Your viewpointstrawman wrote:It is apparently not uncommon for some fundamentalists to speak on behalf of Christianity, and for some scientific fundamentalists to speak on behalf of science. It isn't difficult usually to sense the prejudice and sniff them both out as neither Christian nor scientist.
I agree with Descartes. It contradicts the fundamental concept that God is Love for faith to contradict reason. Still I think an individual's responsibility is search for truth free from personal prejudices.
may also be as biased
as my viewpoint.
I don't attempt to hide my bias
since it was reached via examination of 'facts'.
I might be more willing to change my viewpoint
and it's probably
that you probably
concluded that God exist.
I'm open to the possibility
of the existence
of a Deity
and are you open to the possibility
that a Deity
just because they are Unchristian
It's better to live a Christian
life without the Christian
than use the Christian Faith
to promote Faith
http://www.iep.utm.edu/faith-re/The basic impetus for the problem of faith and reason comes from the fact that the revelation or set of revelations on which most religions are based is usually described and interpreted in sacred pronouncements, either in an oral tradition or canonical writings, backed by some kind of divine authority. These writings or oral traditions are usually presented in the literary forms of narrative, parable, or discourse. As such, they are in some measure immune from rational critique and evaluation. In fact even the attempt to verify religious beliefs rationally can be seen as a kind of category mistake. Yet most religious traditions allow and even encourage some kind of rational examination of their beliefs.
The key philosophical issue regarding the problem of faith and reason is to work out how the authority of faith and the authority of reason interrelate in the process by which a religious belief is justified or established as true or justified. Four basic models of interaction are possible.
(a) The conflict model. Here the aims, objects, or methods of reason and faith seem to be very much the same. Thus when they seem to be saying different things, there is genuine rivalry. This model is thus assumed both by religious fundamentalists, who resolve the rivalry on the side of faith, and scientific naturalists, who resolve it on the side of reason.
(b) The incompatibilist model. Here the aims, objects, and methods of reason and faith are understood to be distinct. Compartmentalization of each is possible. Reason aims at empirical truth; religion aims at divine truths. Thus no rivalry exists between them. This model subdivides further into three subdivisions. First, one can hold faith is transrational, inasmuch as it is higher than reason. This latter strategy has been employed by some Christian existentialists. Reason can only reconstruct what is already implicit in faith or religious practice. Second, one can hold that religious belief is irrational, thus not subject to rational evaluation at all. This is the position taken ordinarily by those who adopt negative theology, the method that assumes that all speculation about God can only arrive at what God is not. The latter subdivision also includes those theories of belief that claim that religious language is only metaphorical in nature. This and other forms of irrationalism result in what is ordinarily considered fideism: the conviction that faith ought not to be subjected to any rational elucidation or justification.
(c) The weak compatibilist model. Here it is understood that dialogue is possible between reason and faith, though both maintain distinct realms of evaluation and cogency. For example, the substance of faith can be seen to involve miracles; that of reason to involve the scientific method of hypothesis testing. Much of the Reformed model of Christianity adopts this basic model.
(d) The strong compatibilist model. Here it is understood that faith and reason have an organic connection, and perhaps even parity. A typical form of strong compatibilism is termed natural theology. Articles of faith can be demonstrated by reason, either deductively (from widely shared theological premises) or inductively (from common experiences). It can take one of two forms: either it begins with justified scientific claims and supplements them with valid theological claims unavailable to science, or it starts with typical claims within a theological tradition and refines them by using scientific thinking. An example of the former would be the cosmological proof for God’s existence; an example of the latter would be the argument that science would not be possible unless God’s goodness ensured that the world is intelligible. Many, but certainly not all, Roman Catholic philosophers and theologians hold to the possibility of natural theology. Some natural theologians have attempted to unite faith and reason into a comprehensive metaphysical system. The strong compatibilist model, however, must explain why God chose to reveal Himself at all since we have such access to him through reason alone.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sci_cchris.htmVarious groups disagree about humanity, other species of life, the earth itself and the rest of the universe. This is because their beliefs are built upon different initial assumptions. Thus, they reach different conclusions:
bullet Very conservative Christians generally believe in the inerrancy of the Bible when its passages are literally interpreted -- except in those cases where a symbolic meaning is obviously intended. Thus, whenever the Bible discusses matters of geology, cosmology, astronomy, medicine, linguistics, etc. they believe it to be free of error. They perceive that the biblical authors were inspired by God to avoid all falsehood. All events described in the Bible, whether miracles or naturally occurring consequences, happened exactly as described. There is no possibility that any of these events did not happen in this way, because that would mean that the Bible itself is not free of error. The Bible can not be falsified -- proven to be false -- because it is by definition true.
bullet Liberal Christians see great spiritual truths in the Bible, but note that the authors of the Bible lived in a pre-scientific age. When the writers described the creation of the world, they borrowed heavily from earlier religious writings of nearby Pagan societies. When they wrote about about animals talking, the sun standing still, mental illnesses being caused by indwelling evil spirits, a worldwide flood, a flat earth under a metallic dome, etc. they were merely reflecting the primitive level of scientific knowledge in their society. Such material is not to be taken as a serious description of reality. The Bible is a spiritual book, not a scientific text book.
bullet Scientists generally work from the assumption that things happen as a result of purely natural processes. They use the "scientific method" to discover new insights in to nature. Many scientists believe in the existence of God. However, most do not see God regularly intruding in the universe and setting aside natural laws. That is, they believe that miracles either do not happen or are extremely rare. Unless they are biblical archaeologists, they rarely refer to the Bible as a guide for their research.