|
|
|
|
perspective, perhaps? Why must these two clash? Is religious dogma to be used as the basis for understanding and exploration of scientific theory? Conversly, should scientific principles be used for the explanation of a person's faith/belief in a Supreme being?
To me, this is the ultimate apples/oranges comparison. I believe that the world evolved through millions of years to what it is today as demonstrated through scientific research and archeological finds. I have faith that there is a kind, benevolent something out there somewhere that helps me to make the right and just decision because, sometimes, that faith is what keeps me from curling up in a corner and crying.
Hugs, Charlie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Charlie,
>Why must these two clash? Is religious dogma to be used as the basis for understanding and exploration of scientific theory?
It cannot be. The foundation of scientific method is that everything can be explained and everything is logical. Introducing an illogical, supernatural element -- one that cannot be observed or tested, and hence is soley a matter of faith -- completely destroys the whole thing.
>Conversly, should scientific principles be used for the explanation of a person's faith/belief in a Supreme being?
No. All science can do is demonstrate that there is no reason to think that God exists. You can overrule that with personal faith if you wish, but that is not science.
>To me, this is the ultimate apples/oranges comparison.
You are absolutely right. There really is no conflict unless people create one (maintaining that everything in the Bible is word-for-word true, for instance). I never cease to be mystified as to why people would purposefully do that. It is unbelievably perverse, considering that today's world is increasingly secular and science-based, and scientific method is the one thing that can be shown to be reliable. Religion is anything but.
>I have faith that there is a kind, benevolent something out there somewhere that helps me to make the right and just decision because, sometimes, that faith is what keeps me from curling up in a corner and crying.
Faith is a personal matter. We all need a metaphorical shoulder to cry on from time to time, and if a person's coping strategy involves a benevolent God who guides him, then for that person God does indeed exist. It doesn't mean it does for science, or for anyone else.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
You probably know from previous threads that I am an agnostic, and that I have no expectation of eternal life. Unlike, Deeej, I am NOT an atheist; I don't feel a need to deny the possibility of a supreme being, though I agree with Deeej that the current state of scientific knowledge does not demand divine intervention in arriving at our present state and time. I simply don't know.
You say that you accept the scientific view of our evolution over millions of years rather than a mere six thousand years. That seems to me to be the key requirement for a rational interface between science and religion.
If there IS a god - and I repeat that I do not reject the possibility - then there is ONE god, and we are ALL his children. Primitive societies needed the concept of god to explain events which they could not understand. The fact that we can now understand much more does not necessarily mean that their basic premise was wrong.
Mankind moved from pre-history to history some three thousand years ago. Concurrently, there was a shift from hunting and gathering to static farming, and with it the seeds of nationhood were sown. 'Nations' are not necessarily static, but they are significantly larger than mere tribes. Then, and ever since, national leaders have appreciated the value of a national history in fostering national unity. The Judaeo-Christian Bible is the national history of the Jews, and much of it was written retrospectively, though no doubt based upon existing oral traditions.
Modern scientific research - historical, as well as archaeological - suggests that many biblical events had a foundation in fact, though other events did not. Indeed, recent archaeological research indicates that the area surrounding the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem was not occupied until at least three hundred years after the birth of Jesus! The overall picture suggests that the Bible is not literally true, and that it is the work of man rather than god, but that it is filled with allegorical truth.
So long as both sides can accept this background, science can support religion and religion can inspire scientific research. For example, on the Bethlehem issue, archaeologists have identified another village of that name very much closer to Nazareth, and the latter village certainly was occupied in the first century. Much more research is needed, but it is at least possible that Jesus' birthplace was politically 'migrated' to Bethlehem in Judea in order to bring Jesus into line with the prophecies of Micah, among others.
If the Bible is treated, as it ought to be, as an allegorical morality tale, it has much to commend it, and by embracing scientific research its inner meaning can only become clearer. I won't recite the story of the politicisation of Christianity yet again, but the New Testament is also the work of man, and indeed of men with a clear political agenda.
Once more, collaboration between science and religion can only help to clarify the message. But none of this detracts from the Jesus portrayed in the Gospels. There is ample corroborative historical and archaeological evidence to suggest that the historical aspects of the Gospel stories are probably true. Whether he was in any literal sense the 'Son of God' is a question of faith, but no other religious leader has ever set out a better or more moral philosophy of life.
As Deeej implied, there is nothing wrong with the philosophy of Christianity, so long as we approach it not as a literal truth but as a pattern for living, about which science can only improve our understanding.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Both of you eloquently stated the difference between science (head) and religion (heart) and that the two can peacefully co-exist within one body.
Please, let us all hold this close.
Hugs, Charlie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aussie
|
 |
Really getting into it |
Registered: August 2006
Messages: 475
|
|
|
Once again I have to agree. You both had well thought up replies which made interesting reading.
Thanks for the big Hi Cossie and hope you have got your ducks under control now and you are not training or fattening them with malt.
Aussie
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Thanks Deeej and Cossie 
