Turns Out, Science and Religion Get Along Just Fine

reply to post by benrl

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.

hammer?
meet nail.

reply to post by borntowatch

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

That's defensible via theology, not in the spirit of science and religion being reconcilable. Jesus being the light that would allow plant life to thrive before the Sun existed is not at all in any way shape or form agreeable to science. That's agreeable to only the first half; religion.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

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.

The OP was using Ken Ham and his debate with Bill Nye as an example to illustrate the way the media (and many others) like to portray the issue, since Ken Ham is a young earth creationist. Within the context of the original post, nowhere does the author identify with Ken Ham's beliefs. It seems like a dishonest and diversionary tactic to single out a single religion, religious text, or interpretation of that text when discussing the idea of the universe being created without giving due credit to other positions. The point of the thread was to illustrate that not ALL believers discard scientific evidence, and not ALL scientists are atheists. There is a middle ground for many, even if you yourself do not share it.

reply to post by Tearman


I was simply explaining my personal reason for one.

As I said, I experienced a confluence of events that I could only attribute one way.

Others might another, never said there was no other explanation.

We are currently witnessing the past, we live in a world where we can't even grasp the now as it happens.

Human understanding takes place from such a limited perspective it is most certainly hubris to claim any sort of understanding as definitive.

The truly intellectually honest answer is an Agnostic one,

And with that being said, I have witnessed enough for me to be swayed one way.

Others are swayed another.

Science says 4.5 billion years, religion says 6,000. Science says its perfectly natural, religion says its an abomination. Science says let's find a cure for it! Religion says we'll keep you in our thoughts. Science says condoms help prevent venereal diseases. Religion says contraception is no. Bad boy. No do that. Science and religion are compatible as long as religion may freely reject any theories it doesn't like, regardless of the science behind it.

reply to post by DeadSeraph

The OP was using Ken Ham and his debate with Bill Nye as an example to illustrate the way

…and I was using an example to illustrate…

Look you want me to switch to another example to illustrate the topic. Fine I will so you get off my back.

Islam? Okay.

…oh wait they share the same creation story.

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?

The thread topic is about not just god belief itself but religion. Re-read if you don't believe me. I already acknowledged god belief itself is 'unwinnable'. Religious dogma is on topic. Sorry for being on topic. That topic is, again, the idea religion and science are compatible. I am showing instances of it not being so. You don't like that I am. Noted.

benrl
reply to post by Tearman

 

I was simply explaining my personal reason for one.

As I said, I experienced a confluence of events that I could only attribute one way.

Others might another, never said there was no other explanation.

We are currently witnessing the past, we live in a world where we can't even grasp the now as it happens.

Human understanding takes place from such a limited perspective it is most certainly hubris to claim any sort of understanding as definitive.

The truly intellectually honest answer is an Agnostic one,

And with that being said, I have witnessed enough for me to be swayed one way.

Others are swayed another.

Oh well that's all fine. Really I'm only bothered when people don't recognize faith as a bet, but instead assert some kind of insider knowledge.

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by borntowatch

 

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

That's defensible via theology, not in the spirit of science and religion being reconcilable. Jesus being the light that would allow plant life to thrive before the Sun existed is not at all in any way shape or form agreeable to science. That's agreeable to only the first half; religion.

Ahh so the Big Bang is science
0 + 0 = everything, the whole elemental scale, light itself,chemicals, life, order, etc....the list just goes on.
I think it takes a great deal more faith believing in the big band and its order of chance creation than a creator.

The big bang is not repeatable testable or observable, its a belief that takes an unbelievable amount of faith to accept. Science is the new religion, you defend science by your faith in chance.

believe what you like

AfterInfinity
Science says 4.5 billion years, religion says 6,000. Science says its perfectly natural, religion says its an abomination. Science says let's find a cure for it! Religion says we'll keep you in our thoughts. Science says condoms help prevent venereal diseases. Religion says contraception is no. Bad boy. No do that. So you tell me if science and religion are compatible.

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

Wow. I know I am completely wasting my time by even dignifying this with a response, but do you think you are overgeneralizing the issue just a tad?

To the OP:

I didn't realize at first when I read the article you had linked that the pie chart was interactive. I was quite surprised by the data shown for scientists. I honestly didn't expect to see proponents of natural evolution in the minority (compared to the other theories combined, which aren't purely atheistic). Thanks for sharing.

reply to post by borntowatch

believe what you like

Thanks for your permission. I extend the same freedom to you.

AfterInfinity
Science says 4.5 billion years, religion says 6,000. Science says its perfectly natural, religion says its an abomination. Science says let's find a cure for it! Religion says we'll keep you in our thoughts. Science says condoms help prevent venereal diseases. Religion says contraception is no. Bad boy. No do that. Science and religion are compatible as long as religion may freely reject any theories it doesn't like, regardless of the science behind it.

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

A lot of what you claim is not true, most Christian don't agree with what you think they believe.

And a vast amount of scientist believe in a creator, I have posted it many times.

borntowatch

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by borntowatch

 

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

That's defensible via theology, not in the spirit of science and religion being reconcilable. Jesus being the light that would allow plant life to thrive before the Sun existed is not at all in any way shape or form agreeable to science. That's agreeable to only the first half; religion.

