Categories bible christianity philosophy science theology www another science and faith article… Post author By Dale Post date September 10, 2008 4 Comments on another science and faith article… Here. Interesting stuff… Share this:FacebookTwitterWhatsAppTumblrEmailPinterest Tags astronomy, atheism, church, creation, culture, current event, debate, ethics, evil, evolution, faith, god, heaven, Holy Spirit, hope, humanity, intelligent design, interpretation, learning, life, morals, order, philosophy, religion, science, spirituality, theism, theology, truth, web ← one of these hoods is not like the other → here’s looking at (our) kid 4 replies on “another science and faith article…” Like many such articles I found this frustrating. One can have a dialogue despite complete disagreement about fundamental things. But the lack of precision in the language used here makes dialogue difficult. However, I am intrigued by his statement (page 4): Indeed there are many areas of scientific enquiry where believing people need to be engaged for the sake of the intellectual integrity of their beliefs. Can you explain what he means? He seems to be suggesting that progress in many areas of science are impossible without including religious believers in the research team. That’s completely opposite to my experience. But perhaps he means something different and I just don’t have the same vocabulary? Hey Ken, I can’t, of course, speak for Moffatt, but in that specific quote, he seems not to have the progress of science in view, but rather ‘the intellectual integrity of [some] beliefs.’ I don’t see him trying to say (to use your example) that a research team must have x number of ‘religious believers’ (whatever those are) in order to be productive and/or progress; instead, it appears that he is suggesting that these ‘believing people’ will find the ‘intellectual integrity of their beliefs’ enriched (sharpened, strengthened, refined, reformed, etc.) via engagement in ‘many areas of scientific enquiry’… Again, I can’t speak for Moffatt, but I think that’s how he meant it. Cheers, -d- Yes, Dale, I think you are right and I got it wrong. Problem was I was reading it from a scientist’s perspective while it is written from a religion perspective. It’s really saying that where scientific findings conflict with religious beliefs, believers must critically consider those beliefs – and modify or abandon them. Some theologians have been saying that for centuries. And of course the Dalai Lama famously has said that where Buddhist teachings conflict with scientific findings Buddhism must change. Cheers Ken, You? Defend science? Never! ;) Comments are closed.