http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070205/cm_usatoday/thebiblevsscience
2007-02-07 14:48:08 · 16 answers · asked by ? 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
(You have to read the whole article, his advice is at the end)
2007-02-07 14:48:49 · update #1
madd_bm: Do you really think that scientists spend their time trying to disprove religion???? Where did you get that idea? IT IS COMPLETELY WRONG!
2007-02-07 14:53:55 · update #2
I looked through the article and I think it's way underrated
3 out of 5? Come on
"...Can't the Bible literalists concede matters of empirical evidence and rational inquiry to science and devote themselves to the questions of ultimate meaning - the mighty questions that rightly occupy religion? Their religion doesn't need any scientific proof. Why should their own faith?" LOVE THAT PART
Hey, madbm, what are you talking about? You think science is a religion trying to disprove other religions as the same as Christianity trying to persecute paganism?
Wrong! Science simply looks for truth. Whatever is proved to be a hoax (which is found out by science), will be abandoned by science HERSELF
2007-02-07 14:51:27 · answer #1 · answered by FAUUFDDaa 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Come now! Isn't this getting a bit ridiculous? Don't you think it's about time some people stepped up and flat out let these Creationists know how ludicrous their idea is? Seriously, this has gone far enough! They can't be serious!
Christianity is destroying itself. I guess you could say that the End Times have come. Christians will disappear from the Earth. They will have no choice but to let go of this God nonsense in light of the sheer evidence against the idea.
2007-02-07 23:01:59 · answer #2 · answered by Phoenix, Wise Guru 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
obviously the author didnt actually read the book, because the fact is that the evidence in the grand canyon can be used as evidence for both the creationist theory and the "scientific" theory. what i find most humorous about this debate is that people truly believe that if you are a scientist then you cannot be a Christian and visa versa. this article is closed minded and typical of people who refuse to even think for a second that anything outside their norm may be true. it does not matter that there is plenty of scientific evidence that points to creation. there is also plenty of evidence that points to the evolutionary theory as well, yet neither one can be proven without a shadow of a doubt. and why is it that people do not see that what this article is really saying is that my belief is not really valid and i should simply pick and chose which parts of it i believe in. well when i do that then i completely invalidate everything that my God teaches. you cant believe in one part of the bible and not the other, you cant say that this is true but this isnt. if you do not take the whole thing for the word of god then take none of it. this goes for all sorts of people, the ones who try and be god by judging others. either take the bible as the truth in its entirety or take none of it. the bible says your faith should be either hot or cold and you are in gods good graces, lukewarm faith is like vomit on his tongue. its harsh i know but i believe it. and i do not look down on anyone who does not believe in the bible at all because the bible commands me not to. wish more people would read that part.
oh yeah and many scientists throughout history have attempted to disprove christianity. Charles Darwin, he died a Christian, C.S Lewis, oh yeah he ended up one of the most prolific Christian writers of all time. in fact if you search around you will find that every scientist that has set out to prove that christianity is wrong ends up believing that it is right.
2007-02-07 23:06:11 · answer #3 · answered by big_john_719 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
The basic premise is wrong. There is no chasm separating religion and science; there is only a chasm separating each dogma from all other dogmas.
All the "great questions" he mentions can be profoundly addressed by science as well as religion.
There is one sense of wonder, one openness to mystery, which lies at the basis of science and religion both. For myself, I strive to synthesize a spiritual science, or a scientific religion, uniting a passion and hunger for knowledge with intuition, daring speculation, paradigm-bending inquiry, faithfulness to my perceptions of fundamental values, etc.
I think this religion-science divide is ending. Traditional religion is doomed -- it's surviving only on fear. Dogmatic, mechanistic, reductionistic science is doomed as well -- doomed to be overcome by the visionary paradigm emerging at the edges of quantum, systems, and complexity theory. Something new is coming that we have never seen before -- an open-minded, open-hearted religion of free holistic inquiry. Stay tuned. Think outside the box.
2007-02-07 23:02:31 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
I don't think it's very good advice. But if you think it is, wouldn't it work both ways? That is, shouldn't those who don't believe in God and creationism stick to the materialism boards? You don't want Christians discussing evolution, but it's OK for atheists to discuss God?
add on: Phoenix, you are right about one thing: Christians will disappear from this earth. In an event called the Rapture. Everything else you said is opinion.
2007-02-07 22:57:24 · answer #5 · answered by celebduath 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Science has no answers other then their religion called evolution traced back to the faith based Big Bang.
Science has yet to explain how the river is lower then the high point in the canyon.
Sceince is used to understand God or an attempt to disprove God. The article neglects that.
Science can't expalin human and dinosaur footprints next to each other in rock "too old" to happen
Science can't tell me how many kids a fossil had let alone a kid that was different then itself.
2007-02-07 22:57:03 · answer #6 · answered by Help 3 · 0⤊ 5⤋
You told somebody up top that it is not a scientists goal to disprove religion. Actually that statement is not 100 percent true. Lyell Darwins goal was to come up with a scientific theory that would disprove God. He specifically stated that.
2007-02-07 23:00:36 · answer #7 · answered by Stacey B 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I have a paper I am writing about the origin debate and that article will make a great dialog partner. Thank you for this valuable resource, even though I disagree with it.
2007-02-07 23:02:12 · answer #8 · answered by The GMC 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I cheated and skimmed through to the end when I saw what it was about - I've read about that already - but that last paragraph is sweeeet!
2007-02-07 22:52:34 · answer #9 · answered by DBA GODZY 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Typical carnal rantings, brilliant minds bickering over selfishness instead of seeking wisdom.
2007-02-07 23:05:41 · answer #10 · answered by rezany 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