Turns Out, Science and Religion Get Along Just Fine

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Bachelors:
Business Administration
Management Information Systems
Atmospheric Science

Masters:
Atmospheric Science

I specialized in Atmospheric Physics and Dynamics. I worked for the DoD via a research station in Hawaii studying Transient Luminous Events and how they can affect Low Earth Orbiters. How can they be predicted, patterns etc. During my research I got my Business Admin degree with a Minor in MIS. Once I was fed up with the amount of censorship that occurs when it comes to atmospheric research I moved into technology. My hobby is still the atmosphere Right now I am doing private research with a company right her in SoCal after hours and on the weekends. I get to go off-roading and camping a lot because of it which my wife and kids really enjoy.

Lucid Lunacy
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.

It most certainly does, its as if both sides had to take their views on faith, and should co-exist peacefully while we all try to figure out this strange wonderful world we find ourselves in.

reply to post by Bone75

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.

*face palm*

Science most definitely has a firm enough grasp to know every star in the Universe was not formed after planet Earth.

You know what forget it. Science doesn't have a firm grasp. Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around us. You should accept those as possibilities! For they are just as likely as the notion all the stars were formed after Earth.

reply to post by benrl


The only reasonable position to take on the origins of the universe (at this juncture) is that I don't know, and neither do you. Some people get a kick out of feeling they have a special insight into the """"TRUTH""" (Can't add enough quotation marks).

The real reason science and faith don't go along, is that you're not supposed to believe anything for stupid reasons. How can you take your scientific skills seriously if you are willing to indulge in fantasy just to assauge your fear of the unknown and of death? If you are not willing or able to examine your beliefs about one thing, why should you trust your ability to examine anything from a scientific standpoint. One of the cornor stones of science is a willingness to consider that you might be wrong!

The point of this thread has already been made I feel. When it comes down to it there are the vocal anti-religion, like have surfaced here, who say "YOU CAN'T HAVE BOTH!". Likewise there are the vocal anti-"science" who say "YOU CAN'T HAVE BOTH!". However, as the article in the OP points out, those people are actually in the very vocal MINORITY, and the vast majority of people believe science and god are reconcilable.

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!

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

Yes or no?

The above is a perfect example and oppurtunity to address an issue that I mentioned in one of my post.

Fundementalist: GENESIS IS LITERAL

Secular person hearing this: OH BS!.

To a trained theologian who studied the etymology and origin of the bible, I groan.

Everything in the first books in the bible, Right up to Moses.

Is a Parable, told to Moses, it is him telling the Story of the Semitic people as he understood it.

Heres quick proof for the Fundies, Who did Cain marry after he killed Abel...

If you understand Jewish views on GENTILES, you also get a clear picture on what the Dirt of the earth god separated Adam from.

It also accounts for the RETELLING in history of the Noah flood account.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Why exactly have you chosen the bible (yet again) to make your stand on? Does one need to believe in the Bible to believe the universe was created? No. So why make your stand there? Could it be because you know that the debate is ultimately unwinnable, So you make your stand in the battlefield of religious dogma in order to make your point?

If we assume the big bang theory is correct (which you must, if your reverence for accepted scientific theories is any indication), then we ultimately have a standoff that can't currently be won by either side of the argument. One side claims that "God" initiated the big bang, the other claims it just happened due to the singularity.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Again, perspective. Were the stars actually MADE? Or did they simply become visible to the observer, in this case Moses while viewing the creation from the "Mountain Top".

And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

So we know that light and dark existed on day one, which means we know the Sun was already there. However, in this description it says that NOW the Sun was made. I posit that the Sun was not actually created at this instant, that it had been created on day one per the "let there be light", and it had only now become visible in it's current state to the observer.

Likewise, the Moon and Stars would now be visible to the observer.

reply to post by Tearman


Easily,

I'm a converted Atheist, one that purposefully went to school to study religion in order to tear down the Idiots I grew up with.

I can explain logically why my understanding of modern science allows for the existence of a God, but clearly you won't listen.

It wouldn't matter to me any way, as LOGIC, was never the reason I converted.

