Science and religion...

[Zarathustra]

Christianity and Science have been rivals for quite some time. But why? Science is exploring the fabric of our reality: the reality that was created by God. Whether the astronomers that are exploring space and the wonders of the Heavens (God probably didn't just put them because he had created humans and just wanted to pass the time) or Mathematicians/Biologists/General Scientists that are exploring the beautiful patterns that make our reality tick.

Sure, science isn't necessarily doing things in the name of God; however, Religion has been antagonizing Science for quite some time. God took a lot of time (6 days, which is a lot of time for a being that exists beyond time ) to prepare this Universe for us. The religious are saying "I'm sorry that you took so much time to make this for me, I'm obviously not worthy to be part of it". But, if God thought enough of us to put us in this beautiful universe, should we not enjoy it while we can?

Wouldn't it please God to see his subjects exploring the environment that had been prepared for them, and appreciating the intricacy of reality, as opposed to asking for forgiveness for simply being created by Him?

[Dilettante]

Perhaps a more reasonable view of original sin is that it is a metaphor for our tendency to act unethically.

As for the rivalry of religion and science, I favor Stephen Jay Gould's notion of "Non-Overlapping Magisteria", NOMA for short. In other words, there is room for both as long as they both stay in their fields. Here's a quote from the late great SJG:

NOMA cuts both ways and imposes restrictions and responsibility on both magisteria. The political campaigns of American creationists do represent... an improper attempt... within the magisterium of religion to impose their doctrines upon the magisterium of science. But, alas, scientists have also, indeed frequently, been guilty of the same offense in reverse, even if they don't build organized political movement with legislative clout.
The enemy is not religion but dogmatism and intolerance.
Huxley and Darwin did indeed lose any vestige of a lingering personal belief in an intrinsically just world, governed by a loving anthropomorphic deity.
He [Darwin] lost personal comfort and belief in the conventional practice of religion, but he developed no desire to urge a view upon others-- for he understood the difference between factual questions with universal answers under the magisterium of science, and moral issues that each person must resolve for himself.
A few of Darwin's well-placed friends, spearheaded by Huxley, lobbied the proper ecclesiastical and parliamentary authorities to secure a public burial in Westminster Abby, where Darwin lies today. . . Huxley must have relished the prospect that a freethinker who had so discombobulated the most hallowed traditions of Western thought could now lie with kings and conquerors in the most sacred British spot of both political and ecclesiastical authority.
I most emphatically do not argue that ethical people must validate their standards by overt appeals to religion-- for we give several names to the moral discourse of this necessary magisterium, and we all know that atheists can live in the most firmly principled manner, while hypocrites can wrap themselves in any flag, including (most prominently) the banners of God and country.
While every person must formulate a moral theory under the magisterium of ethics and meaning, and while religion anchors this magisterium in most cultural traditions, the chosen pathway need not invoke religion at all, but may ground moral discourse in other disciplines, philosophy for example.
The half-century between Pius [XII] surveying the ruins of World War II and his own pontificate heralding the dawn of a new millennium has witnessed such a growth of data, and such a refinement of theory, that evolution can no longer be doubted by people of goodwill and keen intellect.
The concept of a "day" could not be defined before the sun's creation on the fourth day of the Genesis sequence.
I must say that I simply don't understand what reading the Bible "literally" can mean, since the text, cobbled together from so many sources, contains frequent and inevitable contradictions.
"Creation science" is nothing but a smoke screen, a meaningless and oxymoronic phrase invented as sheep's clothing for the old wolf of Genesis literalism.
Many people cannot bear to surrender nature as a "transitional object"-- a baby's warm blanket for our adult comfort. But when we do (for we must), nature can finally emerge in her true form: not as a distorted mirror of our needs, but as our most fascinating companion. Only then can we unite the patches built by our separate magisteria into a beautiful and coherent quilt called wisdom.
When we reject the siren song of false sources, we become free to seek solutions to questions of morals and meanings in the proper place-- within ourselves.
Only a moral pervert could believe that the child's handicap was meant to be because it happened, or that God followed an agenda of overall decency by purposely peppering our lives with such specific misfortune.
The Big Bang cannot be touted as a description of God's initial creation of the universe ex nihilo. The Big Bang does not set the ultimate beginnings of all material things-- a subject outside the magisterium of science. The Big Bang is a proposition about the origin of our known universe.

