Religion vs. Science?

[Lunalle]

Hey all,

So I've posted elsewhere that "God and science are directly opposed.", and people have asked me why I say this. Before we get to why, I think it is important to clarify the statement.

"Most major world religions directly oppose some of the theories of science, as they exist today."

Now, science is such, that we may come to a point where no scientific theories oppose religion X. Humanity is such that religion X might wipe out science (at least as we know it). Neither of those is true, right now.

Now, because there is a major disagreement between fundamentalist members of the majority of world religions, and scientists about what should be taught to our children in science class, I expect that you all have a sneaking suspicion that I am right, but I don't know, maybe not.

For example, the biggest disagreement is currently "creationism" (or whatever label you want to call it), vs. Evolution:

Holy Bible:
Genesis 1:11, Genesis 1:20, Genesis 1:24-28

Theory of Evolution (or even the original Theory of the Origin of Species) - I don't have the theory handy, so I'll paraphrase, but feel free to give it a read if you don't trust my paraphrasing:
The variety of life that we see today originates from a common ancestor.

The Theory of Evolution has mountains of evidence to support it (contrary to the claims of some religious people).In fact, some of the evidence has come from fundamentalist Christian scientists (who I greatly respect for their honesty). Keep in mind that in the world of science "Theory" is the pinnacle of knowledge. We can get in to that if you'd like, but I'd suggest you read a book or two about it, and keep an open mind.

So, there's an example of a scientific theory, and the Holy book of a major world religion in direct conflict. On that basis, I say that religion and science are opposed, and you can honestly only pick one or the other.

[Silvertusk]

Looks like you are trying to pick a fight. I find no conflict with science and my belief in God and my Saviour. In fact it was science that brought me to faith.

[Lunalle]

Looks like you are trying to pick a fight. I find no conflict with science and my belief in God and my Saviour. In fact it was science that brought me to faith.

I'm sorry it looks that way to you. I've already explained why I posted this:

[quote="Lunalle""]So I've posted elsewhere that "God and science are directly opposed.", and people have asked me why I say this...[/quote]

The reason I posted it in a new thread, is it is a very big topic. It encompasses science, religion, and politics.

Hope that clears things up.

Cheers!

[Danieltwotwenty]

The Bible is not in conflict with evolution, who says that Genesis has to be only interpreted as literal. I would say mans understanding of the Genesis story is incomplete and we cannot say for sure exactly how God bought life to this planet. The Bible is not a science book, it is the why not the how, if your using the Bible to figure out how God did it you have missed the point entirely.

We also have to read Genesis in it's proper context, could you imagine God explaining evolution to a goat herder in the middle if the desert. I think God told them only what they needed to know to get his point across about the fall of man and the separation between us and God.

There are many writing styles in the Bible, poetry, allegory, hyperbolic, historical, etc.... We should do our best to not read into them what is just not there.

Not every Christian lives in America, and American Y.E creationists do not represent the majority of Christians, even the Catholic Church accepts evolution as fact and they are the largest Christian denomination.

I have no issues accepting the current science of today, there is absolutely no conflict with my faith in God. If anything it blows my mind at how ingenious this world is, evolution is a fascinating process and I see the work of God's hand in it.

But you never know, evolution may be proven incorrect one day, who knows really.

Dan

[Lunalle]

A few quick points.

I'm glad you respect science. Thankfully, the majority of self claiming Christians do.

I don't mean to attack your faith. I want to make absolutely clear I'm talking about religious doctrines.

As a human, I can see a lot of things God could do, including explaining and convincing a goat herder of the Theory of Evolution. The fact that he didn't, and he didn't improve the goat herder's mind to the point where he could understand it... well... to me... that says a whole lot of bad, and places a lot of God's attributes in question. Also, what's more important to me, is morality. Why'd God let these people do so many appalling things, out of ignorance of the moral implications? This is one big reason I am against the doctrines of religion (which the religious attribute to God).

I don't expect science to conflict with your faith in God. I expect it to conflict with religious doctrines. It's almost not fair. If you compare (nearly) anything today, to 2000+ years ago, its better today. The problem is when people today believe that the "truths" of 2000+ years ago, is better than the "truths" of today.

