Science vs. Religion?

[Shadow Templar]

http://myplace.frontier.com/~msn7c0t...sreligion.html

Being a physics major in college, this seems sorta relevant in my situation. Thoughts?

[KingsGambit]

Orthogonal. I like that way of putting it.

[Jedidiah]

http://myplace.frontier.com/~msn7c0t...sreligion.html

Being a physics major in college, this seems sorta relevant in my situation. Thoughts?

I have to disagree. Both the natural world and the Bible are created by the same God (this only applies to Christianity) then they should both, when put to the test agree - they should be compatible.

Science is the study of nature (yes over simplified) and religion, via theology, is the study of God and His revelation. If they disagree then one has to be wrong. Both sides of the study are subject to error. These errors must be corrected. As corrected the will not conflict.

Some declare that the Bible is supreme and reveals errors in science (our own Jorge being a prime example). Some declare that the Bible is just an error filled human book (Eugenie Scott is a prime example of this side).

Properly understood they can not contradict one another.

[hedrick]

Science and religion have different methodologies, and need to be free to conduct business according to them. But realistically there is overlap.

They do in some ways both deal with the place of humans in the world. The fact that humans are part of nature, and developed according to natural law did seriously affect religious concepts, which previously had often seen us as separate from and superior to everything else. You can argue that this was a misunderstand of Scripture all along, but we probably wouldn't have seen it if theologians were left to themselves.

Science and social science also inform ethics. Again, I would argue that Jesus taught more an approach and general principles, but this is not always how Christians viewed things.

While religion doesn't typically dictate science, the practice of science and particularly its application does depend upon how we view humans and the world as a whole. Medical and social science that sees people as having value before God is going to have different attitudes than one that sees them as things for the State to manipulate.

The traditional medieval model was "two books." That is, the Bible and the book of nature both gave us insight into the universe and our place in it. I'm not so sure that this is wrong.

[Jedidiah]

The traditional medieval model was "two books." That is, the Bible and the book of nature both gave us insight into the universe and our place in it. I'm not so sure that this is wrong.

And since both books have the same author . . .

[hedrick]

And since both books have the same author . . .

Of course. But I think the concept was that they both contribute knowledge, but not necessarily in an orthogonal fashion.

[Jedidiah]

I would propose parallel.

[rogue06]

And since both books have the same author . . .

And since everything is a part of God's creation nothing we discover about it can discredit God and the Bible. Moses Maimonides (d.1204 and sometimes referred to as RaMBaM) wisely said that if the findings of science and what we read in the Bible were misaligned, it was either because science was not understood or the Bible was misinterpreted. Maimonides argued that if science proved a point, then the finding should be accepted and scripture should be interpreted accordingly.

"The Torah cannot be false. What has been proven to be true cannot be false by definition. Therefore if your understanding of Torah is contradicted by what has been proven to be true, the only thing that can be wrong is your understanding of Torah."

Basically, he felt that truth cannot contradict truth

[37818]

In our secular world we have the "scientific method" to test ideas and observations. In metaphysics what type of test can be used? There is no consensus in the scientific community on this that is of common knowledge. Parapsychology has attempted to use statical methods to test some paranormal claims.

The scientific method applies to the empirical. Parapsychology has attempted to test some paranormal empirical claims. Metaphysics often deals with the non-empirical.

The link seems to be dead. Please state problem in a sentence or two.

[Jedidiah]

Basically, he felt that truth cannot contradict truth

Exactly.

[Jedidiah]

In our secular world we have the "scientific method" to test ideas and observations. In metaphysics what type of test can be used? There is no consensus in the scientific community on this that is of common knowledge. Parapsychology has attempted to use statical methods to test some paranormal claims.

The scientific method applies to the empirical. Parapsychology has attempted to test some paranormal empirical claims. Metaphysics often deals with the non-empirical.

The link seems to be dead. Please state problem in a sentence or two.

The link works for me.

The scientific method is of complete value when examining the creation. It is of no real use in examining God. I don't know what you mean by metaphysics, but Biblical exegesis is a perfectly good system for understanding scripture. Are either perfect? No, but that does not trouble me. As 06 put it ;

Basically, he felt that truth cannot contradict truth

[jordanriver]

religion definitions , the worship of a supernatural
OR "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:"

the religion (I think that's a generic word) I follow is based on the Bible

I think it is a mistake to put the Bible in category: SCIENCE

I believe, if one is looking for a place to slip the Bible back into the secular controlled education system, t
the correct category would be, category: HISTORY
...specifically, WORLD HISTORY,

the same category you would cite the origin of Islam, and Mohammad's military conquests, and his successors who almost conquered Christian Europe.

and the same category you would mention Siddhārtha Gautama (Gautama Buddha), who also made a big impact on humans.

[37818]

The link works for me.

The scientific method is of complete value when examining the creation. It is of no real use in examining God. I don't know what you mean by metaphysics, but Biblical exegesis is a perfectly good system for understanding scripture. Are either perfect? No, but that does not trouble me. . . . ;

Yes, the link is working.

As for the concept of Science vs. Religion. I think it should where religion promotes false superstitions. The laws of nature are, which in my view, by the very same word of God which gave us the holy scripture.

There is a principle difference between religion and mere religion supposed of Christianity. I have heard the difference summarized as "Do" vs. "Done." In mere religion where one must do, where in genuine Christianity it is been done, having been completed on the cross, promoted by the claim of Christ's resurrection as a real historical event.

[Jedidiah]

I have heard the difference summarized as "Do" vs. "Done." In mere religion where one must do, where in genuine Christianity it is been done, having been completed on the cross, promoted by the claim of Christ's resurrection as a real historical event.

Over simplified and tangential to the topic, but true none-the-less.

[shunyadragon]

This short essay is ok, but it does not address the hard questions of why science has been a difficult issue for Christians to deal with, i.e. 40%+ of the Christians in America reject evolution, and the scientific evidence for a universe billions of years old. Historically Christianity is anchored in the 'Adam and Eve Fall and Original Sin,' and the belief in the NT that this is literally true.

Source: http://myplace.frontier.com/~msn7c0t...sreligion.html

For those atheists who are offended by spiritual references to God, or who reject the existence of God, it might be helpful to visualize what some people refer to as God simply as the forces of nature that got us where we are today.

© Copyright Original Source

This is puzzling, not very helpful, because atheist does refer to the 'Source' 'as the forces of nature that got us here today.' Atheist may be or not offended, they simply do not believe in God.

Source: http://myplace.frontier.com/~msn7c0t...sreligion.html

However, to reject religion or a creator is to reject the ethical standards that make us principled human beings. We have thousands of years of Judeo-Christian heritage that shaped our culture and made it what it is – a free and tolerant society. It is not perfect, but a work in progress. We should not be too quick to throw that away. God is not finished with us yet.

© Copyright Original Source

This taking a strictly theist perspective concerning the 'origins of morals and ethics.' The fact is virtually all successful cultures, i.e. Confucianism, have a system of morals and ethics that is successful. Judeo-Christian cultures is most definitely not necessarily a free and tolerant society in history. Even today 'freedom and tolerance in contemporary Christianity is more then a bit edgy when it comes to those who believe differently. If you want to make a comparison, Buddhism is more of a free and tolerant society in history.