have any kind of awareness of this intangible ‘probability’ based reality – about the closest we ever come to it scientifically is in the duality of the simple electron – sometimes it ‘appears’ as a solid particle and sometimes it seems to have more the properties of a (probability) wave with non-solid characteristics.
Once we get to the level of trillions and quadrillions of atoms all operating in close proximity (like in say, an apple or a human body) the ‘combined’ probabilities behind every single quantum that constitutes those atomic particles become so ‘definite’ (as an average) that we are unable to distinguish them from ‘absolute’ certainty and we can rely upon the combination average holding certain ‘fixed’ quantities (such as mass, momentum, ‘existence’)
This does not alter the fact though that every particle we are made up of is not actually totally in our three dimensional/four dimensional ‘space-time’ existance but is (or rather at some point was) in the form of a certain probability of less than one (certainty).
You mentioned the idea that we may be in close proximity to other probabilities – other lifetimes extending out from our current place and time as M theory can postulate. Science would find it next to impossible to detect such ‘alternate worlds’ i believe but the mathematics may develop given time to the point where the ‘chances’ of such things ‘existing’ can be made more clear.
How does this apply to us and the soul/spirit?
Truthfully i have not yet given this connection much thought until now 🙂
I’ll give it a quick shot and please remember this is a first attempt and is not intended to be in any way definite or ‘certain’ that it must only be this way… 🙂
Our physical self (including the mind) is a finite ‘collection’ of atoms/probabilities. I believe our soul is of a different ‘Nature’ (not made of atoms but of some form science cant yet define, and for those scientists out there poo-pooing such an idea please explain exactly what Dark Matter is which is estimated to comprise some 500% more than all ‘known’ matter in the Universe and yet shares the ‘same’ space and is undetectable by our present devices of measurement; then there is ‘Dark Energy’ that together with Dark Matter is thought to comprise 96% of our Universe but which also cannot yet be measured directly!)
I believe the soul is also ‘finite’ and unique to our physical body.
In the same way that our body’s atoms are but a sample of all known atoms which ‘define’ the physical universe in terms of it’ s dimensions and mass, our soul is also a subset of all ‘spirit’ that defines the entire spiritual ‘universe’. We are an ‘intersection point’ between the two. Down at the Quantum level (far smaller than the size of a single atom or atomic particle) each ‘separate’ probability of spiritual and physical is able to ‘interfere – or communicate’ with the other.
Some modern science suggests that our mind directly interacts with the probability wave-form of the Quantum ‘field’ to help it form what it (our mind) conceptualises for us as ‘reality’.
So while at the physical level of atoms it might be ‘impossible’ to detect the spiritual soul we may have a ‘direct’ connection to it via our minds and the Quantum field upon which all our current ‘reality ‘ is based.
I apologise if i lost you along the way? but i do love considering such ‘stuff’ and thank you for the ‘opportunity 🙂
i hope i could answer any other questions slightly more ‘directly/simply’ next time now that i have shared the general ‘concept’ out here.
or we could always talk about Cars? or sump’n 😉
<B
March 11, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Joe
Definitely an interesting topic but I generally find claims to science in these discussions to be somewhat lacking. Which, as Ed points out, is not necessarily a bad thing. Having been raised Catholic and coming from a fairly religious community, I understand faith. I just don’t have it (well not in God). And if you need proof to believe in God, then it’s not faith.
Your bringing up dark matter and dark energy isn’t really fair. In those cases, we had equations that worked well in most senses. Where they did not work, we had to correct them. Dark energy and dark matter were ways to do that. It could very well turn out that dark matter and dark energy will go the way of epicycles before a sun-centered solar system but it may also be pointing us towards the truth.
But with the soul, we do not know (in a scientific sense) that it exists or that it’s even a good model. Since no predictions can be made, we can’t say something is missing. Basically, you need to assume the idea of a soul is correct to find something lacking when talking about the science related to a soul.
And Ed, I like how you brought it all around to your original topic earlier! 🙂
March 12, 2009 at 8:52 am
Indian Lake Papa
Hi Ed – we have been quite busy here – company just left.
I am going to skirt the issue a little here. Religion seems to be looked at from two approaches. Scientific or relationship. My emphasis is relationship. I have almost avoided looking at it from a scientific point of view – but I “know” God exists from a relationship point of view – wow, do I know that. I think what has declined is the desire to have a personal relationship with Christ – instead the belief “It doesn’t matter what you believe, as long as you believe” has grown. John wrote
1 John because of the same concern in the church in 85 AD! Always will be an issue.
March 12, 2009 at 12:03 pm
edfromct
Love I enjoy reading, and thinking, about the ideas expressed in you comments.
