Why do both christians and non-christians seem to regard science and christianity as being, by neccessity, at odds. Science is simply a methodical system of describing the world around us. It tells us how natural systems work and how they interact. God set down rules for behavior that people are expected to follow. Why would He not also set down rules for the rest of creation as well? Why does it surprise anyone that a cogniscant, thinking God would create an orderly universe that works according to certain laws and principles? Should we not instead use both? If scripture seems to contradict science, should that not compel us to examine our understanding and interpretation of scripture. If something occurs that seems to defy science why not look to God? Why does it have to be one or the other?
2007-07-07 00:31:45 · 31 answers · asked by David M 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
It appears that OPM needs masses of religion!
I don't know where he's getting his diatribe against sola scriptura, but he mischaracterizes the point of its iteration. Sola scriptura was meant to correct abuses within the church...not problems in the academy. Luther whole-heartedly supported Aristotelian thought (logical paradigms, taxonomic categories, laws of causality, etc.). He did so because he believed that God is logical (Jesus being the Word or Ratio in Latin or Logos in Greek).
That's where I come down on the issue as well. It's not an accident that science developed in the western paradigm and flowered shortly after the Reformation. Belief in a logical, constant creator God supports the inference of logical constants within the created order. Secular scientists take a leap of faith to believe in things like causality, logic, reliability of senses, presumption of order, etc. Christian scientists believe in these things because of a prior commitment to the God of the Bible.
I believe it was Kepler who said that as he was making his discoveries, it was as if he were thinking God's thoughts after him. Science can tell us many "hows" but not so many "whys". While I don't want to fully endorse Dawkins' "spheres of influence," it's a useful paradigm for these two fields of knowledge working hand in hand.
2007-07-09 19:55:00 · answer #1 · answered by Chris 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Scriptures such as Rig Veda are scientific codes for cosmology. Different Vedas Upnishads etc. are totally scientific literature with complex codings and numerous tweaks. Many ancient texts are read at many different levels. Not only the notations used , the different words, the spellings pertain to something else. The Pushpak Viman mentioned in the Holy Ramayana of Hindus was a spacecraft , a submarine and a terrestrial vehicle all in one using Mercury as the fuel , 1 kg of which could run it for 1 year. We have these kind of evidence in all religious scriptures . Jain thought has advanced cosmological drawings mentioning the shape, extent of the universe , the speed of light to 28 digits after decimal, our planetary systems location etc. We have still a long way to go to unearth so many mysteries even of the world we live in and see everyday. Our science of today is still in infancy and has lot of catching up to do. Till that time we see from a narrow prespective and think this to be the world. Before Bacteria were seen under the microscope we didnot know they existed and in Jain ancient literature they have mentioned how to protect yourselves from infection by these who take 8 birth- death cycles in the time we take one breath. Without a microscope we coul never have known what the text pertains to !
2007-07-09 10:53:26 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The scientific process of enquiry is based on evidenced fact and objective proof gained by repeated examination and experiment without personal bias so that anyone else should be able to repeat the experiment and get the same results, whereas religion is based on unproven and unfalsifiable subjective faith for which there is no evidence (if there was evidence there would be no need to call it faith)...
The two approaches of Science and Faith are mutually at odds with each other and cannot be reconciled, that is not to say that science cannot place religion under a microscope and investigate it and it's claims to study whether religion's claims to be of benefit to mankind have any substance.
It is really not the business of science to disprove God, although as a by-product many scientific discoveries disprove a lot of religious dogma.
Religion is presently having a hard time as it comes face to face with modernity and modern knowledge which is vast and growing, attempts to deny or subvert science in a hope to cling to fixed Biblical ideas that can be shown to be incorrect is ultimately futile.
2007-07-07 09:49:27 · answer #3 · answered by CHEESUS GROYST 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I blame the fundamentalists for that. There are, of course, many very good scientists who are Christians. No conflict at all. But once the noisy fundies set up the creationist BS as being "true Christianity," all they really did was give a great boost to atheism. Because if a young person today wants to get ahead in science or technology, or any field which uses the fruits of science and technology (i.e., just about anything), he cannot buy the creationist anti-science concept. It simply does not hold up to the most basic logic and reason, the most well-examined evidence, and just plain sense.
Fundamentalists, you are shooting yourselves in the foot with this nonsense!
2007-07-07 08:16:54 · answer #4 · answered by auntb93 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
By stating it is a false belief, you have prejudged the argument. I believe they are not mutually exclusive, but I understand the argument. I, myself, am not religious, but I understand it.
Science is an attempt to determine the truth of how the Universe works. It determines the truth through the tool of falsification, or showing what is not true. The first major modern clash of course is when Galileo proved around fifty verses of the bible were false, however, even Augustine writes that the "science," of the bible needs ignored because it was understood as wrong already by the fourth century.
Religion on the other hand makes affirmative statements about how the world works that sometimes can be falsified and sometimes cannot. Science can show what is not true, the leftover contains the truth. Religion purports to show what is true by revelation by a God, gods and goddesses, or through communing with the Truth.
In this sense they are mutually incompatible ways of seeing the world.
