Religions and Science-then and now

Remove all ads!

The 'Religion and Politics' having gotten off topic I thought I'd start a more general thread for anyone interested in continuing the debate.

Religion was early Man's attempt to explain what he didn't understand, which was pretty much everything. Science and medicine grew out of religion.

Science is a religion to some people. New things are constantly being discovered.

 

Well science is not my religion but to some religion is their science which is of course unfortunate. When such BS as creationism is taught to children in biology class I can't help but to shake my head and sigh deeply.

Science and religion don't mix well just like politics and religion. Therefore I feel that science should not know the word "God". My former biology teatcher used to threat us that if we wrote the word God in any of the exams we would fail them automatically.

 

I see what you are saying Nakia and I agree with it, religion is what man come up with to explain the world when he lacked the ability to check it himself. Now that we have that ability I find it stunning that man continue to favour thunder and earthquakes as the acts of various deities or spirits instead of as charged clouds and moving tectonic plates.

True, there are many things we still lack the ability to go check for ourselves but one would think that by now people would leave out invisible sentient beings from their theorizing.

 

Nice new thread, Nakia! The Religion -vs- Politics thread has long since disintegrated into something else.

Anyhoo, before we get too far gone, it's probably a good idea to jump in with some contributions about science (where I am at least part-qualified to speak), and the how of it. If you seek to distinguish science, truly, from pseudo-science and whatever else, it is necessary to know something about what, quintessentially, makes the scientific method different. Here, I turn to Karl Popper, and demarcation. Popper conjectured that the key point making science reliable was not merely testability - reproducing similar results - but falsification. Scientific theories were distinguishable in leaving themselves open to be proved wrong. Most other theories claiming scientific status (Popper was specifically concerned with Marxism and Freudian psychoanalysis, which were very much in fashion at the time) tried to prove themselves right by assembling as many examples to corroborate their suppositions as possible. A scientific theory can die upon one null result (although some of the greatest advances have come through trying to sort out why null results happen).

From this, Popper then concluded that science was concerned not with truly universal truths, but in making collections of provisional statements that were only "true" within known bounds. A far cry from Determinism and Induction; both philosphies of science that held it to be the answer.

Generally, religion seeks absolute truths, as is exemplified by God him(her?)self; the ultimate being, who is also first. Alpha and Omega (just like Tal ). In this very fundamental way, science and religion differ, as philosophies. Science - or perhaps we should just say good Science - seeks only to keep pushing the boundaries of its knowledge, even on knowing it is impossible to reach the limit. Often, religion believes it's there, and above scrutiny: you shall not put the scriptures to the test.

Science grew from those early philosopher's attempts to understand more; to move beyond mere speculation and thought, and attempt to put established ideas to the test. Many died for it (not just at the hands of the inquisition - in ancient Greece, the man who discovered the square root of 2 was killed for challenging the notion that numbers could all be expressed as fractions). But the squeezing of religon's applicability is not to kill it; far from it. It is necessary. For "God of the Gaps" is no God at all. Science is there to test what can be tested; some things simply cannot be. Morals, ethics: can these things have absolute answers - any answers - without something other than science? Religion is still relevant; of course it is. But it is not here to answer all the questions it used to. In some things, science's method is simply better, more rigorous. But it will never be able to give all of the answers.

 

Personally I find no conflict with religion and science but that is probably because at this time I am not a practicing member of any established religion.

I do find it interesting that humans seem to need to have absolutes, whether these come from religious beliefs or from science. I am constantly getting into trouble with people because I do question just about everything. Doctors do not like me, the John Birch society didn't like me and I'm always in trouble with Christians. My latest was blowing my stack and call Paul a male chauvinistic pig.

I do try to live according to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". It just seems the right thing to do.

 

Religion lives by faith, science lives by proof.

For the most part, they can function independantly, but there are cases where Science contradicts Religion, or Science seeks to do something that is not compatable with Religious moral teaching. This is where trouble arises. To some Stem Cell Research is merely more science. To others, it is creating life to destroy it.

And Evolutionism directly contradicts biblical teaching. But really, what relevence does Evolutionism really hold?

Yes and no. Science class is not where you go to learn about God, but when Scientific ethics come into play, then God cannot be ignored.

