Science & Faith

[Jessica M]

Hola senor y senora, my Spanish is non-existant.

I was thinking just now about the "great debate" between Science and Religion, for this thought I'm going to refer to Christianity because i know more about it than other faiths.

The debate always seems to be presented as a clear us or them issue! evolution vs creation! Divine providence vs random chance! But why is this? I will admit my knowledge of scripture and minute details is not too far reaching, but does the idea of a God or Gods naturally exclude processes like chance and evolution?

I personally do not believe in God, in a Christian context let's say it is reason and cynicism to an extant. This may seem inflammatory but try to consider the following quote objectively please.

the Christian God is described as being Benevolent and Omnipotent, let us consider the existence of evil:

If God has the power to prevent evil but not the desire He is not benevolent,
If He has the desire but not the power He is not omnipotent,
If He has both the power and desire then whence comes evil?,
If He has neither the power nor the desire then why call Him God?

Aristotle I believe said this but I may be wrong. Quotes like this are often used (by me too sometimes) to retort arguments in favour of religion using reasoning. My thought now is why does there have to be this conflict? Although the more I think about it the more I think it is people's nature of feeling threatened by those who would disagree with such a fundamental part of them as their beliefs.

I may have just answered my own question in the course of asking it  sorry!

If you have any thoughts on this mini-thesis (seriously congrats on sticking with that incoherent stream) please let me know

Claire xoxo

[VeryGnawty]

If God has the power to prevent evil but not the desire He is not benevolent,
If He has the desire but not the power He is not omnipotent,
If He has both the power and desire then whence comes evil?,
If He has neither the power nor the desire then why call Him God?

Aristotle I believe said this but I may be wrong.

The problem is attributed to Epicurus, although I'm not sure if there's any evidence that he's the first one that coined the problem.  It is called the Problem of Evil (sometimes also called the Problem of Epicurus)

Is God willing to prevent Evil, but not able?  Then he is not Omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?  Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing, then whence cometh Evil?
Is he neither able nor willing, then why call him God?

[tekla]

It sounds like something Epicurus would say, no big fan of religion, he thought it got in the way of a living a happy life, imagine that.

[Michelle.]

On the flip side, isn't atheism a leap of faith as well.

So by default the agnostic is correct?

[Jessica M]

atheism is more the lack of theism, not a leap of faith but the absence of it. I am an atheist not because I desire there to be no God but because the existence of a God seems impossible to me. I cannot in earnest believe that a God exists knowing what I do (or think I do) of the world. If you get my drift.

As for Epicurus, I have only a little knowledge of Greek philosophers and couldn't be trusted to remember the right one at all, you got the gist though.

Agnosticism is correct in so far as the agnostic believes that it is impossible to know if there is a God or not. It is perhaps the most logical standpoint but seeing as God/Gods must either exist or not it is not correct in that way. It is a reasonable refusal to choose one definitive answer or the other.