Theological responses to scientific arguments.

[fantome profane]

Is it ever appropriate to respond to a scientific argument with a theological argument? Is it helpful? Is it useful? Can a scientific theory be rendered invalid by a theological argument?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Is it ever appropriate to respond to a scientific argument with a theological argument?

Not that I can think of.

Is it helpful?

Not to the question at hand, but it may be helpful in understanding the mindset of the one who answers.

Is it useful?

Only in the sense of my answer above.

Can a scientific theory be rendered invalid by a theological argument?

No. The only way that would be possible is if the theological argument was had enough scientific evidence to back it up and make it valid against a scientific argument.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Can be more specific about what you mean by "scientific argument" and "theological argument"?

 

[Skwim]

Is it ever appropriate to respond to a scientific argument with a theological argument?

Only for those who feel theology perforce trumps science

Is it helpful? Is it useful?

Nope. Nope.

Can a scientific theory be rendered invalid by a theological argument?

Nope²

 

[Sees]

I would say no to all. You would need a theological event/reality to trump a scientific theory...not some theological view, doctrine, opinion, etc.

Scientific arguments with bias are dishonest at the core. As biased people we have to do our best to push it aside and just look at what is on the plate separately. It's most certainly not only theological, religious, spiritual, etc. bias that is an issue.

 

[psychoslice]

No it can't, I feel its best to keep religious views to yourself when it comes to science, it saves embarrassment.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Theology should remain 100 meters away from science at all time and science should remain 100 miles away from theology at all times. Just like politics and religions, the 3 should never mingle yet alone get married

 

[Quintessence]

Is it ever appropriate to respond to a scientific argument with a theological argument? Is it helpful? Is it useful?

Yes, yes, and yes. Theological arguments are not necessarily in competition with or contradictory with scientific arguments. Keep this in mind.

Can a scientific theory be rendered invalid by a theological argument?

Yes and no. Depends on what tools one likes to use to draw a map of the territory. What tools are "valid" and "invalid" are a matter of personal or cultural assessment.

 

[Man of Faith]

When the scientific data is interpreted to fit a philosophical naturalism agenda, then it is. Scientific data doesn't have an argument, it just sits there.

 

[Parsimony]

When the scientific data is interpreted to fit a philosophical naturalism agenda, then it is. Scientific data doesn't have an argument, it just sits there.

You don't have to form an argument if there is enough data present to form the argument on its own. There are only so many rational ways one could, for example, interpret the evidence left behind at a crime scene.

 

[LuisDantas]

A theological argument that finds itself in conflict with s scientific one is by definition malformed, IMO.

 

[fantome profane]

Theological arguments are not necessarily in competition with or contradictory with scientific arguments. Keep this in mind.

But in fact this is exactly my point. I am not trying to suggest that theological concept is necessarily in conflict with science. They usually are not in conflict or competition. They usually have no point of contact whatsoever.

I am going to try a metaphor here, it may work or it may not. Bear with me.

Imagine someone peering through a telescope making astrological measurements. And that while doing this he is listening to Beethoven. There is no conflict, no competition. But it should also have no effect on his measurements.

Imagine someone else using a similar telescope making similar measurements but while listening to Justin Bieber? Are these observations any less valid because Bieber sucks?

I am not talking about conflict or contradiction, I am talking about relevancy.

Can you help me out and give me an example of how and when a theological argument could be appropriate, helpful, or useful in a scientific context?

Yes and no. Depends on what tools one likes to use to draw a map of the territory. What tools are "valid" and "invalid" are a matter of personal or cultural assessment.

And again this is my point. If someone chooses to us a non-scientific approach to draw their map this is perfectly valid. I am not passing judgement on that. I am just making the highly radical and controversial statement that a non-scientific approach is a non-scientific approach. Use whatever tool you want to draw your map, make your own personal cultural assessments. There is nothing wrong with making a non-scientific theological assessment. But a non-scientific assessment is a non-scientific assessment.

(p.s. if this thread goes of on a tangent about Justin Bieber that would illustrate my point beautifully. )

 

[Man of Faith]

You don't have to form an argument if there is enough data present to form the argument on its own. There are only so many rational ways one could, for example, interpret the evidence left behind at a crime scene.

There doesn't have to be a lot of ways to interpret the evidence, if there were two ways then they should both be considered. However science eliminates one thorough its philosophic pre-adherence to natural causes. That is when it becomes theologies job to say "hey what about me?"

 

[Quintessence]

Can you help me out and give me an example of how and when a theological argument could be appropriate, helpful, or useful in a scientific context?

Oh my, by this question, I may have been misinterpreting the intention of your initial queries. As a scientist, I cannot say that theological ideas or arguments are ever appropriate or useful in a scientific context as they are simply not science. But they are appropriate and useful in other contexts.