Ahh so the Big Bang is science
0 + 0 = everything, the whole elemental scale, light itself,chemicals, life, order, etc....the list just goes on.
I think it takes a great deal more faith believing in the big band and its order of chance creation than a creator.

The big bang is not repeatable testable or observable, its a belief that takes an unbelievable amount of faith to accept.

It's not clear HOW the big bang happened, only that it did. It doesn't take very much faith to accept that. One thing that is clear, is the concept of god does nothing to explain how it might have happened, that it only raises more questions. Not to mention, god is untestable.

Science is the new religion, you defend science by your faith in chance.

Or you do what actual science demands, admit that you don't know.

List of Christian thinkers in science, just a sample
en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

Physics and Astronomy

Charles Hard Townes (born 1915): In 1964 he won the Nobel Prize in Physics and in 1966 he wrote The Convergence of Science and Religion.[219]
Antony Hewish (born 1924): Antony Hewish is a British Radio Astronomer who won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1974 (together with Martin Ryle) for his work on the development of radio aperture synthesis and its role in the discovery of pulsars. He was also awarded the Eddington Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society in 1969. Hewish is a Christian.[220] Hewish also wrote in his introduction to John Polkinghorne's 2009 Questions of Truth, "The ghostly presence of virtual particles defies rational common sense and is non-intuitive for those unacquainted with physics. Religious belief in God, and Christian belief ... may seem strange to common-sense thinking. But when the most elementary physical things behave in this way, we should be prepared to accept that the deepest aspects of our existence go beyond our common-sense understanding."[221]
Antonino Zichichi (born 1929): Italian nuclear physicist and former President of the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare. He has worked with the Vatican on relations between the Church and Science.[222]
John Polkinghorne (born 1930): British particle physicist and Anglican priest who wrote Science and the Trinity (2004) ISBN 0-300-10445-6. Winner of the 2002 Templeton Prize.[223]
Owen Gingerich (born 1930): Mennonite astronomer who went to Goshen College and Harvard. Mr. Gingerich has written about people of faith in science history.[224]
Russell Stannard (born 1931): British particle physicist who has written several books on the relationship between religion and science, such as Science and the Renewal of Belief, Grounds for Reasonable Belief and Doing Away With God?.[225]
Michał Heller (born 1936): He is a Catholic priest, a member of the Pontifical Academy of Theology, a founding member of the International Society for Science and Religion. He also is a mathematical physicist who has written articles on relativistic physics and Noncommutative geometry. His cross-disciplinary book Creative Tension: Essays on Science and Religion came out in 2003. For this work he won a Templeton Prize. [note 9][226]
Robert Griffiths (born 1937): A noted American physicist at Carnegie Mellon University. He has written on matters of science and religion.[227]
Colin Humphreys (born 1941): He is a British physicist. He is the former Goldsmiths’ Professor of Materials Science and a current Director of Research at Cambridge University, Professor of Experimental Physics at the Royal Institution in London and a Fellow of Selwyn College, Cambridge. Humphreys also "studies the Bible when not pursuing his day-job as a materials scientist."[228]
Christopher Isham (born 1944): Theoretical physicist who developed HPO formalism. He teaches at Imperial College London. In addition to being a physicist, he is a philosopher and theologian.[229]
Frank J. Tipler (born 1947): Frank Tipler is a mathematical physicist and cosmologist, holding a joint appointment in the Departments of Mathematics and Physics at Tulane University. Tipler has authored books and papers on the Omega Point, which he claims is a mechanism for the resurrection of the dead. His theological and scientific theorizing are not without controversy, but he has some supporters; for instance, Christian theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg has defended his theology,[230] and physicist David Deutsch has incorporated Tipler's idea of an Omega Point.[231]
J. Richard Gott (born 1947): Gott is a professor of astrophysical sciences at Princeton University. He is known for developing and advocating two cosmological theories with the flavor of science fiction: Time travel and the Doomsday argument. When asked of his religious views in relation to his science, Gott responded that "I’m a Presbyterian. I believe in God; I always thought that was the humble position to take. I like what Einstein said: “God is subtle but not malicious.” I think if you want to know how the universe started, that’s a legitimate question for physics. But if you want to know why it’s here, then you may have to know—to borrow Stephen Hawking’s phrase—the mind of God."[232]
William Daniel Phillips (born 1948): 1997 Nobel Laureate in Physics (1997) who is a founding member of The International Society for Science and Religion.[233]
John D. Barrow (born 1952): English cosmologist who did notable writing on the implications of the Anthropic principle. He is a United Reformed Church member and Christian deist. He won the Templeton Prize in 2006. He once held the position of Gresham Professor of Astronomy.[234]
Stephen Barr (born 1953): Physicist who worked at Brookhaven National Laboratory and contributed papers to Physical Review as well as Physics Today. He also is a Catholic who writes for First Things and wrote Modern Physics and Ancient Faith. He teaches at the University of Delaware.[235]
Karl W. Giberson(born 1957): Canadian physicist and evangelical, who has published several books on the relationship between science and religion, such as The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions and Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution.
Andrew Pinsent (born 1966): Fr. Andrew Pinsent, a Catholic priest, is the Research Director of the Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion at Oxford University.[236] He is also a particle physicist, whose previous work contributed to the DELPHI experiment at CERN.[237]
Jennifer Wiseman: She is Chief of the Laboratory for Exoplanets and Stellar Astrophysics at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. An aerial of the Center is shown. In addition she is a co-discoverer of 114P/Wiseman-Skiff. In religion is a Fellow of the American Scientific Affiliation and on June 16, 2010 became the new director for the American Association for the Advancement of Science's Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion.[238]
Pamela Gay (born ????): An American astronomer, educator and writer, best known for her work in astronomical podcasting. Doctor Gay received her PhD from the University of Texas, Austin, in 2002.
Ard Louis: A reader in Theoretical Physics at the University of Oxford. Prior to his post at Oxford he taught Theoretical Chemistry at Cambridge University where he was also director of studies in Natural Sciences at Hughes Hall. He has written for The BioLogos Forum.[239]
Don Page (born ????): Canadian theoretical physicist and practicing Evangelical Christian, Dr. Page is known for having published several journal articles with Stephen Hawking.[240]