Hope this clarifies things, and doesn't make me look quite as bad.

Cheers!

EDIT: I know N.A. Y.E. creationists are not the majority, but they're a well funded, well protected group. Please don't underestimate the damage they're trying to do.

[jlay]

I don't expect science to conflict with your faith in God. I expect it to conflict with religious doctrines. It's almost not fair. If you compare (nearly) anything today, to 2000+ years ago, its better today.

Chronological snobbery. Get some new tricks. This is old hat for everyone here.

[Lunalle]

Chronological snobbery. Get some new tricks. This is old hat for everyone here.

Um, wow! Sure, let's not play games, fine with me. If you want a verbal brawl, please PM me.

[TheArtfulDodger]

As a human, I can see a lot of things God could do, including explaining and convincing a goat herder of the Theory of Evolution. The fact that he didn't, and he didn't improve the goat herder's mind to the point where he could understand it... well... to me... that says a whole lot of bad, and places a lot of God's attributes in question. Also, what's more important to me, is morality. Why'd God let these people do so many appalling things, out of ignorance of the moral implications? This is one big reason I am against the doctrines of religion (which the religious attribute to God).

Without knowing all that God knows and his ultimate purpose of creation, it is impossible for us to accurately discern the reasons behind some of his actions. I mean, think of how boring it would be for us now if 2000 years ago Jesus had told us exactly how everything the world works (from human biology to fundamental particle physics) . Seriously though, every action has it's negative consequences and that would be no exception. The question is whether or not those negatives would be outweighed by the positives....that's really impossible to say.

[B. W.]

Lunalle

What is the name of this website?

Next, please review a few of these articles from the link provided....

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... cisms.html
-
-
-

[Lunalle]

B.W.

As you requested, I reviewed this article, as it is directly relevant to what I was talking about. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html

This is a terrible article. I went to contact the author, and found the usual cop out: My site "has become very popular and I am now receiving more e-mails than I can handle."

At least the YECs are more honest than the apologists.

Just as an FYI, when someone points out what makes an article bad, you probably shouldn't ask them to read an article that is bad.

[RickD]

B.W.

As you requested, I reviewed this article, as it is directly relevant to what I was talking about. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html

This is a terrible article. I went to contact the author, and found the usual cop out: My site "has become very popular and I am now receiving more e-mails than I can handle."

At least the YECs are more honest than the apologists.

Just as an FYI, when someone points out what makes an article bad, you probably shouldn't ask them to read an article that is bad.

Lunalle,

FYI, the writer of that article is the owner of the website which includes the forum you are on. I'm not saying that to tell you that you can't disagree with the article, but you can't just say, "This is a terrible article." without an explanation. Please explain why you think the article is terrible.

[Lunalle]

I assume as much, and as I said, I was going to provide the author with a critique, but he doesn't seem to be open to such.

Now, an explanation of why I said the article was terrible.

Pros:
- Lots of references
- Good layout
- Proper format (Title, Author Name, Introduction, Purpose, Main Content, Conclusion, Additional Information and References)

Cons:
- The article is an opinion piece about poor translation and missing information. (A better method is to work with the author to correct the translation, and have the author of the original text provide information about the translation problem).
- The author starts out the "Purpose" part of the article by painting the original text in an unfavorable light, while still trying to defend it.
- The author claims the word "day" is a poor translation of the Hebrew word "yom", yet continues to use the English word "day", and give it multiple meanings. Yet, in the original text, the meaning of the word "day" is clearly defined EVERY TIME it is used. "And there was evening and there was morning, one day." (Of course, this clear definition is rejected in another article.)
- The author cherry picks his quotes, and fails to address the confusing original text fully. The author seems to contradict the original text with no explanation.
- The author does not reference the original text in the original language (The most important reference is nowhere to be found).

I'll stop here, it should be more than enough. I do not know the author's credentials, but I would not expect this paper to receive a passing grade, in a grade 12 English class. In my opinion, the article generates more confusion than the original text, and should be removed from publication.

[neo-x]

A few quick points.

I'm glad you respect science. Thankfully, the majority of self claiming Christians do.