I'll admit that I'm a touch non-standard as far as religion goes in Western culture. Given my gods are the various aspects of reality itself, science is one way of directly studying my gods (e.g., if you want to understand weather spirits/gods, study meteorology and climatology). Much of my theology flows out of science, and I think for our ancestors, much of Pagan theology flowed out of observation of reality as well (albeit in a non-scientific fashion). I'll add greater emotional, symbolic, or abstract meanings on top of what "just science" says, though.

If you've ever heard of the Universe Story (or the Great Story, the Epic of Evolution, etc.), that's a good example of the sort of thing I'm talking about here. The Universe Story essentially takes the scientific consensus regarding creation and layers a religious mythos on top of it; this mythos is suffused with greater meaningfulness and ethical implications than the objectivity of science itself allows for. For example, the idea that we are all star stuff is translated into the idea that we are all related; this in turn is used as a buttress for broad-visioned ethics that apply not just to people, but everything else. Traditionally, Western ethics have been very anthropocentric, but this vision that extends out of the Universe Story prompts us to reconsider that and see our fellow non-human creatures and things as brothers and sisters. It's a religious or theological response to scientific information, and it's one I find quite beautiful.

 

[Thief]

Is it ever appropriate to respond to a scientific argument with a theological argument? Is it helpful? Is it useful? Can a scientific theory be rendered invalid by a theological argument?

So far I've seen science run right up to the 'point' and then stop.

Like the singularity....something for which the numbers can't transcend.
Like dark matter....the scientists know it's 'there'....but can't prove it.
Like the creation of matter....seeking the 'God' particle while ignoring the immensity of the universe.

Something from nothing?.....
I say.....not without God.

 

[Parsimony]

There doesn't have to be a lot of ways to interpret the evidence, if there were two ways then they should both be considered. However science eliminates one thorough its philosophic pre-adherence to natural causes. That is when it becomes theologies job to say "hey what about me?"

You do understand why science is the way it is, right? It's about testability and verification. If supernatural things were verifiable, then science could consider them. If someone finds a way to test for supernatural things in a scientific context, then science would have no need to ignore the supernatural. Yet it always seems to be fleeting, uncontrollable and just not "there" when the labcoats are looking for it.

 

[fantome profane]

There doesn't have to be a lot of ways to interpret the evidence, if there were two ways then they should both be considered. However science eliminates one thorough its philosophic pre-adherence to natural causes. That is when it becomes theologies job to say "hey what about me?"

I am still not quite sure you are getting this, but you are soooo close.

You are absolutely right that science eliminates the consideration of anything but natural causes. That is what science is, that is what science does. You can't change that. If you do other than this it is no longer science.

Now if theology then says "hey what about me?" the scientific response will be "science eliminates the consideration of anything but natural causes". That is the only response you can give from a scientific context.

Do you understand this?


edit: Just wanted to add that "eliminates from consideration" means just that and nothing more. Science does not eliminate the supernatural as a possibility, it only eliminates it from scientific consideration. Science is not equipped to eliminate the possibility because it is unable to consider it.

 

[Man of Faith]

You do understand why science is the way it is, right? It's about testability and verification. If supernatural things were verifiable, then science could consider them. If someone finds a way to test for supernatural things in a scientific context, then science would have no need to ignore the supernatural. Yet it always seems to be fleeting, uncontrollable and just not "there" when the labcoats are looking for it.

As long as we know that science can be wrong on historical origins of the species because it limits itself to strictly natural causes, then that's about all I can hope for at this time.

 

[rusra02]

Is it ever appropriate to respond to a scientific argument with a theological argument? Is it helpful? Is it useful? Can a scientific theory be rendered invalid by a theological argument?

"Scientific argument"? Not so long ago, "science" argued that he earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. Utterances by those who claim the mantle of science are often not scientific arguments at all. Astronomer David Block observed: “A man who does not believe in a Creator would have to have more faith than one who does. In declaring that God does not exist, a person makes a sweeping unsubstantiated statement—a postulate based on faith.” Richard Dawkins claims that in the universe ‘there is no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pointless indifference.’ That is Dawkins faith, not science.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Is it ever appropriate to respond to a scientific argument with a theological argument?

Sure, if you value theology more than science.

Is it helpful? Is it useful?

It can be both quite helpful and useful to respond to scientific arguments with theology if factual reality does not support your argument, and appealing to theology is your only option.

Can a scientific theory be rendered invalid by a theological argument?

Not objectively, of course. However, in the minds of the unscientifically-minded masses, scientific theories can be rendered invalid by just about anything, including theology.