Turns Out, Science and Religion Get Along Just Fine

all things are dual in nature; such is the law of polarity.

for some - science > spirituality, for others spirituality > science, but its more like (spirituality + science) = (existence > fantasy)

those who cannot accept this idea for either reason are simply farther behind in their cycle than those who do.

"science" is only our observation of universal "laws" and properties that are inherent with or without our observation being applied to them. It stands to reason that these had an origin - whatever that origin is.

Random spontaneity? i think the chicken has something to say to the egg about that one.

reply to post by peck420

Is the sun required for plant life?

Certainly for trees to grow to maturation and bear fruit….

You also seem to be incapable of recognizing that, per the bible, the 'light' (which would contain everything the plants require from the sun) was introduced on day 1. It just wasn't coalesced into a 'sun' until after the Earth.

Again no. You didn't comprehend those passages. Not trying to sound condescending but you truly didn't.

What you're stating about the light is irrelevant.

Genesis clearly states:

1)The light didn't reach the Earth until day 4
2)The 'Great Light that rules the day' and Stars were not created until day 4
3)Trees were growing and bearing fruit on day 3

You can argue I am incapable of understanding the Bible all you want but this couldn't be more clear nor could it be more in conflict with science.

Now, I have a very serious question for you:

Are you eager to throw away religion and all that it has brought humanity?

Red hearing to the topic matter.

The OP said science and religion is reconcilable. I am demonstrating it is not with the Bible's account for Creation.

If you want my answer…my answer is religion has more cons than pros.

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by peck420

 

Is the sun required for plant life?

Certainly for trees to grow to maturation and bear fruit….

Really...so my herb garden (in my basement...no, not that kind of 'herb') is a figment of my imagination? There is light, yet no sun...literally, no windows on that facing.

Genesis clearly states:

1)The light didn't reach the Earth until day 4
2)The 'Great Light that rules the day' and Stars were not created until day 4
3)Trees were growing and bearing fruit on day 3

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

So...the Earth has evenings and mornings, but no light...got it!

You can argue I am incapable of understanding the Bible all you want but this couldn't be more clear nor could it be more in conflict with science.

edit on 20-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

Your cherry picks and misrepresentations speak for themselves.

reply to post by intrptr

Thats impossible. Without photons there is no photosynthesis.

I think you missed the comment chain I agree with you.

reply to post by peck420

Dear God I don't believe in read the passages I showed. Look them up yourself.

What you are saying about the light doesn't matter. Genesis states that no light is reaching the Earth until day 4.

It also says the stars were made on day 4.

So lets isolate this.

Of what we know of science!

Were all the stars in the Universe formed after the Earth existed? After the Earth had thriving plant life?

Yes or no?

Lucid Lunacy
Red hearing to the topic matter.

Only to the biased.

The OP said science and religion is reconcilable. I am demonstrating it is not with the Bible's account for Creation.

And you are only capable of doing so via cherry picking...interesting.

If you want my answer…my answer is religion has more cons than pros.

Was the saving of western science a pro or a con?

I'm not a religious man, by any means, but I hesitate to criticize those that provided the foundations for my current beliefs in science. For, without them, science would have never survived for me to believe in it in the first place.

Is there errors? Of course. Granted, I can find magnitudes more errors in modern day science, let alone the entire history of science, or even just the founding writings for every scientific field. It is how we move forward from those errors, not how we nit pick them, that will define our progress forward.

Watching modern science degenerate into a bunch of nit-pickers has been rather...depressing.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


It's all about perspective. It could be that the atmosphere was much thicker (which we have proof of due to the Vostok ice cores) to the point that if you looked up you just saw light...you didn't specifically see a burning round object we call the sun, and definitely not stars. Imagine a fully cloudy day with no rain. All you see is light. And plants are fully capable of growing in this atmosphere. In fact, the fossilized plants we find were perfectly habitable for a low light environment. My advanced degree is in atmospheric physics, so this is actually a perfectly reasonable explanation.

