Science v. Religion

[Nightingale 0]

"no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. . . . If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people" (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18).


interesting... this kinda makes sense.

[billvon 2,400]

Yep. I think it's as silly to read the bible for scientific fact as it is to read a science textbook as the basis for your morality.

[BikerBabe 0]

I used to buy into the whole "you can't be a religious scientist" line.

Now that I'm a Christian, I know that's ridiculous. My belief is that God wouldn't have given us a rational mind and the ability to think for ourselves if he didn't want us to use it!

Science is the human way to reveal understanding of God and his amazing world, IMHO. I alsways shake my head at debates about this. Science is science and faith is faith...

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[crzjp20 0]

intresting very intresting.

One way of thinking of it from the standpoint of a christian would be to look at it like this: When we use science we are using what God enabled us to do. If he wanted to make it where we could not study science, he could simply make it not happen. Like with the tower or babble. He made it where they simply could not function anymore, and in return the did not reach their goal. As long as science doesnt try to explain God, i have no problem with it, but when people make science their God then i disagree wit hthem. but at the same time they have the right to that opinion and i will not put them down beacsue of it, i would simply disagree.

--------------------------------------------------
Fear is not a confession of weakness, it is an oportunity for courage.

[Nightingale 0]

I think that's a good philosophy.

Science is based on proof and disproof. One cannot possibly prove or disprove the existance of God. That is faith. Science isn't about faith, and faith isn't about science.

[vonSanta 0]

Religion invades science (or the other way around) when it makes and maintains claims that is contradicted by science.

Throughout the years, there has been countless examples. As a result, the Bible has begun to be read less and less literally, and more and more figuratively.

I can dig up a lot of links if needed. It is well documented that a stringent reading of the Bible will clash very hard with very well supported scientific theories.

In general, the Bible adapts to new scientific theories and not the other way around. Used to be the other way around, but thankfully we've moved beyond that.

Dawkins and Gould have had some interesting debates as to whether science can coexist with the Bible. Gould came off worse (arguing it can), and all Dawkins did was use common sense and examples - Gould's main strength was the use of a figurative interpretation of the Bible.

Of course, throughout the years, many great scientists have been theists - Pascal for instance. Some have tried to wrap science to meet religion - others have found themselves having doubts due to their discoveries.

It's an interesting topic, for sure.

I ain't making judgement calls on the existence of god or gods - there might be a deity out there, and that'd be really cool. Just saying that science and religion do clash from time to time.

Santa Von GrossenArsch
I only come in one flavour
ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst

[billvon 2,400]

> Dawkins and Gould have had some interesting debates as to
>whether science can coexist with the Bible. Gould came off worse
> (arguing it can) . . .

I'm not sure that he pushed their coexistence. His position was not that the competing theories within science and religion can coexist, it was that they are simply not valid outside their areas of expertise (their "magisterium" in his terms.) It's not that the "young earth" theory can coexist with the fossil, geological and astronomical dating that leads us to a ~5 billion year old planet, it's more that the theory that the earth was created in seven days is not legitimate outside its moral and religious lessons.

[pajarito 0]

The reason for the "alleged" conflict is that people do not know what the Scripture really teaches, neither do they understand the power of God. (Don Stewart)

Jesus said: “You are greatly mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.”
(Matthew 22:29)

[Nightingale 0]

please elaborate???

[pajarito 0]

I need a specific example first.

[Nightingale 0]

genesis, specifically, the first book, regarding the creation of the earth, sun, moon, etc.

[pajarito 0]

Are you referring to the creation in 6 days versus the scientific prediction that the universe is billions of years old?

[GARYC24 3]

Give me a week, I'll put together some things that has been discussed about Gensis!

[Nightingale 0]

both.

[pajarito 0]

I’m not going to pretend to fully understand the beginnings of the universe but here are some of my thoughts. It’s possible that the Earth, planets, moons, stars, universe are billions of years old. It’s also possible that it was all created in 6 days depending on how long 6 days is to God. Maybe Relativity comes into play where time could be changed depending on which way you’re looking at it. I can’t explain it the way it should but I saw a NOVA special on the topic one day and they were trying to explain this. They said something to the effect that, depending on whether you were looking at the Big Bang from it’s origin or from where we are now, time would appear very different. From our perspective, it might seem as though the universe was billions of years old, whereas, from the origin, it might only be 6 days (or so). It was interesting and again, I can’t explain it and give it proper credit. I’m not denying either the 6-day or billions of years theories. I think it could be either one and it wouldn’t discredit the Bible in any way.

[Nightingale 0]

I could see that...

[pajarito 0]

I wish I knew the name of it. I'd buy it if I could. I'm going to look around and try. It was a very interesting theory.

I like your opening statement. I agree that we don't have all the answers and I believe we're not supposed to. I don't see that as religion being in conflict with science, however. It depends on how you approach the problem, I think. From the perspective that, we don't know everything and science is tool provided us by God to work toward better understanding, or if you only believe, from our extremely limited boundaries and abilities, only what we can prove.

[Nightingale 0]

Pope Leo was an interesting guy.

[happythoughts 0]

Numbers in the Bible.
7=completeness
3=mystery
40=long period of time

It rained for 40 days, 40 nights.
They wandered in the wilderness for 40 years.

The universe was created in 7 days.

This was the explanation given by a speaker that I heard. Any time that a number is given, it usually has a significance, not necessarily an exact reference.

[pajarito 0]

Possibly...but I don't think your number definition would fit throughout.

Other instances in the Bible appear to be exact. For instance, resurrection in 3 days. I also believe Peter denied Christ 3 times before the rooster crowed.

Who's to say...Still doesn't put religion in conflict with science (again, IMHO)

[Nightingale 0]

well, if 3 refers to a "mystery" it could be the divine mystery of the resurrection. in the case of peter, it could mean that it is a mystery how many times he denied Jesus, but that it was more than one and less than a whole lot.

dunno.

[pajarito 0]

It sure would be nice to have a formula to give answers to the Bible but I personally believe some literal statements. i.e. "tear this temple down and I will rebuild it in three days. (referring to the resurrection)" Quote from Jesus himself. Sounds pretty specific in this example to me. I'm not saying that there's not figurative language in the bible to explain things. I'm just saying that there are also specifics.

[Tink1717 2]

Quote

interesting... this kinda makes sense.

No, it doesn't. When two men of science disagree, they wait. They know that the evidence will eventually surface that will settle the issue. When men of religion disagree, they form sects. cults and denominations that denounce and belittle the other side. Science is the pursuit of truth. Religion is the pursuit of dogma.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[Nightingale 0]

science CAN'T be the pursuit of truth. Science cannot prove. it can only disprove.

[Tink1717 2]

Wrong. Science is all about what can be proven. Moreover, it is about what can be proven and later verified.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717