I simply experienced somethings that my Logical mind could not attribute honestly to anything else, something as I said am sure has already fallen on deaf ears.

reply to post by DeadSeraph

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.

I have watched/listened to Craig for many years now. I have seen every debate offered on Youtube. Including the ones with Sam and Christopher. Some of the debates I have watched in full more than once.

I have only ever heard him give philosophical argument for deism. That is to say the philosophical argument never goes beyond that of 'prime mover' 'alpha omega' 'first cause' etc. I have yet to hear him extend a reasonable argument bridging the divide between god belief and religion itself. What he argues would apply equally to all other monotheistic religions since he again doesn't bridge that gap. So basically I agree with what you just said However in many of those debates he was supposed to bridge that gap per the debate topic.

God, the universe, the first cause, the last cause, the beginning of the universe, teleological principles, natural laws, mathematical certainties...

Both science and religion posit the same things—they only name them differently.

reply to post by raymundoko



I have always believed science and spirituality should compliment each other.
I see the handy work of a creator in science.

reply to post by benrl


That's fine Benrl. I know not all Christians take Genesis literally. I hope you're not suggesting that's the norm. That has not been my experience on ATS or in 'real life' in general. When I look up the descriptions of the various Christian denominations I also don't see that reflected as a norm.

Now it begs the question. If something like Genesis is not meant to be taken literally, when it appears to be a literal account, what parts should be taken literally and why? It seems to me if Genesis is taken as metaphor we have reason to extend that to other parts that may appear to be literal accounts as well.

one question:

if you take a potted plant from inside your house, - where the light permeates all areas and bounces off the walls when it is on, and does not shine at all when it is off - and put it into a closet with no light for one day, before putting it outside, will it die?

the answer is no, it will not die.
reading the passages with an objective point of view seems to be something that is hard for many people to grasp.

it should be noted that i claim no religion, but have a deep belief in a spiritual universe, of which there is only one source.
we define this source and its applications through our narrow perception that we have termed "science"
an objective stance is the only one appropriate when dealing with things of this nature.

so, here is genesis from a plausible, objective, and scientific standpoint - with the assumption of "God" - an all powerful force that governs the universe.
bible source

day 1. light permeates all things.
day 2. "god" creates heaven
day 3. "god" creates earth and flora
day 4. "god" creates the stars, sun and moon to "rule the day and the night"
*at this point the sun and moon are now responsible for the light cycle "to divide the light from the darkness" *

day 5. "god" created animal life

"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good."

*the bolded text explains a physical evolutionary cycle, with life starting in the seas*

day 6. "god" defines evolution and creates the land born animals

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

this says to me, that he created - through evolution - the template that would become man. He made "the beast of the earth" after HIS kind, HE being god.

later in the "day"

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness

like·ness noun ˈlīk-nəs
: a picture of a person
: the quality or state of being alike or similar especially in appearance

merriam webster definition

here we have a clear statement that says god made the beast of the earth after his own kind, and then, after a suitable time for evolution, imbued him with a spirit of being similar to his own, or in other words, he gave man a soul.

EmpathicBandit
...(spirituality + science) = (existence > fantasy)...

benrl
reply to post by Tearman

 

Easily,

I'm a converted Atheist, one that purposefully went to school to study religion in order to tear down the Idiots I grew up with.

I can explain logically why my understanding of modern science allows for the existence of a God, but clearly you won't listen.

It wouldn't matter to me any way, as LOGIC, was never the reason I converted.

I simply experienced somethings that my Logical mind could not attribute honestly to anything else, something as I said am sure has already fallen on deaf ears.

Even if god himself came down and revealed himself to you, you would have no way of knowing whether it was actually what it claimed to be or just something else that had the ability to trick you into believing it was god. You could choose to believe it or not. But being a thing so outside the realm of our understanding and totally untestable, your belief would be nothing but a wager. Since there is no way you could know whether it was true.

Edit: And I don't remember ever saying the existence of god is disallowed by science. But only that there's no reason to believe in one.

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by raymundoko

 

I am a scientist holding multiple bachelors degrees as well as a masters. I am also a believer in God. I believe science and religion are reconcilable. It's nice to see that even though most media wants to demonize those who believe in God/Creation the truth finds it's way out.