The second problem is sola scriptura. Catholics and Orthodox do not have this problem because they use scripture differently from Protestants, but sola scriptura is a very strong claim on truth. If science is right, then sola scriptura is false and then all of Protestantism is false. Fundamentalists do correctly understand this philosophical problem. What they do not understand is that they should be rejecting Protestantism and not science.
Sola scriptura was invented by Luther to get around the problem that nothing he was purporting to believe was held by Christians prior to him. He was inventing as he went. In order to do this, he had to excise tremendous amounts of Christian learning as well as a substantial amount of Christian information handed on during the apostolic period that early Christianity decided not to include in the bible, not because it was false, but because they didn't feel it needed read in Church every Sunday. The bible is the list of books to be read in the service each Sunday.
By setting up that scripture alone is needed for the truth, he set in motion a strong claim. In doing this, he excluded important things. For example, the Didache is not part of scripture because it is a set of instructions to pastors. Archaeologists believe it is dated around AD 50 and was likely the memo spread by the apostolic gathering mentioned in Acts. I Clement was considered scripture for a very long time. Clement was the third Pope and it was written while at least John was still alive. Polycarp's writings are important because he is one of the editors of John's gospel and was a disciple of John. Ignatius was out, also a disciple of John and Peter, because his writings explained what the scripture writers meant by certain passages, ending the Protestant movement. He knew the authors of scripture and Luther's beliefs were incompatible.
Luther claimed that only the bible is needed. If that is false, then all Protestantism if false, and Catholicism is true.
This is the real core of the science vs Christian fight. Because the bible says that man was created at the beginning and through Adam death entered the world. Science says dinosaurs lived prior to man and died. Therefore there is no original sin, Jesus need not have died and so the death of Jesus as a sacrifice for the Adamic sin is a false idea.
This is one of many such problems that scripture alone must contend with and it cannot win such a battle.
The last part of your post is the "puny God," problem. If we ascribe to God those things that are not understood, then we either stop using science to try and understand the not understood, or in the alternative, as more is understood, less is ascribed to God. If all were understood, God would stop existing as there would be nothing for God to do. Every advance in science explains a new but previously unexplainable thing, making God smaller and hence eventually puny.
The problem, from a Christian perspective, is that Protestantism and its tens of thousands of denominations are false if science is true. What do you do with that? I do not see Presbyterians suddenly deciding to wink out of existence, even if it is the rational thing to do.
Also, we do not have anything left that seems to defy science. There is a wonderful body of knowledge now and there is not a lot left at the large scale that is poorly understood, particularly in the hard sciences. Certain specifics may not be understood, but a lot of the big questions are understood well.
Some things, like "how does gravity work," can only be understood descriptively. We have no clue why it works, but we do know how it works when it is operative in the sense we can predict where the moon will be tomorrow or when the next high tide will be.
2007-07-07 07:59:39 · answer #5 · answered by OPM 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Largely the reason is false Christianity. By promoting many man made beliefs as doctrines, it messes up the image. Like dirt and mud on a fine car, an onlooker dismisses it.
Looking closely at the Bible and science, it is usually science playing catch up. Just as there was a movement in the early 1900's to close the US Patent office as "everything has been invented already". Science says something in the Bible could not have happened one year and the next finds that it could.
Of course, just as God's ways are higher than man's ways, some things like creating life is beyond man's science. Sci-Fi fans know the scenes of advanced civilizations able to do what seems to be miracles to less advanced ones.
We should just remember though we will never be as advanced as God, He does look lovingly and kindly upon us.
2007-07-07 07:52:23 · answer #6 · answered by grnlow 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I disagree.
I believe a correct view of Science will always agree with a correct view of the Bible.
When the Bible and Science have appeared to be in disagreement, over time its been revealed that the Bible was correct all along.
I've seen the Science which disproves Evolution for example.
Pastor Art
2007-07-07 16:01:00 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i like what you said about examining our understanding and interpretation of the scripture. this is exactly what we need to do. because the scripture is about god, and wether people want to believe it or not, everything is god, including the weather... just because nowadays we say the weather is science does not mean that still is not god... the scary part about it is that if we were to start paying more attention to what the scripture means and truly says, we would probably also learn alot more about god. more about thoughts and emotions. cycles, evolution.
and i like how this post is alot like a question within the answer. why can we not notice this? i mean, is it not the truth? i have been asking myself for a long time why people can not see this....but you have done a very well job at putting it into words.
2007-07-07 07:41:34 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
GOD did create the universe according to certain laws and orders, science exists to try to learn these laws, what is the difference between a man and god? it's KNOWLEDGE god created everything so he knows, if there is anything that science cannot explain, this means that science itself is not yet ready to explain it....look...god created you, you are the most complicated, sophisticated thing that god ever created, even science will not be able to solve the humans secrets
2007-07-07 08:11:32 · answer #9 · answered by Rector 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well it doesn't necessary. But science does disagree with many stories in the Bible. For instance the story in Genesis conflicts with evolution and geology on time, order, and mechanism. The only logical conclusion is that the goat herders that wrote it had no idea.
If that is the case, why buy any of it?
2007-07-07 07:43:36 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