But here is one interesting question: What if Science is, in some ways, God's instruction manual? What if Shifting the tectonic plates is how God creates an earthquake (like in the old Testament). What if Lava Buildup is how God used volcanos to destroy the wicked. What if the point of these disasters in modern times is to test humanity to see if they will come to the aid of those in the line of fire from these problems?

 

I intentionally used Religions plural in the title because Christianity is only one of many different religious beliefs. Human beings interpret what is written in their Holy Books. There are inconsistancies in the Jewish/Christian Bible. ie: There are two creation stories in it. By the way, I learned this in one of my theology classes.

Not all Christians believe that the world was created in 144 hrs.

Axion: There is a God.

Therefore it is quite possible that God uses natural disasters to punish or test human beings.

IMO human beings are the only thing wrong with either religion or science. Black and white are not the only colors.

 

This could be the biggest knock against Religions of them all. Those that preach are Human, and thus imperfect, prone to errors in interpretation and sin themselves. And I understand about the colours. Religion requires more of us than simply not sinning, but to become better people.

I've heard of a quote somewhere that states that a day with God is a thousand years unto men. Therefore, Genesis chapter 1 encompasses 7000 years, including the seventh day which the Lord used to rest.

 

@ Magpie. I agree with that, nice post.

@ Gnarfflinger

Evolutionism, is it a cult or something? No christians I know think that the theory of evolution contradicts biblical teachings. What relevance? I think all the living and extinct species on this planet are pretty relevant.

I think you are threading on thin ice if you start calling natural disasters acts of God. As I understand it God is supposed to be omnipotent and benevolent. I'm sure he could find ways of testing us that don't involve killing millions of people with tsunamis, volcanos and earthquakes.

If it could be a thousand years, why couldn't it be a billion years?

 

There is really no reason religion and science can't coexist (except in the Doctor Who universe). The old and new testiment are filled with metaphor and parables as a way to teach the masses. Most christian religions believe the higher teachings of Christ were not given to the Hebrews on the mountain because they were not ready for the two commandments Christ taught -- due to their generations of enslavery the Hebrews at the time needed to 'relearn' the basics. Eye-for-an-eye was taught instead of turn-the-cheek.

Those individuals would not have readily understood a more complex version of creation, so the seven days were told -- a metaphor that many still cling to.

Many religious scientists proscribe to the belief of 'assisted evolution.' That God actually created life by guiding evolution. The only leap in acceptance of evolution is acceptance that the book of Genesis is mostly metaphor (which really is quite a leap for many).

Gnarlflinger: Your thousand years comes from either the Pearl of Great Price or Doctrine and Covenant (Mormon writings to others out there). You may find it interesting to note that not all Mormons subscribe to the writings of Scousen (sp?) and McConkie. The church bishop (not for a ward, but has an office in the church building -- I believe the church bishop is considered a general authority) for years was a man named Eyring. His father was a promenent chemist who left Princeton in the 50's to move to Salt Lake City (he taught at the University of Utah). Prof. Eyring was well respected in the field of physical chemistry and his other son teaches at Utah. The Eyring's are/were known for acceptance of scientific theories and the ability to use those theories to better explain religious questions (I believe they are proponents of assisted evolution).

 

Evolutionism is a school of science is it not? Teaching that all life can trace it's origin to a single celled being over billions of years contradicts the account given in the book of Genesis. The basic forms of all species were specifically created. The variety since then may be what you're calling evolution, but the book of Genesis specifically teaches that man is Created in the image of God. Therefore if a theory contradicts that, such as teaching that man evolved from apes, then that is the root of the problem.

The last half of what you quoted was speculative, and not deemed to be factual. In the Bible, there are references to God using Natural disasters to cleanse the wicked from the lands of his people, and sending plagues and pestilences to the unrighteous.

The quote is explicit that it is a thousand.

Even as a Metaphor, it is not consistent with Evolution as a whole. Much of it yes, but not all of it.

And a leap that, as I have stated earlier, is not fully consistent with what we've been taught all along.

Thanks T2Bruno.

If you take Creation as taught in the book of Genesis as a strating point, and then apply assisted evolution from there, it may be more readily accepted amongst Christians. Do not seek to contradict what we've been taught, but pick up from there. That explains the difference between a Pit Bull and a poodle. Perhaps the Dodo Bird was a variation of the Ostrich. But I find it insulting to be told that man evolved from apes as opposed to being taught that man was created in God's Image. As long as those two accounts contradict, then the theory of Evolution will never be fully accepted.