Hopi Indians even have a oral story about a time where there was light but no sun, when man didn't tell time. You see, Hopi's believed that the sun now is not the original sun and that there used to be a "better light". This was called the Purple Dawn, the first phase of creation. They described is as basically diffused light across a purple sky. Then it moved to a diffused yellow light, the second phase of creation, The Yellow Dawn. THEN the actual Sun that they could visually see appeared to them, The Red Dawn. They then worshiped the Sun as their creator.

Ultimately I am not going to debate on this topic, because you either believe or you don't. It's up to you to make that Journey on your own. However, the account of genesis does not disagree with what could happen from an observable scientific standpoint. It's all about perspective.

reply to post by raymundoko

Ultimately I am not going to debate on this topic,

Then why go half way at all. I am willing to debate it.

because you either believe or you don't.

This topic was about the reconciliation of science and religion not about faith alone.

However, the account of genesis does not disagree with what could happen from an observable scientific standpoint. It's all about perspective.

It most absolutely does. You can't wiggle out of it with perspective.

The Creation story states clearly all the stars in the Universe were created after the Earth had not just formed but had life. This is not agreeable to the observations made by science.

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by peck420

 

Dear God I don't believe in read the passages I showed. Look them up yourself.

What you are saying about the light doesn't matter. Genesis states that no light is reaching the Earth until day 4.

It also says the stars were made on day 4.

So lets isolate this.

Of what we know of science!

If I tell you I have water and point at the ocean, and you tell me you have water and point at glass of water...are we both right or wrong?

The tale of Genesis is the tale of all creation and the tale of what 'creations' were given specifically to the Earth.

Were all the stars in the Universe formed after the Earth existed? After the Earth had thriving plant life?
Yes or no?

Unknown...and neither of us have science that can currently prove otherwise.

Between theories of multiverse, cyclic theory, m-theory, etc, we can't actually claim to 'know' anything at this point. Hell, anything is currently possible...literally, anything...

reply to post by peck420

Unknown...and neither of us have science that can currently prove otherwise.

What???

You have an advanced degree in physics but you don't think science has shown us that stars existed before the Earth was formed??

Hell, anything is currently possible...literally, anything…

Anything. One of those possibilities is the Bible being completely untrue.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Perspective. If the atmosphere was thicker, no stars would be seen at night...on the 4th day a change obviously happened which now made the sun and moon clearly visible. That also means stars are now visible. Perspective. You have to understand that the Genesis creation account was written by Moses when "Elohim showed Moses a vision of creation." This happend from the viewpoint of the top of "the mountain" wherever that is. So imagine watching a movie of creation that you have to write a report on. You don't know what exactly is going on because you can only see the effects from this one vantage point on the earth, but you are going to write it down as best you can.

I personally do not adhere to a literal 7 day creation. I believe they were creative periods of an undetermined amount of time. I came to this conclusion based of of several other instances in both the bible and quran which specifically state that a day to god can be like a thousand years to man. David even says that that a thousand human years are the "blink of an eye" to god. So basically, a day to God could be thousands, millions or billions of years to a man.

Its a fallacy that Religion and Science can't co-exist.

It comes down to fundamental misunderstanding by both sides of the debate.

Usually this fallacy comes from a very VOCAL group of faithful, and not the greater whole, even the Catholic church embraces science, one of the largest religions in the world.

reply to post by benrl


Exactly, and on the other side it comes from the dominant voice of the atheistic naturalists.

In fact, this made me remember my training when I got to my research position in HI. The head of the department said that we can only discuss science. No Religion and No Politics, because we don't discuss fairy tales...

So right away it was obvious this guy was anti-god and anti-establishment, and right away insulted over half the room saying that if we believed in god we believed in fairy tales. His point was made clear: If you believed in God keep it to yourself or he would make sure you went nowhere.

