Turns Out, Science and Religion Get Along Just Fine

reply to post by raymundoko

Yet I am living proof that you are wrong. I am religious in that I read religious books nightly. I believe in one god who created all things and sent his son to die for our sins. I believe in the Genesis account of creation because from a scientific standpoint it isn't wrong. I am also a holder of multiple degrees and advanced degrees in atmospheric science.

Yet you already admitted when a member asked if you ever tried to test it with your science that you never had, nor planned to. So what relevance does your science degrees hold here other than an appeal to authority??

I would highly suggest everyone interested in this topic read "The Science of God" by Gerald Schroeder and another book of his, "Genesis and the Big Bang" I read this first book about 20 years ago, and although there are some holes in it, in my opinion, he does an elegant job of arguing the cosmological and theological cases of our Universe.

An excerpt from the former:

If the Bible is true, why doesn’t it mention dinosaurs? I've been asked that question hundreds of times in places as far-flung as Jerusalem, Los Angeles, Adelaide, and Capetown. It seems to be the universal (or more modestly, the global) biblical perplexity.

Dinosaurs, of course, are a foil for a more basic question: Has science replaced the Bible as the ultimate source of truth? Nietzsche claimed the discoveries of Copernicus, Galileo, and Darwin had laid God and the Bible definitively to rest. In the spring of 1966, Time magazine wondered if he might have been correct, asking on its cover,"Is God Dead?" Nietzsche’s argument is hardly new. Voltaire thought it humorous that this putative God of the Bible would be interested in the affairs of life within the thin film of biosphere that coats the Earth. Voltaire misperceived the biblical concept of an infinite Creator, not to mention the signidcance of our biosphere. Compared to infinity, are the 1027 that make up our Earth significantly smaller than the 1056 grams of the entire universe? But for him, Copernicus was enough. We aren't the center of the universe, so the Bible must be misconceived.

Misconceptions are what the great debate is all about. Today universities have science classes galore on all phases of the mechanics of the universe, from black holes to bacteria. Unfortunately, scientific investigation stops at an account of how the universe functions. It cannot go further. The attempt to discern if a purpose to existence underlies the how is left as a private exercise, one that is usually neglected. And so the quest that underlies the question of dinosaurs remains. It is a topic guaranteed to draw a full house.

Incidentally, I'm not Catholic, but went to a prestigious Jesuit University on scholarship. I had to take 3 semesters of religion for the core requirement and was amazed and surprised by my first exposure in a 100 level class called "The Old Testament" taught by a 70+ year old Priest. His underlying theme in the course was "exegesis." or a "critical explanation or interpretation of a text, especially a religious text." He readily admitted that the old testament was a collection of stories handed down orally as a record of a people and by the time it was written down, suffered from "the telephone game."

Indeed, he related most of the miracles in the old testament to natural causes; the exigency wasn't in the how, but in the what; the miracles were timely and necessary, hence making them miracles in meaning. He went out of his way to not only dispel, but make fun of a fundamentalist point of view. Of course the Jesuits teach a Liberal Arts education and are staunch advocates of "The Scientific Method". I was completely refreshed by this point of view and as an 18 year old, amazed and surprised.

That viewpoint certainly aligned with what I had always felt, (I have a cell biology background, but am a Christian), that we have these beautiful and elegant laws that governed the Universe in chemistry, biology, and physics, but that a Creator was the author of those laws. That neither makes life less miraculous, nor science less fundamental.

I posted something a little along these lines a few days ago if you're in interested in either.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Fundamentalists on either side of the debate, as I believe in all issues, miss the point entirely. We have the ultimate gift of free will and ability to navigate and unravel the mysteries of the Universe with our brain and our soul simultaneously; exactly as I believe our Creator intended. Sheep are not the dominant lifeform on this planet.

I would be an atheist now if I could not have reconciled religion and science in my early twenties.
I think it's all the same, as someone stated earlier, with just different names.
With science, I recognize that I am made of atoms, formed from particles made of energy.
Rationally, I can argue that this makes me a pattern of energy, albeit a complex pattern.
I don't know about you but I believe I am self aware, conscious and exist.
How can I, such a small pattern of energy, exist and have thought and self direction but deny this attribute to larger patterns?
How can I possibly state with any intelligence that the universe and all creation CANNOT be self aware or conscious?

