Science and Religion

[cheerfulgreek]

I did a search on this, but I didn't see anything.

Is there a connection between science and religion?

I think it's hard to tell, but I guess I would have to say yes and no. I know that many, if not most people, both religious and nonreligious, agree that there is a connection. I say yes, because I do believe that God created everything. I say no, because our thinking is not like his and his is not like ours, and I think this may be why to humans scientific claims contradict the religious claims. I'm not aware of a serious conflict between chemistry and religion, because neither makes claims that are likely to contradict claims from the other field. With a few possible exceptions, like the transformation of water into wine.

It just seems like before modern science, religion had taken upon itself to explain phenomena that could not otherwise be explained. Like, if you were sick, God was punishing you for your sins. If there was a drought, it was because God was punishing the actual community for tolerating a sinner within the community. But modern science has offered explainations for more and more natural phenomena. It conflicts with some of the religious explainations. I mean, seriously, do you think sickness caused by microorganisms and drought caused by a change in an ocean current have anything to do with our sins? I don't think so, but then again science is just a theory.

What are you thoughts on this? I may be wrong, which is why I want to read other thoughts.

[RU OX Alum]

I think that science, religion, philosophy and art all share in common a search for the truth. I feel that some of these things do a better job of certain truths or aspects of the truth, than others, and ought to compliment one another. I think they do, anyway.

[TexasWSP]

This would be a great question for your next tour guide.

[greekchef]

If, as a religious person, you believe God to be the creator of our universe and everything therein, then that means that God likewise created the very science with which we try to understand the universe. The mysteries unlocked by the scientist through their methodology are nothing more than part of the blue print of creation, and we are probably in most cases looking at too small of a chunk of any given part of that creation to see it in the context of the vastness of the universe. In other words, if we cannot see how that bit of science squares with faith it may simply be that we cannot comprehend the vastness of the "truth" of the universe. You cannot tell how a house will look when finished by looking at only the details pertaining to one corner of the laundry room. In the end, my faith is that science and faith do not contradict; that the conflict is the product of our inability to understand the mystery of creation. But that's what makes mystery "mysterious"! And a little mystery is a good thing!

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by TexasWSP

This would be a great question for your next tour guide.

Good lord, macallan, you almost just killed me. Totally choked on a grape when I chortled at this.

[cheerfulgreek]

RU OX Alum and greekchef you both make valid points, but I seriously have yet to see a successful prediction about the physical world that was from the content of any religious document. It just seems like whenever people have tried to make accurate predictions about the physical world using religious documents they've been wrong. When I say prediction I'm talking about a precise statement about the untested behavior of objects or phenomena in the natural world long before the event takes place. Another thing I've noticed are the perennial claims about when the world will end, none of which have yet proved true.

At one time people actually believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, and that was because the creation of the Earth was aligned with the teachings of the Catholic Church and prevailing interpretations of the Bible, where Earth is created before the Sun and the Moon as described in the 1st several verses of Genesis. So, if you were created 1st, then you pretty much have to be the center of all motion. I mean where else could you be? Also the Sun and Moon were described to be smooth celestial bodies. But if you look through a telescope, you can see the Moon's surface is bumpy and rocky, the Sun has spots that move across its surface, Jupiter has moons of it's own that orbit around it and not Earth as once believed, and Venus goes through phases just like the moon. I don't want you guys to think I'm not a believer because I am, I just see contraditions that I'm curious about. Also, I'm not trying to imply that scientist haven't been wrong, because they have. Most scientific claims made will be disproved, due primarily to bad or incomplete data. I just think the conflict between science and religion exist because there are fields in which there's significant overlap between the claims of science and those of religion. It's just that it seems like the conflict between the two are also in some areas of physics, and in geology and biology because these sciences are pretty much sort of bound up with theories that provide natural, non religious explainations of the origins and development of the world as we experience it.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

RU OX Alum and greekchef you both make valid points, but I seriously have yet to see a successful prediction about the physical world that was from the content of any religious document. It just seems like whenever people have tried to make accurate predictions about the physical world using religious documents they've been wrong. When I say prediction I'm talking about a precise statement about the untested behavior of objects or phenomena in the natural world long before the event takes place. Another thing I've noticed are the perennial claims about when the world will end, none of which have yet proved true.

At one time people actually believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, and that was because the creation of the Earth was aligned with the teachings of the Catholic Church and prevailing interpretations of the Bible, where Earth is created before the Sun and the Moon as described in the 1st several verses of Genesis. So, if you were created 1st, then you pretty much have to be the center of all motion. I mean where else could you be? Also the Sun and Moon were described to be smooth celestial bodies. But if you look through a telescope, you can see the Moon's surface is bumpy and rocky, the Sun has spots that move across its surface, Jupiter has moons of it's own that orbit around it and not Earth as once believed, and Venus goes through phases just like the moon. I don't want you guys to think I'm not a believer because I am, I just see contraditions that I'm curious about. Also, I'm not trying to imply that scientist haven't been wrong, because they have. Most scientific claims made will be disproved, due primarily to bad or incomplete data. I just think the conflict between science and religion exist because there are fields in which there's significant overlap between the claims of science and those of religion. It's just that it seems like the conflict between the two are also in some areas of physics, and in geology and biology because these sciences are pretty much sort of bound up with theories that provide natural, non religious explainations of the origins and development of the world as we experience it.