Most people outside of my circle of friends assume I am either Atheist or Agnostic...they are usually shocked to learn my actual beliefs because I never talk about it. I'm definitely not an evangelical

reply to post by raymundoko

I personally do not adhere to a literal 7 day creation

In my strong opinion people choose to not take things literally in the Bible when it disagrees with reason and not because they were necessarily intended to be taken metaphorically.

I believe they were creative periods of an undetermined amount of time. I came to this conclusion based of of several other instances in both the bible and quran which specifically state that a day to god can be like a thousand years to man. David even says that that a thousand human years are the "blink of an eye" to god. So basically, a day to God could be thousands, millions or billions of years to a man.

Sure. I'm not trying to suggest how long a Day is in Genesis. One day or a million years doesn't negate what I have said. What I have shown the Bible has said. Which includes, again, stating all the stars were formed after the Earth. We know that's not true. That's not reconciled with what science knows..

I am a scientist holding multiple bachelors degrees as well as a masters.

What are your degrees in by the way?

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by intrptr

 

Thats impossible. Without photons there is no photosynthesis.

I think you missed the comment chain

I agree with you.

Whoops you're right. Sorry, my bad.

reply to post by raymundoko


Yep, even from a completely materialist point of view, without having to discount some aspects of modern cosmology, you can't arrive at "THERE IS NO OUTSIDE CAUSES PERIOD"

you just can't,

Yet suggest the Universe is a hologram running on some super advanced Aliens computer or even a Human one, and that we are all simulations in an electric universe. WIll easily get more traction in certain circles, when essentially that is the GOD debate right there with just different terminology thrown in .

reply to post by benrl

you can't arrive at "THERE IS NO OUTSIDE CAUSES PERIOD"

You're right.

We can't. Not the atheists, we as in all of us.

Atheists can't prove god doesn't exist for the same reason the faithful can't prove it does.

It [if it exists] is outside of nature. What we can know [scientifically *and that is the premise of the thread] is constricted to what is within nature. Within the known Universe. This means atheist's can't prove it doesn't exist but it also means the theists belief is grounded in faith and not evidence. This limitation goes both ways.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

Have you ever seen a star form? How about a planet? You're speaking as if science has a firm grasp on how these things work, yet it seems every new discovery in the cosmos sends scientists back to the drawing board.

reply to post by raymundoko


I believe in God.

I believe in Science.

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. In many ways, they can complement one another.

Problems arise with strict, literal interpretations of The Bible as an example.

Likewise, scientists who get stuck in their own paradigms and who are not willing to view alternative theories are just as troublesome.

Imagine what the world might be like, and the discoveries we could find if there were more fusion between the areas.

reply to post by raymundoko


Star and flag, sir. I've been saying the same thing for years, but it seems that certain people on both sides of the argument just keep screaming over top of each other and ignoring the rest of us who hold rational positions on the nature of science and reality, and spirituality's role in the latter.

It was incredibly refreshing for me to discover Christian apologist William Lane Craig and his website reasonable faith. While craig is infamous in atheist circles for his debates against the likes of Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, What is often overlooked about Craig is his respect for and appreciation of science. Craig naturally approaches his debates from a Christian perspective since he identifies as a Christian, but the core of his philosophical points are applicable to any theistic faith and indeed to deism. It is this ability to reconcile the material and scientific world with greater philosophical issues that is too often overlooked by Craigs detractors.

The world would be a far better place if more people were capable of approaching the subject in such a way. It's rather unfortunate that the more radical people from both sides of the argument are often the loudest, but hopefully they are the minority.

I really do believe that some of the more mysterious aspects of our reality will only be understood fully once we are able to reconcile the spiritual with the material through science. Quantum weirdness within certain disciplines of scientific research seems to be slowly leading us in that direction, despite the stubborn protests of some, and the refusal to acknowledge any such similarity of the two worlds by others.

Great thread!