Macro Evolution is in fact not true and most denominations that have official statements accepting the theory are liberal and have women as pastors. Just drop the whole evolution thing, we are way past believing evolution is true. You don't need to ascend to that just so you can have clout with the world.
While I agree with your general tack that science and religion are distinct domains (maybe illustrated by “matter” vs. “spirit”), I think amplification on a couple of minor points may be worthwhile.
Religion is not really (merely) a belief system either. Religion is a matter of contact with the Divine; beliefs are the intellectual echoes of that contact. It’s entirely possible to have religious experience precede the formation of beliefs.
Real religion can survive in the face of the discovery of errors of belief, since the experience of knowing God, to those who know God, transcends the mere intellectual — it is an irrefutable and unshakable spiritual reality. In science and mathematics, the collapse of a postulate or assumption is catastrophic to the theory. But to one who truly knows God, there is no un-knowing, no intellectual sophistry that can cause the knower not to know what he has experienced. That’s the essence and the source of the liberty that genuine faith confers.
And don’t forget that science is founded on belief: the beliefs that the universe is comprehensible and that antecedent causation allows physical phenomena to be predicted, for starters.
Also I might suggest a distinction, if I may: science is the pursuit not of truth but of fact. Jesus said “truth will set you free”. Those who look to fact for spiritual liberation are bound to be disappointed, but those who “see”, who truly “get”, what Jesus meant are freed from the bonds of mere material existence and into the real liberty of Sonship with God. Truth and fact are different: fact is cold, hard and dead; truth is warm, vibrant, and alive. Both are real, but only one yields salvation.
In contrast, I must respectfully disagree with your assertion that “science is the pursuit not of truth but of fact.” This statement presents a false dichotomy, implying that science must choose between facts and truth. Scientific inquiry, whether experimental or historical, adheres to the evidence wherever it leads. If verifying claims and substantiating facts with evidence does not result in the pursuit of truth, then what is the purpose of science? Furthermore, how can science achieve success without truth as its guiding principle? What value does a fact hold if it cannot be proven to be accurate?
I have further thoughts on this matter, but I will await your response to ascertain whether you can substantiate your claim that science exclusively pursues facts rather than truth.
Science can lead one to conclude that there must be a First Cause. It takes religious experience to reveal the loving Heavenly Father, the God of salvation, who can never be discovered by observing the physical universe. This is the root of the distinction between fact and truth.
But when I refer to “truth” I don’t intend to convey the idea of “observably correct”, which is the intension that you seem to imply (as indicated by your question below). Rather, I mean to connote a value level — a spiritual reality. We say that 1+1=2 is “true”, but that is not the meaning of the word that I intended. (I would say that 1+1=2 is a “fact” were I to stick strictly to the implied usage in my original comment, although in practice I might use the word “true”. But I would never say that 1+1=2 is truth).
Maybe some examples can illustrate where descriptive language may have failed me.
Statement of fact: The mean distance between the earth and the Sun is around 93 million miles. This fact can be deduced by observation and mathematical logic. It is scientific. But it provides no comfort to the observer, nor does it illuminate any ideal that can guide the inner life of the individual. It means no more and no less than just what it says. It’s not a principle by which to live your life; I might say this is “true” (factual), but would not call it “truth”.
Statement of truth: Greater love has no man than he who dies for his friend. Is the statement literally factual? The answer to that is subjective, and no equation, no formula nor any amount of measuring of physical objects can provide it. But it expresses an ideal, a living reality that can be very fruitful to those who see the spiritual import of that brief statement, and it therefore represents truth.
One needn’t choose between truth and fact — quite the contrary. Truth is enhanced by fact; fact is put into cosmic perspective by truth. They are complimentary, as you rightly recognize. Truth is personal and spiritual— a value level.
A scientist can live truth in his personal life, and also, simultaneously, seek to unlock secrets of the universe. He can, at once, seek the God of Salvation and also recognize the First Cause — there’s no reason that the two are incompatible except in the minds of some of the less independent thinkers. And, if he is possessed of a philosophical disposition, he will recognize the unity of the universe and that the First Cause and the God of Salvation are one and the same.
I hope this helps; I apologize for any confusion my offhand wording may have caused.
Your previous response contains several intricate points that warrant further elaboration. If you are open to the idea, I would be delighted to engage in a more detailed discussion on these matters via Discord or another suitable communication platform.
Macro Evolution is in fact not true and most denominations that have official statements accepting the theory are liberal and have women as pastors. Just drop the whole evolution thing, we are way past believing evolution is true. You don't need to ascend to that just so you can have clout with the world.