My head hurts.

Science and religion ask different, but complementary, questions. If you're talking about creation (which is what you mainly seem to be talking about), science asks how the world came into being. Religion asks why -- was there a purpose, was there a creator? As many, many religious scientists would tell you, you're asking for trouble if you expect religious writings written millenia ago to have a modern scientific understanding. That misses the point completely.

To quote Anna Leonowens in The King and I: "The Bible was not written by men of science, but by men of faith. It was their explanation of the miracle of creation, which is the same miracle whether it took six days or many centuries."

And yeah, Mac's post was classic.

[Scandia]

Religion explains why. Science explains how.

There should be no conflict between the two of them. And so far for me there has been none.

[cheerfulgreek]

MysitcCat you make a lot of sense. Yes, I was pretty much talking about the creation process. I guess with everything that's been posted, I guess I still see a little conflict between science and religion (as far as the book of Genesis goes). It's just the way the creation was described. I think what God has done is a miracle of course, but at that the same time I simply go with what works.

DSTCHAOS, yep that's true. With Galileo, he clearly distinguished the role of religion from the role of science. To him religion was the service of God and the salvation of souls, whereas science was the source of exact observations and demonstrated truths.

MysticCat you're right though. If the Bible had ever been shown to be a rich source of scientific answers and understanding, I think we would be mining it daily for cosmic discovery. Scientists and religious experts tend to disagree on some issues, and more likely than not, always will. I guess the creation/beginning will always be a mystery to religious experts and scientists, but the science itself is pretty simple, it's just well organized common sense to me.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

MysitcCat you make a lot of sense. Yes, I was pretty much talking about the creation process. I guess with everything that's been posted, I guess I still see a little conflict between science and religion (as far as the book of Genesis goes). It's just the way the creation was described. I think what God has done is a miracle of course, but at that the same time I simply go with what works.

Just curious -- are you looking at the first chapter of Genesis, where plants are created before humans, or the second chapter of Genesis, where plants are created after humans?

If you're looking for the mechanics of how the universe and the earth came to be, Genesis will prove frustrating at best. But if you're looking to learn that God created all that is, that God declared everything he had created to be "good," and that humans are created in the image of God, Genesis will prove to be very fertile ground indeed.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Just curious -- are you looking at the first chapter of Genesis, where plants are created before humans, or the second chapter of Genesis, where plants are created after humans?

If you're looking for the mechanics of how the universe and the earth came to be, Genesis will prove frustrating at best. But if you're looking to learn that God created all that is, that God declared everything he had created to be "good," and that humans are created in the image of God, Genesis will prove to be very fertile ground indeed.

I'm looking at everything. How man was created too. I was also looking at the whole creation of night and day, the earth, ect ect. That sort of thing.

There's just so many things I want to know, especially about dinosaurs. They were here millions of years before man arrived. What happened there? Did the earth just suddenly start all over? What about the man we evolved from? Is that what Adam and Eve looked like? I mean, I have an idea, or a theory, but it doesn't line up with Genesis.

[AGDee]

That is why you can't take the Bible literally. If you take it literally then Adam and Eve had Cain and Able and then Cain and Able went to "another land" to find wives. If Adam and Eve were the only people, where did these wives come from? The Bible does not have every answer.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

I'm looking at everything. How man was created too. I was also looking at the whole creation of night and day, the earth, ect ect. That sort of thing.

I think you missed my point. The first two chapters of Genesis give differing and conflicting accounts of creation, pointing up the idea that, as AGDee says, maybe, just maybe, they are not to be taken literally.

[fantASTic]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I think you missed my point. The first two chapters of Genesis give differing and conflicting accounts of creation, pointing up the idea that, as AGDee says, maybe, just maybe, they are not to be taken literally.

Maybe. But why is it okay to say that about creationism, but it's NOT okay to say that other parts of the bible are not to be taken literally?

For example - premarital sex and homosexuals.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by fantASTic

Maybe. But why is it okay to say that about creationism, but it's NOT okay to say that other parts of the bible are not to be taken literally?

For example - premarital sex and homosexuals.

You have to read the Bible in the original languages and understand the cultures to know what was intended. Most people reading the Bible have no clue about the nuances throughout because they can only read the Bible as if it were written for their time and place. But, that's why we have scholars. Do you know the difference between tall tales, historical fiction and a historical textbook in 2008? Probably so. Ancient writers would have known the difference among their genres as well even if the average American today does not.

ETA: Regarding our misunderstanding of culture/language, for instance, the term commonly translated as "carpenter" for Jesus is probably not an accurate translation, but we've sure jumped on that bandwagon. It's more likely his father was a general handyman rather than a wood crafter.

And, even worse, in the King James version of the Bible, females were referred to as him/his due to the culture in which that version was written. Most other Bible versions have corrected it, but think about how many people believe that the King James version in English was breathed onto the pages by God him/herself. When you think about how enormously significant it was for women to be in positions of authority - which meant they had money, land, etc. - is huge in thinking about how Christianity got to where it was then.