I don't mean to attack your faith. I want to make absolutely clear I'm talking about religious doctrines.

As a human, I can see a lot of things God could do, including explaining and convincing a goat herder of the Theory of Evolution. The fact that he didn't, and he didn't improve the goat herder's mind to the point where he could understand it... well... to me... that says a whole lot of bad, and places a lot of God's attributes in question. Also, what's more important to me, is morality. Why'd God let these people do so many appalling things, out of ignorance of the moral implications? This is one big reason I am against the doctrines of religion (which the religious attribute to God).

I don't expect science to conflict with your faith in God. I expect it to conflict with religious doctrines. It's almost not fair. If you compare (nearly) anything today, to 2000+ years ago, its better today. The problem is when people today believe that the "truths" of 2000+ years ago, is better than the "truths" of today.

Hope this clarifies things, and doesn't make me look quite as bad.

Cheers!

EDIT: I know N.A. Y.E. creationists are not the majority, but they're a well funded, well protected group. Please don't underestimate the damage they're trying to do.

I would like you to please be specific about the "religious doctrines".

Lunelle, if you rebutting a YEC doctrine than you are preaching to the choir on the most part. We have several YEC members here and they are respected board members. You can of course debate YEC position all you want but many christian do not prescribe to it. So you should be specific and also that you should not assume that christians, such as OEC's, T.E's have to trash their book and then agree with evolution. They do not believe that to be the case.

Your point that the original text calls "day" a "day" can be challenged, depends on how you approach the text. And while I do think the text supports YEC, many christians differ and they have good reasons too. So there is a reasonable margin of interpretation which exists.

As a side point, you are not aware of the original languages and texts either, would it not be best for you to study it first yourself and then critique?

If you compare (nearly) anything today, to 2000+ years ago, its better today. The problem is when people today believe that the "truths" of 2000+ years ago, is better than the "truths" of today.

Sadly you are talking about dogma, but the tenets of christian faith have no need for updation...love your enemies, love your neighbours, love your God, turn the other cheeks. Dogma I agree should be revised when possible in the best interest of church and man, having humanities as the center of the reformation. But somethings merit such a change others don't. The organized church throughout the reformations have revised a lot of what they did and they surely will in the future if they hope to be successfulto be a place in the world where men could come to and seek solace in God.

There is nothing in faith which is not truthful today but was 2000 years ago. Science facts are not faith and just because past churches had positions on such things means its our faith, its not. Its dogma and good for us, its not a requirement at all.

[Lunalle]

Hey Neo,

Just a few quick points where I don't agree with you.

So there is a reasonable margin of interpretation which exists.

It is not reasonable to interpret the infallible word of a being that is all knowing and all powerful.

As a side point, you are not aware of the original languages and texts either, would it not be best for you to study it first yourself and then critique?

Complicated question.... if I were to offer an interpretation of the original text besides a literal one, it would be best for me to study it first myself. However, I was critiquing the article, not offering an interpretation of the original text. I did study the article before critiquing.

If you compare (nearly) anything today, to 2000+ years ago, its better today. The problem is when people today believe that the "truths" of 2000+ years ago, is better than the "truths" of today.
Sadly you are talking about dogma, but the tenets of christian faith have no need for updation...

No, I'm not. I'm talking about this attitude of holding anything above "updation". You're doing exactly what I pointed out is a serious stumbling block to progress.

There is nothing in faith which is not truthful today but was 2000 years ago. Science facts are not faith and just because past churches had positions on such things means its our faith, its not.

I assume you mean religious faith? You're right. It is bad now, and it was bad then. Science "facts" destroy faith, because they provide "facts".

Sorry if that is kind of harsh. It feels like I'm re-explaining things over and over again, because people don't understand what I'm trying to say.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Hi Lunalle

I just wanted to point out that the Bible is not the infallible word of God, the Bible is a collection of books inspired by mans interactions with God. It is inerrant in the sense that it conveys God's message to his people. Jesus is the direct word of God and not the Bible, it is possible for the Bible to contain errors relating to science, errors with copying etc... Because it was written from a human perspective.

Dan