Have you seen the images of the known universe?
It's almost creepy how it looks like a map of neurons in our own brain.

reply to post by ElohimJD

No it says light shown forth from the stars on the 4th day.

Genesis, 4th Day:
1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

It took 3 days of re-creating before the Earth's destroyed atmosphere cleared away the dust particles preventing the star light from reaching the surface to see.

The sun and stars were already there, they just couldn't be seen "for signs of times and seasons" prior to day 4 of re-creation week due to the state of the planet prior to it's re-creation.

Are we reading the same Genesis? You mentioned this stuff in another thread and I asked for the passages. You never replied with them. Until you do I am just going to assume you're making it up.

reply to post by QuantumKat


From reading your post along with the excerpt and links I honestly have zero problems with what you have put forward.I have often wondered if there is more to the universe and existence than what I can see as the physical and calculable. I haven't dismissed the possibility, but I have dismissed the dogma attached to religions.

I am absolutely certain that there isn't a single religion on earth that is an authority of the spirit if such exists. By the way you may enjoy some books Titled Conversations with God by Neale Donald Walsch I found the books fascinating even if they are not true they have some very wise inspiring messages which has certainly shaped my thought process. Of course there is much that goes against established religion in them (the dogma). I guess you would have to read them to see what I mean.

Like I said before I have no problem with the belief in a creator/higher power/god/soul, and I do think such beliefs are completely compatible with science although they are not necessary in science. On the other hand, religion and science are not compatible.

Drah1168
Have you seen the images of the known universe?
It's almost creepy how it looks like a map of neurons in our own brain.

I just watched the video of the 3D mapping of the known universe last night on TED talks with George Smoot. It was incredible and just as you described. That was my first thought, "Look at the Big Brain on the Universe!" (apologies to Tarentino).

reply to post by Grimpachi


Nice post, thank you, and not just because you didn't shoot me full of holes

I've studied religion and science all of my life...literally. And my existential angst has always been what I perceived as the delta between what we experience and what we "know" of feel. I would agree there is no one written answer that satisfies this yearning, and I think its incredibly unfortunate that dogmatic fundamentalists on any side only serve to widen the gulf.

That is one of the reasons I found one Catholic Priest's viewpoint so....refreshing and it "felt" right to me.

My acquaintances know my central tenet is that "God authored mathematics and science". It keeps it elegant and simple for me. My particular Christian views don't really align anywhere exactly but find lots of great things, and I certainly have studied non-Christian religions in detail. I tend to adopt all those axioms that most religions of peace have in common, and they are really so numerous I couldn't list them all. A little Jung, and little Freud, and little Joseph Campbell are all in there too. I think my Creator is just fine with that. In my view, he gave me my thinker, he can manage the result.

I believe we are moving toward a point where these two disparate ways of trying to explain the how and why are moving together....at least we're having the discussion, one we were not having a few decades ago.

reply to post by Grimpachi

By the way you may enjoy some books Titled Conversations with God by Neale Donald Walsch I found the books fascinating even if they are not true they have some very wise inspiring messages which has certainly shaped my thought process. Of course there is much that goes against established religion in them (the dogma).

Oh…I was always under the impression it was Christian in nature. I was mistaken? I might give them a read..

You might enjoy this one. I really did. It's not religious in nature at all. It's speculative of course but it's good food for thought. If I remember the basic idea is that 'god' is pure consciousness, underlying all reality, and matter came forth from it. Not an unfamiliar metaphysical idea of course. What I found interesting was his idea that consciousness doesn't arise from the brain, instead the brain is essentially a filter. A filter that limits the consciousness we receive from the source in a way that is manageable to us. Something to that effect. Even that is not new since it's similar to the whole emanation from godhead, but he puts it in modern vernacular.

reply to post by raymundoko


Your premise is ridiculous! it just proves we can't reason with the unreasonable.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Thanks for posting this. Will read this for sure.

reply to post by Sump3

It ain't that hard to let go of all you've been told about what the text says

I wasn't going by what I was told. I was quoting it directly word for word straight from the horses mouth.

People are ignoring this here.

I find that God is the wrong word to use. I am by no means religious at all, and despise popular organized religion (cult-like).

