PDA

View Full Version : Science and Religion: Who is Right?


Yama Tombo
17-Oct-2005, 12:34 PM
I like to begin by quoting Gerald Schroeder:

If I had to assign chief blame for the ongoing struggle between science and religion and the resulting erosion of biblical credibility, it would be to the leaders of organized religion. Since Nicolaus Copernicus had the audacity to suggest that the Sun, not Earth, was the center of our solar system, their kneejerk reaction to scientific discovery has been to deny its validity. Yet what does the position of the Earth have to do with belief in a creator of the universe or the validity of the Bible?! Nowhere does the text claim that Earth is central to anything. In fact, the very first sentence of the Bible - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. 1:1) - places the heavens before Earth. As scientific data demonstrating the Sun's centrality accumulated, the Church was forced into embarrassed retreat. So today, the popular perception is that science had proven the Bible wrong. In reality, the claim of Earth's centrality had nothing to do with the Bible.

Similarly, Kepler's discovery of the elliptical orbit of the planets did not sit well with the religious establishment. Circles were perfect geometric shapes, ellipses are defective. An infinitely powerful God would be expected to produce perfect orbits. Of course, the Bible doesn't teach that a circle is better than an ellipse! Yet the Church condemned Kepler's discovery.

Then, Charles Darwin appeared on the scene. The thought that life in general (and humans in particular) had developed from lower life forms was simply unacceptable to the Church. The concept of evolution was condemned as heretical, notwithstanding the fact that Darwin in the closing lines of his book attributed the entire evolutionary flow of life to "its several powers having been originally breathed by the Creator in a few [life] forms or into one." Nonetheless, the gauntlet of heresy had been thrown down

The above quote holds alot of truth to me. I believe religion gets alot of flack, because people receive ridicule by those in religion; if your thinking is considered outside the lines, then you don't have faith. As for me, I believe in God and the bible, I'm told by christains that faith is all that is needed; I can't accept something that science contradicts greatly.

Science is quite the same to me, especially evolution theories. I mean evolution is theories, right? A theory made up a group of facts held together by explainations. I admit evolution is compelling, but compelling doesn't mean logical. Alot of people, who favor evolution, tend hold on to answer to "how and hardly look at "why".


".....what is the material world, that which frames the puzzle of our existence? Why even bother with the existence of empty space, or even time? The basic enigma is not whether we evolved from apes or not, but why is there "being" in the first place? The very existence of existence is mind boggling. Yet we are so much a part of existence that we take it for granted—it's a "given," to use a scientific term. But step back from the subjectivity and think about it. What caused the Big Bang? What caused existence? What is existence?"

I think religion and science go hand-in-hand; we need to understand both:

....philosopher Moses Maimonides wrote that conflicts between science and the Bible arise from either a lack of scientific knowledge or a defective understanding of the Bible.

jonmonk
17-Oct-2005, 03:02 PM
As for me, I believe in God and the bible, I'm told by christains that faith is all that is needed; I can't accept something that science contradicts greatly.I guess a question you could ask yourself then might be, is your faith in God or in the people who teach you about God? I think there is an important difference between the two that lies at the source of a lot of objection by those of us who are not religious.

Jesh
17-Oct-2005, 03:07 PM
There are many scientists who believe in God, as are there many priests who indulge in science. The one doesn't exclude the other.

Yama Tombo
17-Oct-2005, 05:11 PM
Jonmonk: Yeah, I've explored that question a bit. I once posted a thread called Is religion evil? (http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6400) Though, it's about is religion evil or the people that believe are evil?

Jesh: Correct, though I think alot of people don't realize that. Alot of people tend to think science is always trying to challenge religion and view all scientists as atheist. When in fact some scientists have deist view such as Einstein.

Taff
17-Oct-2005, 05:16 PM
The Bible says nothing of quantum mechanics, AFAIK, yet that has proven to be the most successful theory of all time. It's over 100 years old and no experimental evidence has yet contradicted it. And a lot of people have tried. Even Einstein didn't like it, yet he couldn't prove it wrong.
Science will discover many truths that religion can not.

Yama Tombo
17-Oct-2005, 10:36 PM
The Bible says nothing of quantum mechanics, AFAIK, yet that has proven to be the most successful theory of all time. It's over 100 years old and no experimental evidence has yet contradicted it. And a lot of people have tried. Even Einstein didn't like it, yet he couldn't prove it wrong.
Science will discover many truths that religion can not.

I realize that the bible doesn't say quantum mechanics or have a definition on it either. The bible is not a science book, but science can be used to support details in the bible.

Yama Tombo
18-Oct-2005, 04:12 AM
I realize that the bible doesn't say quantum mechanics or have a definition on it either. The bible is not a science book, but science can be used to support details in the bible.