 

The term confused me a bit so I googled it. It turnes out that it is mostly used in anthropology and sociology and by creationists, it is, however, not used in biology. To me it seems like a term conjured by creationists to demean the theory of evolution.

You already said that one day by God could be a thousand years to humans, that implies you do not take genesis literally. Do you think ancient humans would have understood if God "told" them he used evolution to create the world. They would have had a hard tome grasping the consept of milloins of years, (let alone billons,) genetics and natural selection, don't you think.

Man did not evolve from any modern apes, we share a common ancestry. Why couldn't God have created man in his image using evolution?

Back to the topic at hand. I don't see it as religion vs. science, it's more someones morals vs. somone elses morals. After all the percentage of religious people is the same in the scientific community as it is in the rest of the population. There are also different morals within the same religion and different views on scriptures and so on. If everyone had the same morals we wouldn't have this discussion.

 

Glad you pointed this out, Sticker. This is a misconception which I hear frequently from people. Which IMO shows a lack of knowledge of what the 'Theory of Evolution' is. Who was it that said "Know your enemy."?

A problem with any discussion of this sort is that we all start with Postulates (which interestingly to me is related to the word pray.)

If the postulate is correct then the argument that follows from it may be correct. If the postulate is not correct then the argument is incorrect.

Since there are a lot of people, including Christians, that do not accept the postulate or axiom that the 'Bible is the infallible word of God' I doubt that we can ever reach agreement.

I find the different opinions interesting and educational.

 

@Nakia - it's from Sun Tzu:

In knowing the other and knowing oneself,
In one hundred battles no danger.

And, on the topic of Christianity and Evolution not necessarily being mutually exclusive, I knew a philosophy teacher at school who used to see evolution as an argument for God's existence. I can never remember exactly how she justified her proof, though.

 

I have to disagree with this. My undergraduate degree was in biology, and I had two courses on evolution in my major and another two in genetics (the two really go hand in hand).

However, I will agree with you that a major (and unfortunately common) misconception among Creationist thinking is that "man evolved from apes". Modern man and modern apes evolved form a common ancestor (in all likelihood a primate). That having been said, the split in the evolutionary tree happened millions of years ago. Granted, there were no humans millions of years ago, but then again, there were no modern apes then either. It was millions of years ago that the primate path branched, with one side ultimately leading to humans, and the other to apes.

 

I'm a cellular biology student myself. Of course genetics is a big part of the modern theory of evolution, but I was refering to the -ism in evolutionism. It implies a belief, rather than a scientific theory. You don't hear anyone being called a gravitationist.

 

Aldeth,

Evolutionism is different from a scientific belief in evolution. The term "evolutionism" refers to those people for whom evolution has changed from a scientific theory into a religious dogma in its own right. A true scientifc theory is open to being disproven by contradictory evidence. Religious dogma is not.

I do not know the exact mechanisms behind how things came to be as they are. Creationism is laughable, however, current evolution theory has holes in it large enough to drive a Mack Truck through. Neither is satisfactory.

The Creationist believes what he believes regardless of the scientific evidence. The Evolutionist believes in evolution regardless of the evidentiary and scientific problems with the theory, and is equally oblivious to any contradictory evidence. Both the Creationist and the Evolutionist, IMHO, are practicing a religion. One is open about it, the other tries to hide behind a veneer of science.

As a Catholic, I really have no dog in this fight. The Church only requires that we believe that everything was, ultimately, created by God -- but the Church does not have a position on how God achieved that end, and we must believe that humanity started with one man and one woman. Thus, as far as I am aware, the only evolutionary doctrine I must reject as a Catholic is the belief that mankind arose in different places, the name of which escapes me at the moment.

 

Nonsense.

 

The Bible says God created the Universe. It does not say how he did it or what method he used. While there are elements of the evolutionary theory that may cause concern to many religious people, I'm not one to get all worked up about it.

One fact I think many people need to bear in mind is that the Bible frequently uses poetry and literary conventions / figures of speech and as such BOTH sides who try to get overly literal with it merely betray their own ignorance.

 

Then perhaps I chose the wrong word. For this I apologize.