“i believe God is big enough to ‘fit’ any Scientific Theory within ‘Him’ and His ‘Creation’”
I would think a person could have faith in God and still believe in the process of science to understand the physical world we live in.
It’s individual church doctrines that appear to conflict with scientific observation, evolution vs creationism.
That is why I think as science based technology improves our lives the trend away from belief in specific church doctrine is likley to continue.
“Once the various wave-form probabilities of the quantum world have been ‘decided’ (observed) it can seem to stay ‘fixed’ but up until that time it is simply a ‘probability of occuring’ – more of a mathematical ‘certainty’ (or UNcertainty) than any fixed physical ‘object’.”
I agree with you Love that it is in mathamatics, like that which validate Quantum and M theories, that I see the possibility that if God, and the God given soul, do exist it may be possible to create a formula that demonstrate their existance.
When I listen to a physicist, like Michio Kaku, he sometimes sounds more like a minister than a scientest.
I read a survey somewhere that Evolutionary Biologist have the strongest bias against religion and Theoretical Physicist are the most likely to believe that God could exist.
“Some modern science suggests that our mind directly interacts with the probability wave-form of the Quantum ‘field’ to help it form what it (our mind) conceptualises for us as ‘reality’.
So while at the physical level of atoms it might be ‘impossible’ to detect the spiritual soul we may have a ‘direct’ connection to it via our minds and the Quantum field upon which all our current ‘reality ‘ is based.”
Ideas based on science like the Uncertainity principle, the duality of the electron, and M theory, seem no more “crazy” to me than the possibility that God could exist. 🙂
March 12, 2009 at 12:44 pm
edfromct
“Having been raised Catholic and coming from a fairly religious community, I understand faith. I just don’t have it (well not in God). And if you need proof to believe in God, then it’s not faith.”
Joe, we may be putting different interprations on the word “faith”.
There are many scientific theories I accept as valid even though I can’t understand them, or the test that were performed to validate them. My faith that these theories are accurate is based on my belief that the scientific bodies critcally reviewing these theories are qualified to pass judgement. I can also see how these scientifically validated theories lead to improving my world.
I think this kind of faith is similar, in at least some ways, to that which belivers have in God have. They pray and believe they feel the presence of God, who guides them in their lives. Feeling his presence affirms their faith. They see how this guidance has improved their lives.
I can’t say I understand Quantuim theory any more than belivers understand some of the guidances they receive from God.
My faith in science is ultimately validate when I see how this process creates technology that improves my llife. The faith of thoses who believe in God also have their faith validated when they see how his guidances has improved their lives.
Proof in science is a different process than proof in the world of religion. I think however that in both case the degree of our faith is based on how much the thing we trust (science or God’s guidances) improves our world.
March 12, 2009 at 12:59 pm
edfromct
Papa, I know how much you and Mama enjoy company. Just don’t forget your friends in cyber space. 🙂
“I think what has declined is the desire to have a personal relationship with Christ – instead the belief “It doesn’t matter what you believe, as long as you believe” has grown.”
I agree in that I don’t see a dramatic trend away from belief in God, at least not in America. It is in accepting church doctrine, using the Bible as a source of gudiance in our daily lives, that I precive a decline.
I see a very clear decline in the influence of religous leaders on our society. I think this trend is likley to continue.
My guess is that less than 50% of Americans pray before the make an important decision. I have never seen any survey or statistic so my guess may only reflect my own bias.
March 12, 2009 at 9:34 pm
lovewillbringustogether
Joe – i am able to accept your thinking and reasoning on my comments 🙂 even if my personal ‘understanding’ my not be 100% in agreement with your own.
My personal ‘issue’ with Science is not so much with the science as with those who ‘use it’ in the way they do to form the basis of all their opinions on ‘all’ that ‘is’ or can or ‘must’ be. (Basically, a tendency to not ‘believe’ something can be ‘true’ and ‘real’ until it is ‘proven’ to be so by the ‘God’ Science).