FINDING MY RELIGION / Leader of the Human Genome Project argues in a new book that science and religion can coexist happily

www.sfgate.com...

www.sfgate.com...

Collins, a physician-geneticist, led the Human Genome Project, an international research initiative that mapped all 3.1 billion base pairs in human DNA. The monumental project took a crew of scientists deep inside the uncharted landscape of the human body. At the end, they had what amounts to a blueprint for building a human being and a unique reference to use in developing diagnoses, treatments and, ultimately, ways to prevent genetic diseases. Collins is now the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute.

Once a staunch atheist and now a devout Christian, Collins puts forth in his book "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief" (Free Press, July 2006) the idea that "belief in God can be an entirely rational choice, and the principles of faith are, in fact, complementary with the principles of science."

Stormdancer777

AfterInfinity
Science says 4.5 billion years, religion says 6,000. Science says its perfectly natural, religion says its an abomination. Science says let's find a cure for it! Religion says we'll keep you in our thoughts. Science says condoms help prevent venereal diseases. Religion says contraception is no. Bad boy. No do that. Science and religion are compatible as long as religion may freely reject any theories it doesn't like, regardless of the science behind it.

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

A lot of what you claim is not true, most Christian don't agree with what you think they believe.

And a vast amount of scientist believe in a creator, I have posted it many times.

What kind of creator?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Read above post

Stormdancer777
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

Read above post

It doesn't answer my question. Are we talking about some giant invisible superhero, generically vague disembodied consciousness, what?

AfterInfinity
Science says 4.5 billion years, religion says 6,000. Science says its perfectly natural, religion says its an abomination. Science says let's find a cure for it! Religion says we'll keep you in our thoughts. Science says condoms help prevent venereal diseases. Religion says contraception is no. Bad boy. No do that. Science and religion are compatible as long as religion may freely reject any theories it doesn't like, regardless of the science behind it.

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

Science has finally arrived at 4.5 billion years old after hundreds of other guesses, no doubt the earth will be 10 billion years old in a few more years

You know AI, the bible teaches people to wash their hands when they are dirty, to segregate sick people from a healthy community, before germs had ever been identified. Science and the bible, science in the bible

www.raptureforums.com...

The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution

Given that the Church has not been an enemy to science, it is less surprising to find that the era which was most dominated by Christian faith, the Middle Ages, was a time of innovation and progress. Inventions like the mechanical clock, glasses, printing and accountancy all burst onto the scene in the late medieval period. In the field of physics, scholars have now found medieval theories about accelerated motion, the rotation of the earth and inertia embedded in the works of Copernicus and Galileo. Even the so-called “dark ages” from 500AD to 1000AD were actually a time of advance after the trough that followed the fall of Rome. Agricultural productivity soared with the use of heavy ploughs, horse collars, crop rotation and watermills, leading to a rapid increase in population.

It was only during the “enlightenment” that the idea took root that Christianity had been a serious impediment to science. Voltaire and his fellow philosophes opposed the Catholic Church because of its close association with France’s absolute monarchy. Accusing clerics of holding back scientific development was a safe way to make a political point. The cudgels were later taken up by TH Huxley, Darwin’s bulldog, in his struggle to free English science from any sort of clerical influence. Creationism did the rest of the job of persuading the public that Christianity and science are doomed to perpetual antagonism.
blogs.nature.com...
Nonetheless, today, science and religion are the two most powerful intellectual forces on the planet. Both are capable of doing enormous good, but their chances of doing so are much greater if they can work together. The award of the Templeton Prize to Lord Rees is a small step in the right direction.

OK I gotta go play

reply to post by borntowatch


That's not science, that's common sense. If I tell you that touching fire hurts, but I fail to explain the molecular process by which the flame destroys the flesh, is that science? Or how about I describe how a rainbow looks but not how it is a result of light refracting from the water? Is that science? There's no mention of microscopic organisms assaulting our immune systems. They probably blamed it on evil spirits or holy vengeance.