“Science is not a belief system (like religion)”
While I agree with your general tack that science and religion are distinct domains (maybe illustrated by “matter” vs. “spirit”), I think amplification on a couple of minor points may be worthwhile.
Religion is not really (merely) a belief system either. Religion is a matter of contact with the Divine; beliefs are the intellectual echoes of that contact. It’s entirely possible to have religious experience precede the formation of beliefs.
Real religion can survive in the face of the discovery of errors of belief, since the experience of knowing God, to those who know God, transcends the mere intellectual — it is an irrefutable and unshakable spiritual reality. In science and mathematics, the collapse of a postulate or assumption is catastrophic to the theory. But to one who truly knows God, there is no un-knowing, no intellectual sophistry that can cause the knower not to know what he has experienced. That’s the essence and the source of the liberty that genuine faith confers.
And don’t forget that science is founded on belief: the beliefs that the universe is comprehensible and that antecedent causation allows physical phenomena to be predicted, for starters.
Also I might suggest a distinction, if I may: science is the pursuit not of truth but of fact. Jesus said “truth will set you free”. Those who look to fact for spiritual liberation are bound to be disappointed, but those who “see”, who truly “get”, what Jesus meant are freed from the bonds of mere material existence and into the real liberty of Sonship with God. Truth and fact are different: fact is cold, hard and dead; truth is warm, vibrant, and alive. Both are real, but only one yields salvation.
Lon, a friend of mine, wanted me to ask you the following:
“Is there a difference between a proposed fact and its validity?”
Science tests proposed facts to determine their validity (truth). A search for facts without a concern for their validity is called insanity.
In contrast, I must respectfully disagree with your assertion that “science is the pursuit not of truth but of fact.” This statement presents a false dichotomy, implying that science must choose between facts and truth. Scientific inquiry, whether experimental or historical, adheres to the evidence wherever it leads. If verifying claims and substantiating facts with evidence does not result in the pursuit of truth, then what is the purpose of science? Furthermore, how can science achieve success without truth as its guiding principle? What value does a fact hold if it cannot be proven to be accurate?
I have further thoughts on this matter, but I will await your response to ascertain whether you can substantiate your claim that science exclusively pursues facts rather than truth.
Science can lead one to conclude that there must be a First Cause. It takes religious experience to reveal the loving Heavenly Father, the God of salvation, who can never be discovered by observing the physical universe. This is the root of the distinction between fact and truth.
But when I refer to “truth” I don’t intend to convey the idea of “observably correct”, which is the intension that you seem to imply (as indicated by your question below). Rather, I mean to connote a value level — a spiritual reality. We say that 1+1=2 is “true”, but that is not the meaning of the word that I intended. (I would say that 1+1=2 is a “fact” were I to stick strictly to the implied usage in my original comment, although in practice I might use the word “true”. But I would never say that 1+1=2 is truth).
Maybe some examples can illustrate where descriptive language may have failed me.
Statement of fact: The mean distance between the earth and the Sun is around 93 million miles. This fact can be deduced by observation and mathematical logic. It is scientific. But it provides no comfort to the observer, nor does it illuminate any ideal that can guide the inner life of the individual. It means no more and no less than just what it says. It’s not a principle by which to live your life; I might say this is “true” (factual), but would not call it “truth”.
Statement of truth: Greater love has no man than he who dies for his friend. Is the statement literally factual? The answer to that is subjective, and no equation, no formula nor any amount of measuring of physical objects can provide it. But it expresses an ideal, a living reality that can be very fruitful to those who see the spiritual import of that brief statement, and it therefore represents truth.
One needn’t choose between truth and fact — quite the contrary. Truth is enhanced by fact; fact is put into cosmic perspective by truth. They are complimentary, as you rightly recognize. Truth is personal and spiritual— a value level.
A scientist can live truth in his personal life, and also, simultaneously, seek to unlock secrets of the universe. He can, at once, seek the God of Salvation and also recognize the First Cause — there’s no reason that the two are incompatible except in the minds of some of the less independent thinkers. And, if he is possessed of a philosophical disposition, he will recognize the unity of the universe and that the First Cause and the God of Salvation are one and the same.
I hope this helps; I apologize for any confusion my offhand wording may have caused.
Would you be open to discussing this more in depth?
To what end?
Are you on discord?
Your previous response contains several intricate points that warrant further elaboration. If you are open to the idea, I would be delighted to engage in a more detailed discussion on these matters via Discord or another suitable communication platform.