My other ‘complaint’ concerning Science, or more specifically our ability to use ‘reason’ or ‘logic’ that is at the very heart of our Science, is at it’s very foundations those things have no greater basis for describing the whole of our ‘reality’ than does Religion and a belief in an All-Powerful Creator God. While the structure of reason may be fairly internally consistent and ‘complete’ the actual axiomatic bases are simply taken on ‘faith’ making the entire ‘edifice’ somewhat ‘wobbly’ – not at all solid..
Experimental evidence cannot actually prove anything, it can only disprove the original hypothesis (guess) leaving other possibilities for further hypothesis and disproval, etc. Our current level of knowledge, while constantly ‘growing’, is insufficient for the full range of possible hypotheses to be disproven to leave ‘absolute’ truth.
Newton’s ‘Laws’ of motion are an example of this. For a long time they were thought to exactly define how things actually are/behave in our ‘Universe’ – then relativity showed why they were not true but were able to hold only for a very specific set of cases.
An earlier example was the ‘logic and reason’ applied to ‘understand’ that the earth was flat and our Sun revolved about us (a view maintained for longer than actual ‘evidence’ was available to be understood by some through the Dogma of religion, i am happy to concede.)
I have no doubt whatsoever that future science will show some ‘fundamental’ scientific theories need to be radically modified in terms of how we understand our Universe, and that while Dark Matter and Energy may or may not ultimately be ‘proven’ to exist, that the physical world science only considers at present will have to be massively expanded to give us a truer picture of just what our human reality and Universe we share consists of.
As for the Soul: Science proceeds from exactly such ‘assumptions’ – then it uses a system of logic and procedure to demonstrate if the assumptoion can be taken to be valid or if it can be disproven – if it cannot currently be disproven then it is taken to be ‘proven’ tentatively until contrary evidence is available or the assumtion causes us to make obvious error.
Have you seen any examples of science making this assumption/testing the hypothesis? any funded research on this rather ‘important’ question? – just why is that? would you think? 🙂
Maybe they leave all that ‘stuff’ to religion? 😉
<B
<B
March 12, 2009 at 9:57 pm
lovewillbringustogether
‘I would think a person could have faith in God and still believe in the process of science to understand the physical world we live in.’
i hope that is what i do – each ‘to a point’ (just less than ‘certainty’)
i pose the hypothesis that there is more to life than can currently be ‘explained’ or benefitted from by accepting that what we currently ‘know’ about the physical world is all that there is or can be.
i don’t propose that we throw science and logic out the window – but that we appreciate more that it does not give us all our best answers to fundamental questions – especially matters of philosophy and our personal life or ‘purpose’.
i would hope that men of great intelligence exist in both the scientific AND religious camps and that simply because the general population is not as able as some to understand the logic of one or the other fully they do not err sufficiently to confidently state that the truth either one may contain is ‘wrong’.
it saddens me greatly that atheists try to use ‘scientific’ argument and their form of reason to deny the truth Religion holds for each one of us within it.
i believe they do so to their cost, just as any religious adherents and especially the fanatics do to those who don’t believe in God.
One day – lovewilbringustogether. 🙂
<B
March 13, 2009 at 9:00 am
Joe
Hey all, nice to see the conversation continuing. There have been a lot of points brought up and I think that’s all to the good.
Ed and Love, one thing I’d say that I think may relate to both of what you’ve said to me is the following. Belief in something that is unproven requires faith. Belief in science (at least the parts that can be tested) does not require faith. You don’t need to believe in gravity or even believe that Newton was ever alive, yet when you push a book off the edge of a table, it will fall to the ground.
Science is just a system and it can be overturned as has happened in the past. So everything we now know could turn out to be wrong. But even so, when you push the book off the table, it’ll still fall.
So Ed, back to your original point and trying to merge science and religion into a common focus. While people may move away from specific doctrines they may keep their belief in a higher power. This may be similar to science in which theories may change, but the underlying methodology of proof and logic remain the same. Haha, I don’t even know if I like that myself!
And finally, I don’t see any necessary contradiction or exclusivity between science and religion. It’s probably the work of extremists on both sides trying to force this.
Thanks again all.
March 13, 2009 at 12:09 pm
edfromct
Joe, this has been a great dialogue. Thanks for participating.
We all agree that science and religion can be compatible. We also agree on the declining influence of religion on society.
The only point we have some disagreement on is how we apply the words “faith” and “evidence” to scientific and religious ideas.
You are right that these words mean different things in the worlds of religion and science.