But having said that, i do believe in "God" even though i could easily be described as an atheist. I say it's the wrong word to use, because most people get an instant mental image of a wise man of some kind sitting in the sky, condemning innocent people to death. I am pretty certain there is no intelligent personality watching over us like that.

Do i believe in God? Yes. If God, is simply a term used to describe consciousness.
As far as i'm concerned, self-awareness and consciousness is God. But it's still not the right word to use.

I believe that all life in the universe which is self-aware, is fueled by some kind of universal energy. That's what consciousness is, and we are all somehow connected by a mesh of energy.

If God is simply a word, then sure. God can go along with science, because science will allow us to investigate, observe, and understand it.

But science and religion? Not in that sense.

reply to post by raymundoko


completely agree with general consensus of posters so far ...
i have nothing more to add, but for sake of stats, include me in the 'science compliments God / creation' category ...

God Bless y'all .... x

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Yeah and I won't give to much weight to a statement made by a guy who makes the choice to put on eyeliner.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

I see his point but is is not necessarily true, science from my observation can be just as dogmatic.

And religion has gone though many changes and reforms.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Well, if you want to view it that way, there's nothing I can do to help you let go of that.

Taking words from the bible and take them literally is just wrong. Utterly wrong.

Study the semitic languages and how their words describe dozenfold meanings.
So, the one's that translated the texts use their cosmological and ontological views to translate these descriptions, poems, judgements, prophecies so on and so forth.

I for one have studied hebrew and I don't take men of old for fools. Rather, there are always black sheeps in the vast herd that are men and once one takes his bulk out of his own eye, he can tell which are which by following simply that which is truth regardless of scientific ways, rules or restrictions. And that applies to everything.

Have a nice journey discovering who you really are and thus everything.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


And regarding that quote from that man you just sited.

Separating faith from science is obnoxious. Both rely on each other in their true form and use.

The men we regard as the greatest of scientists from the 20th century were many men of faith.

Faith is simply trusting in something you suspect is true but can't prove it. Faith is simply believing what you do is gonna work. Faith sometimes works out like you suspect it will, sometimes it doesn't.

Like I believe I am typing these words on this keyword and trust that they will appear on your screen, so I choose to believe that even though I don't know they will. But I highly suspect they will. So I put my faith in it.

That there is faith and belief itself. Has been used in science for all ages.

Religion on the other hand is another thing.

Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

 

Yeah and I won't give to much weight to a statement made by a guy who makes the choice to put on eyeliner.

I hope you're not being serious. I'd hate to think of all the opportunities you've had to really learn something important and a little thing like makeup proved too much for you to handle.

reply to post by Stormdancer777

I see his point but is is not necessarily true, science from my observation can be just as dogmatic.

I intended that pic to be in context to people denying the observations I made about Genesis. Though honestly I do agree with the general notion that believers often ignore or twist observations to preserve their faith. As for science being dogmatic. Don't you mean scientists?

reply to post by Sump3

Taking words from the bible and take them literally is just wrong. Utterly wrong.

Then can you address a question I asked of Benrl? Here it is:

"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."

So, the one's that translated the texts use their cosmological and ontological views to translate these descriptions

If you like I can post Genesis from the Latin Vulgate. Certainly much closer in accuracy than modern translations. Then we can go from there.

I for one have studied hebrew

Oh cool. Can you post Genesis in Hebrew then, and provide the translation to English?

Separating faith from science is obnoxious

lol. Yes it appear so.

Faith is simply trusting in something you suspect is true but can't prove it.

I very much understand this. As i said from the thread start with "Religion demands you have faith where evidence is absent. "

Now tell me since this is about reconciling religion with science. How is accepting something as true without evidence scientific?

As for this idea that so many scientists had faith in god historically…

Again. If they didn't use science to test it then what relevance does it have? The OP is trying to assert this as well. What has the OP offered scientifically outside of stating he is a scientist?

Scientists believe in god. So? Guess what there are scientists that believe in Yahweh and there are scientists that believe in Brahmā. If their belief is evidence then we have a problem here don't we. There are many "I'm the god most high" and different creation stories and no reason to believe one is more true than another. Doesn't stop people, including scientists, from believing all of them are true. Which of those religious gods is true? It's not just a matter of faith god exists….it's a matter of faith you're betting on the right god.