relda wrote: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1). I would not confuse this with science or Buddhism, either, for that matter – but neither does it contradict them. It is neither esoteric nor observable but something that, in essence, strikes me as universal. Some regard this all as merely mayonnaise – nevertheless it is reasonable to say that I, along with you and others, do believe it has substance.

Dear relda,

The main factor which determines whether one maintains that it [faith] has substance is biological - one's choice of parents. However, when one has the assurance that something not seen or observed is actual it will contradict science where science has investigated the area and found that it is not actual. If one abandons an area of faith because it contradicts science one is reduced to relying on the faith of the Gaps which will never disappear as there will always be (a statement of faith) phenomena which has either not been subjected to scientific investigation or have not been explained by science.

Thus sophisticated religious believers who rely on the Bible as an inspired book no longer accept a literal interpretation as a literal interpretation contradicts science. However, they retain what they can of it.

My uncle in Ogdensburg, NY found he no longer could accept religious belief and felt very uncomfortable with that fact. Outside of small bequests to family he left the rest of his estate to be divided equally among houses of worship in Ogdensburg.

relda,
You are right about Berger: if he offered a judgement - positive or negative - about religion or faith, it would diminish the value of his findings and theories as a sociologist. Also, I agree that Davies would not object to calling “Consciousness” or “pure Awareness” what he referred to as God (neither would I, if it meant the Cause and Purpose of the physical reality that it is irreducible to). The quote is rather old, and since then Davies has made many statements that seem to make happy both theists and atheists.

The biblical “I AM WHO I AM” has many deep interpretations, one of them being “I am the (personalised) cause and purpose of all there is”. I am not an exegete but Father giving us “another Counselor”, to be with us “for ever” can again be interpreted as the Spirit (the Third person of the Trinity) being a PROJECTION from the reality that is beyond what science can see, like Christ, the God Incarnate, is such a projection of the Second person. I shall not continue, firstly because I am not comfortable with dabbling in theology, and secondly because all I am saying is that my premise about the irreducibility of the Divine is compatible with Christian models of reality (as well as those of most other religions), though perhaps not necessarily an integral part of them (although I think the official Catholic position is explicit about this).

Faith and belief are western concepts that cannot be well applied to Buddhists’ view of reality. Actually, even the distinction between faith and belief does not exist in most European languages (you can “loose your faith” but you cannot “loose your belief” - you can stop believing this or that, whereas there is no verb associated with faith, I usually explain). Yes, you can see with your eyes, you can see in the sense of understanding something (e.g. in science), and you can see as a mystic, which is probably closest to what Buddhists understand by seeing.

Thanks again for your interesting insights.

Thanks AJ, for illustrating a point I have been trying to make. For the science minded, admitting error may be embarrassing, but shouldn't be traumatic. Critics might suggest science stumbles from one error to another, but at least it stumbles onward.
For a deep or dogmatic believer who has defined God in his own image the story is very different. To admit error is to suggest his definition of God is wrong; from his perspective it is virtually to suggest his God has made a mistake. A far more traumatic and generally life changing event.

Grim,
You’re on record a few times as saying that science is the study of creation.

Is that contentious? I wouldn’t think so. But taking the statement at face value, having a creation implies a creator. Suddenly, you will have some people up in arms and, in my experience, a certain few may start calling you some choice names.

My point in highlighting those middle centuries (a point which I also think is rather straight forward and hardly contentious) was that the founders of modern science were by and large devout Christians.

On a thread which has gone all over the woods, in which the only uniting theme seems to have been the inter-relations between science and faith, I would have thought that that fact might carry some significance, maybe with regards to their compatibility. Hence your assertion, ‘only if theists accept the scientific principle’ comes out sounding rather strange and misplaced. For theists largely invented the scientific principle.

Alluding to your suppositions about finding God, those devout Christians (by definition) were not wondering about the existence of God. Nor were they attempting to prove God’s existence in their investigations. However, they did believe that studying creation could lead to better understanding their creator. Statements like these were common among them:

“A little science estranges a man from God. A lot of science brings him back.” Francis Bacon.

By the way, Christians are not aiming for popularity or ‘credibility’ as you put it. It’s not a Biblical value (Matthew 5:11, 12.) We are aiming for truth.

Others have noted that the church in that period (for better or worse) held a privileged position in society. Clearly this is not so now. So the tasks and challenges for Christians today are a bit different. But the grounding science has historically in the faith gives us confidence as we tackle the challenges ahead, most notably, rescuing science from its current philosophical malaise of trying to explain the appearance of design without a designer.

Dan, I'm a little confused. You appear to be rather disagreeably agreeing with me.
You mentioned my earlier post about creation, but neglect to mention my own words in the same paragraph, that a truly scientific study of creation should include at least the possibility (of the necessity) of a creator, and if so, what the hell was it on about.
As to your argument about "those middle centuries...the founders of modern science were by and large devout Christians"; while conveniently ignoring the contributions of the Chinese, Muslim and Hindu scholars of that period, I still say, so what?
Clearly the Christian scientists you speak did embrace the scientific method, and were most emphatically not restricted by Christian dogma; unlike, apparently yourself who still argues against evolution, one of the most successful and widely accepted ideas in the scientific community.
Perhaps you could learn something from your own examples.

Dear david f,
I guess I've abandoned many of my early childhood beliefs – i.e. my naturally naïve conception of and about ‘God’. So, yes, my beliefs have altered considerably – consequently, I might not appear as outwardly religious, i.e. as merely ‘church-going’ or having much at all to do with any formal religious practice - in a way, I belong to the ‘Church of the Unchurched’ , but not out of any sense of inertness. I separate ‘faith’ from this, where the ‘gap’ is far from narrowed.

I too have an uncle, in Adelaide SA, he is an unsophisticated religious believer, belonging to a main-line Christian denomination. He has never seriously challenged his belief and so is quite comfortable with his religion – he is, however, uncomfortable with my approach – or in his view, my ‘non-religiosity’ or ‘non-belief’. I quite like my uncle, but I find that your uncle would be quite likely to make me feel far more ‘more at home’.

George,
Again, I appreciate your compliment. Without our dialogue, however, these "insights" may not have occurred to quite a similar depth. I’m certainly grateful for this.