One thing that makes a theory science is that is testable. We can perform experiments, and create calculations, that can be replicated by peer review groups. We can’t perform these same kinds of test on religious doctrine. When we try we fail, at least so far.
The evidence for believing in God is when we feel his presence. Seeing the effects of God’s influence is sufficient evidence for those who believe in him. Observation only is not sufficient evidence to validate a scientific idea.
I think the process by which we come to have faith in something is similar in both science and religion. It’s based on the evidence we observe and when we see it’s effect our lives. Religious evidence is different from scientific evidence.
March 13, 2009 at 12:33 pm
edfromct
I agree that it is a mistake to try to rely solely on a scientifc agrument to disprove a religious one. Science is a process not a moral code as religious doctrine is. Although following the process of science will often lead one to have a moral view of the world.
The scientifc theory of natural selection states that self interest dictate our decisions. Something is right if it helps us and wrong if it doesn’t. Our experiences in life shape how we view what is right and what is wrong.
As I understand how the word soul is used in religious doctrine, we are born with a soul that if we nurture will lead us to making the right moral decisions.
I agree more with the scientific theory of natural selection as the force that guides our ideas of moralitiy but I can also see that the religious doctrines of morality can help many.
As long as we continue to ask questions about theories and moral codes I think we will make better decisions. It’s having blind, unquestioning faith, in science or religion, that leads to many of the problems I see in the world.
March 13, 2009 at 6:50 pm
lovewillbringustogether
Ed, Joe – am happy to see there is close agreement on many points discussed between us. Forgive me if i tend to focus more on the dissimilarities than the similarities – my aim is to bring all closer together, i do this by focusing on the dissimilar parts to see if greater understanding can allow agreement, not to divide us further. 🙂
Joe i wonder if perhaps you might not be putting the cart a little before the horse with your ‘gravity” point?
Gravity does not exist because science shows us how it works. – it is, was and always shall, be so long as matter exists, not science.
Similarly, to me God exists, and we can either choose to experience Him – or not, not because religion says he does or science says it can’t prove he does (nor can it disprove He does by showing us how He ‘works’) 😉
Science may not yet know how to find examples of His existence, but all scientists have a soul – whether they believe it or not. The soul can be ‘developed’ (evolve) or be ignored (and so ‘devolve’) to some degree by our conscious action of choosing. if we chose to listen to what it says to us ( at very ‘deep’ levels, not ‘voices in our heads’ – “with what ears do you hear?”) we may gain benefit from it and it from our choices. if we do nothing and make no efort – it will likely not ‘learn’ much from our current existence. ( and neither will we!)
The fact we were each given/have free will (stated in the Bible, believed by all religions and ‘proven’ beyond all reasonable doubt by science) and so are free to choose to believe in God or not does not change the fact we will face the consequences of our choices in the same way that a book will still fall if science had not shown us the mechanism behind the ‘Law’ of Gravity.
The only real ‘issue’ here is what those consequences will be and whether or not they ‘end’ when we do – or if in fact that is when they will REALLY ‘begin’ 😉
Science is ‘betting they end with our life, religion is saying this is not ‘true’.
bets anyone? 😉
<B
March 13, 2009 at 7:25 pm
edfromct
Love, as much as I like the idea of internal life in Heaven I will still have to bet against it. 🙂
No matter how much we sometimes try, we don’t always get what we want. We will (hopefully) get what we need. 🙂
I can’t get the faith I need from something I don’t believe in.
March 13, 2009 at 8:18 pm
lovewillbringustogether
most definitely Ed, remember though – you have free will and it should be YOUR choice ( free to change it at any time – if you believe you are) – not one incurred from someone/by someone else many years ago!
And if you only have but a little faith – and you ask for more – it shall be given unto you! 😉
Does science have a way of ‘defining’ your second paragraph – or did you get that from your soul/God? 😉
You’re a believer – at least so i believe 🙂
your soul (and not just the physical world one) ‘peeks’ out in more than a few ways Sir ) 🙂
<B
March 15, 2009 at 7:58 pm
edfromct
Thanks for caring Love, but I have found the faith I need.
Having made it through 65 years I have developed faith in my self.
Having observed how many people, like you and my other Christian friends, share their love with the world, I have faith in mankind, even while there are still far too many monsters amoung us.
I see the world I now live in is better then the one I was born into. I have faith the it will continue to evolve. That we will learn, however slowly, to correct the mistakes of the past, and build a better world.