In your work you attempt to uncover secrets that nature hide from us, undo things that nature do to us, remake things that nature made but we're not satisfied with. Then on sundays you become a god-fearing man who goes to Church in a suit. Does this trouble you at all?
What if you teach evolution in college and at church you nod when the pastor talks about creation.
What if we were not meant to know all these things we know, are we sinning even more than if we were to relinquish our work and do nothing?
just some random thoughts
2007-07-21 23:19:29 · 9 answers · asked by Andy Holmes 3 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Other - Science
{Sheesh ... these answers with so much negativity, when I detect nothing but a sincere question from Dr. Holmes here.}
I believe that there is NO conflict between science and faith, as long as *both* are well understood. Both are contingent. Both require flexibility and interpretation. Both require constant, relentless questioning.
It is only when someone stops questioning their understanding of science, or of faith, that rigidity threatens the ability to reconcile the two.
One of the problems is that this relentless questioning is *fundamental* to the scientific method. Very few scientists will say that *any* scientific finding, theory, fact, or law is beyond question. *Everything* can be questioned as long as this is done using the scientific method (posing questions in a way that can be interpreted in terms of observation).
But with faith ... the very nature of "fundamentalism" is putting certain articles of faith *beyond question.* When this includes certain literal passages of the Bible, this escalates this rigidity to the point of absurdity. IMO people who hold to an absolutely literal interpretation of the Bible are not worshippng God, but are worshipping a Book ... to the point of engaging in idolatry.
In other words, Biblical literalism leads not only truly BAD science, but truly BAD theology as well. Faith becomes fragile ... dependent absolutely on the abject denial of basic observations. People whose faith depends on Biblical literalism have faith held by a thin *thread* ... and they don't even know it. It is not their fault. It is the fault of religious leaders who, IMO, are badly failing the faithful.
>"What if you teach evolution in college and at church you nod when the pastor talks about creation."
I'm a Catholic. Catholic priests do not talk about creation in any sense that violates anything I teach as far as evolution. The Catholic doctrine as spelled out by the vatican officially declares no animosity or conflict between church teachings and evolution.
>"What if we were not meant to know all these things we know, are we sinning even more than if we were to relinquish our work and do nothing?"
As far as I am concerned, the quest for knowledge is so fundamental to who we are and where we came from, that to believe we were "not meant to know all these things" is equivalent to denying our own humanity.
2007-07-22 10:21:07 · answer #1 · answered by secretsauce 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
God let Adam and Eve eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge and at that point Mankind chose (and continues to choose) its path. That path is to learn about the universe, master it, and reap the benefits or suffer the consequences. You can't un-eat the fruit.
Psalm 19:1-2
"The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they display knowledge."
Clearly, we are encouraged to explore the works of the Creator.
The "Double Revelation Theory" maintains that there are two sources of revelation -- special revelation (revelation through direct communication and miracles) and general revelation (revelation through the investigation of His creation). These two sources reveal the same truth so in the end they cannot contradict each other. Evolution or creation -- they are the same thing.
2007-07-22 13:50:24 · answer #2 · answered by John B 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Thanks, secretsauce, for a good, serious answer.
On Sunday, I read Genesis and learn that God created man (unlike the rest of creation) in His own image. On Monday, I am motivated to know God, and also to understand all I can about God's creation and how it works. There's no conflict at all. Read Genesis, and you'll see that God charged man with taking care of creation, as well as having dominion (authority) over it. This is the fundamental charter for science, and also for proper care for the environment. The earth is for man to use but not abuse. The Jewish sabbath and jubilee years are clear examples of that, and the whole nation was punished for disobeying it.
If I taught evolution in college, I would teach as science only the science of evolution. I would be clear about what science doesn't know, and discuss various conjectures, striving for an honest and balanced presentation. I do the same at church, and I'm currently talking with some of our elders about evolution and creation. I plead with them to learn what parts of evolution are science and what parts are conjecture, rather than to just condemn all of it. I plead with scientists to admit what science doesn't know, and not to invent some implausible scenario and claim it is science, even if their real motive is to avoid even considering the possibility that there might be a God to whom they are morally accountable.
When God expelled man from the Garden of Eden as a consequence of sin, God placed cherubim (a class of angel) at its entrance to prevent man's re-entry. They are quite capable of accomplishing that. There are Biblical examples of things man is not (yet) permitted to know. They are all about God's plans and timing for the future, not about details of creation. There is no other indication in the Bible that there's any science God doesn't want man to know.
Part of the charter to tend the earth is responsible use of what we do learn. For example, to artificially alter the genetics of plants and animals and then release them out into the world without thoroughly studying the consequences is utterly stupid and irresponsible. It would trouble me greatly if I worked on that.
PS: I wear a suit to church maybe twice a year.
2007-07-22 13:46:12 · answer #3 · answered by Frank N 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Who says I become a God-fearing hypocrite on Sundays? Presumptuous much, dude?
2007-07-22 00:43:35 · answer #4 · answered by poorcocoboiboi 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Must be a PhD in divinity. Very ill posed question. Those thoughts are not random, they are incoherent. If we would relinquish our work and do nothing, then the evil and willfully ignorant, you, for instance, would subject the earth to their absolutist nightmare.
2007-07-22 09:34:53 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
So, they're giving away Phds in cereal boxes now?
I know Intelligent Design has made some inroads and the standards have declined but DAMN!
2007-07-21 23:26:51 · answer #6 · answered by Chessmistress1000 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Hopefully, you put your actions in daily life where your opinions seem to be, "Dr.Holmes", and refuse any medical procedures not already outlined in the bible!
What ARE you talking about? LOL!
2007-07-22 06:42:42 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
yeah, we should just stay stupid and faithful
gosh, if everyone was like you, we'd never get past inventing fire!
But thanks for judging! Have a nice day, judgmental person who thinks he/she alone has the answer to how we should live our lives.
2007-07-21 23:23:20 · answer #8 · answered by dickdamick 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
you can reconcile it by trusting or give faith on your work
2007-07-21 23:32:56 · answer #9 · answered by Malupet 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