Also, I mean to say that science can correct passages in the bible.

A.) Example, the Flood of Noah's Time, mainstream christianity believes that the flood was global:

Genesis 7: 18-20

18. The waters prevailed and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the face of the waters.
19. And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered.
20. The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits[d] deep.

There is two things wrong with it:

1.) There is not enough water on earth to engulf the land up to the highest mountain point. That includes underground reservoir, polar ice caps, mountianous ice caps, and atmospheric moisture.
Note: You really can't compare present earth to earth of Noah's Time. It can be argued that plate tectonics shifted the land over time. Meaning mountains can increase/decrease in height.

2.) A closer study on the original hebrew translation suggest a regional flood. Not going into detail into that, too much to cover.

For any further information check the following link:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/flood.shtml

((B.))Then theres conflict between religion and science about how old the earth is really is.

Science says the earth is roughly 15.4 billion years old

Religion take on this:

--Christianity believes the earth was created in 7 days. Also, they believe 1,000 years man's time equals 1 day God's time. Which christianity says the earth is 15,000 years old. Islam believes 10,000 years or 50,000 years man's time (not sure on the number) equals 1 day God's time. Still, that falls short of 15.4 billion years.

Thought, Gerald Schroeder Presents a Theory that comes close to the estimated 15.4 billions:

Schroeder starts by noting that the generations of humans starting with Adam adds up to 5757 years. The biblical "clock" for this purpose starts after the initial six days, a mysterious preliminary period which ancient commentators said contains "all the secrets and ages of the universe." Before Adam, and especially before the creation of the earth, the Bible speaks of time from the viewpoint of the universe as a whole, which Schroeder interprets to mean at the moment of "quark confinement," when stable matter formed from energy early in the first second of the big bang.
Relativity theory teaches that time passes much more slowly in conditions of great gravitational pressure than it does on earth. Using these familiar principles, Schroeder calculates that a period of six days under the conditions of quark confinement, when the universe was approximately a million million times smaller and hotter than it is today, is equal to fifteen billion years of earth time. Genesis and modern physics are reconciled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Schroeder

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/age.html Gerald Schroeder's Article: Age of the Universe.

Too many people this is just pure rationalism, which I believe to some degree.

Devoken
18-Oct-2005, 07:44 AM
Science is quite the same to me, especially evolution theories. I mean evolution is theories, right?

No, its not a theory, its scientific theory. There is an enormous difference, but the language is almost always interpreted as you did.

Tyranith
18-Oct-2005, 07:59 AM
Science and Religion: Who is Right?

Neither. I am.

jonmonk
18-Oct-2005, 11:58 AM
Neither. I am.Lol! That's pretty profound :D

Jesh
18-Oct-2005, 02:56 PM
Neither. I am.

*bows in awe for Tyranith*

tekkengod
18-Oct-2005, 08:36 PM
you know what, now a days is a matter of opinion, pick your poison. if you're a science guy, religion will be sheer insanity, rightfully so.
if your a religious guy, then you will find a way to make science sheer insanity, rightfully so.
i say rightfully so, becasue the religious will jam their fingers into their ears, and the scientists will look the other way.

Devoken
19-Oct-2005, 11:43 PM
Pick your poison indeed.

Yama Tombo
20-Oct-2005, 03:19 AM
No, its not a theory, its scientific theory. There is an enormous difference, but the language is almost always interpreted as you did.

A theory made up a group of facts held together by explainations.

I think my view of theory is similar to scientific theory.

Devoken
24-Oct-2005, 11:15 PM
No, you are still misusing the word.

KreenWarrior
25-Oct-2005, 12:29 AM
Relativity is still called the "Theory of Relativity", but it's accepted as a scientific fact (well, almost).

In order for a hypothesis to qualify as a scientific theory, it has to meet some pretty heavy qualifications, mainly that it can't be DISPROVED (and you have to try, repeatedly, to disprove it). The only reason that it's not fact is that there's literally no way to actually prove it directly, which would need to happen for it to be upgraded in status.

But it's not just a theory as in idle analysis.

You can't really argue with what science says happens, because science is simply the study of reality. What science says occurs, does in fact occur. If you still want to believe in God, there should be absolutely no conflict. Why would there be? But don't try to argue against established science while doing it, unless you happen to have a really good reason/means of doing so.

See, if a Creationist managed to prove Creationism, then Creationism would, in fact, be scientific fact. Then where would the conflict be? Sure, there would be thousands if not millions of scientists that would be annoyed at being wrong (to put it mildly), but they would eventually do so.

Yama Tombo
26-Oct-2005, 09:54 PM
No, you are still misusing the word.

I guess I have to look up the term scientific:

....a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"......

Though, when it comes to evolution for me, it's both fact and theory, thats how I meant it.