The idea that god might exist and the idea religion is true are distinctly separate.

If science and religions account for creation are happy co-existing then reconcile this:

1)Bible says the Earth was formed before the Sun.
2)Bible says the Earth was growing fruit bearing trees prior to the Sun existing.

You need to demonstrate this reconciliation otherwise you're just appealing to authority with your mention of various degrees.

Well this is where it gets a little boring and biblical for the average atheist, but if they quote the bible I will quote it back

The sun wasnt created before the 4th day because it wasnt needed.Jesus isnt just the Word, He is also the Light of the world
"When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

In Revelations we see Gods Glory illuminating the world

"The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp.'


Science and Christianity must be reconcilable, simply because God was the creator, science studies His design.

reply to post by raymundoko

and the vast majority of people believe science and god are reconcilable.

I think science and god are only reconcilable in the sense science knows it cannot evaluate the idea. They are separate. Religion is another matter. Religions makes truth claims about things within the known Universe thus allowing them to be evaluated.

I think some people are able to turn off part of their brain at times. Turn off the critical thinking part where it relates to certain things.

It doesn't really have anything to do with intelligence either. Intelligent people are actually better able to rationalize away inconsistencies to themselves.

So you can have very bright academics who believe in stupid things. Look at Steve Jobs. The man was pretty smart, but he was into all sorts of kooky alternative medicine.

I think though, that at their core, science and religion are polar opposites and not really reconcilable unless you 'twist' the bible verses, re-interpreting them to fit.

Bible says one thing. Sometimes it may be vague, sure, but it's generally interpreted a certain way. Then science comes along and proves it wrong. So then the religious people say, "Oh so that verse didn't really mean that at all. What it meant was this - it was a metaphor, or we were reading it wrong somehow".

They don't realise that by doing this they are just making # up. Flat out inventing BS. If you have to change the original meaning to such an extent, then perhaps it's not saying what you want it to say in the first place.

The whole thing is very nebulous and wishy washy.

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by benrl

 

That's fine Benrl. I know not all Christians take Genesis literally. I hope you're not suggesting that's the norm. That has not been my experience on ATS or in 'real life' in general. When I look up the descriptions of the various Christian denominations I also don't see that reflected as a norm.

Now it begs the question. If something like Genesis is not meant to be taken literally, when it appears to be a literal account, what parts should be taken literally and why? It seems to me if Genesis is taken as metaphor we have reason to extend that to other parts that may appear to be literal accounts as well.

It most certainly is not the Norm,

Another concept the Bible covers, is that most Christians, simply aren't.

Its called tears in the wheat, People unwilling to go beyond joining a social club, and than proceed to wrongly preach, purposefully unwilling to actually you know follow their faith.

Even with that,

There are also a vast number of "religions" if you want to extend outside Christianity that do the same.

The majority Muslim is not blowing up people, a few extreme vocal group taints it for the whole.

You get a Fred Phelps are some other fundamentalist whack job and you don't need to argue Christianity anymore as these idiots do the job themselves.


Lets take it away from religion, If I read the crib notes to say the Lord of the Rings, I would than be in no place to argue the value of the Trilogy as a whole, that is the problem.

We start this debate facing a group that doesn't even know what they really believe and have a misunderstanding that has been pandered to for so long no one argues different.

They don't even know the origins of the Christian sects they are in, let alone the greater message as a whole.

reply to post by DeadSeraph

Why exactly have you chosen the bible (yet again) to make your stand on?

The OP includes Ken Ham a Christian Creationist. I'm on topic with using the Christian Bible to discuss the idea of science and religions reconcilability. That said, if I had focused on the Quran you wouldn't have made a sound. You don't take issue with me targeting a religion, you take issue with me targeting yours. Regardless, I was on topic.

If we assume the big bang theory is correct (which you must, if your reverence for accepted scientific theories is any indication), then we ultimately have a standoff that can't currently be won by either side of the argument.

Read all my posts and you'll see I very much agree with that as it pertains to god's existence. Science and religion is another matter.