(Stephen Jay Gould, Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life , from a review by Jim Walker quoted at www.nobeliefs.com/Gould2.htm )

The rivalry seems to be caused by religious dogmatism most of the time, and by scientific arrogance on very few occasions.

[Zarathustra]

That sounds good, in theory, Dilettante; however, there is one problem: those fields, by definition, overlap. Both try to explain natural phenomenon, and were created for the purpose of better understanding the world around us. Also, (and I didn't read that entire quote) any restrictions put on the fields inherently hinder them: they might tell science they can't explore space because what if they don't find God?

[Dilettante]

You definitely have a point there, Zarathustra. But the fact that the domains of religion and science have overlapped in the past doesn't mean they must continue to overlap in the future. Perhaps if we could achieve a redefinition of religion as a sort of spiritual poetry which does not attempt to explain the physical world, peaceful coexistence may be possible. And if God is conceived of as external to spacetime (i.e., external to the universe) no religionist will be alarmed if the latest space probe fails to find God. On the other hand, none of this will probably be a problem to pantheists who find God everywhere. Of course I'll grant you that some major changes would need to occur in the field of religion before this model of coexistence is viable.

[Zarathustra]

Alright, with those changes I could see NOMA working. However, I'm not sure how willing the Vatican will be to give up its monopoly on salvation and the power that accompanies, not just yet, anyway.

[hannahjoy]

Is having a lustful thought a sin?

The bible says it is:
Quote:
" But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. " - Mt. 5:28


I don't know about how a woman's mind works (this is a true mystery to me ) But I know how guys think...this is impossible. There's no way to win this one because of the primal way our brains function. This is one of the reason why I make the claim that the system is setup for you to sin.

First, look at what the verse says . . .
"whoever looks at a woman to lust for her"
It's a look for the purpose of indulging your lust.

Second, it's one thing to have a thought cross your mind unbidden - it's another to let it stay, or to dwell on it. That is sin, and you don't have to do it.

And if God is conceived of as external to spacetime (i.e., external to the universe) no religionist will be alarmed if the latest space probe fails to find God.

I thought you knew the Bible better than that. It would be alarming if they did find God in space - John 4:24 "God is a Spirit . . ."

What kind of Christianity would it be that totally rejected the Bible? If the Bible has any authority in spiritual matters, it has the same authority in scientific matters for the same reason. The Bible's authority, if it has any, comes from God, and if God is omniscient, He knows all about science.

Hannah Joy

[Dilettante]

hannahjoy wrote:Quote:

And if God is conceived of as external to spacetime (i.e., external to the universe) no religionist will be alarmed if the latest space probe fails to find God.

I thought you knew the Bible better than that. It would be alarming if they did find God in space - John 4:24 "God is a Spirit . . ."

What kind of Christianity would it be that totally rejected the Bible? If the Bible has any authority in spiritual matters, it has the same authority in scientific matters for the same reason. The Bible's authority, if it has any, comes from God, and if God is omniscient, He knows all about science.

I don't remember the Bible saying that God lived outside spacetime. In fact, if God created our world in six days, as the Bible claims, it seems that spacetime would have been there from the first day--or it would make no sense to spaek of a "first day of creation".
A kind of Christianity without the Bible would be closer to that of the apostles. None of them had access to a Bible.
God may know all about science, but He certainly didn't put that knowledge into the Bible writer's heads. There are many things in the Bible which contradict well-established scientific facts.

[Zarathustra]

So, hannah, are you saying (or, implying, rather) that science is a useless endeavor and that everything scientist discover, theorize, and invent is all wrong because it doesn't mention "Quantum Mechanics" "Astrophysics" "Black holes" "Amoebas" or anything like that?

[MagusYanam]

Firstly, you cannot read the Bible as a textbook. In some places, doing so would be laughable. The Bible was never meant to be a treatise on faith or a biology or astrophysics textbook. The Bible is composed of many works of many authors - there is much poetry in the Bible, yet it would be incorrect to read it entirely as an anthology. Likewise, there is much valid history in the Bible, but in many areas it is inappropriate for use as a history.

Secondly, (and this applies to rationalists and atheists as well as religious conservatives) there are many layers of meaning in the language of the Bible. To say 'Well, the Bible must be incorrect because of such and such an inconsistency' is actually quite petty and issues from excessive literalism. The same applies to 'Well, such and such an inconsistency is not really an inconsistency because x, y and z' - in many cases such exercises in apologetics are not important whatsoever! In many instances, the usage of language in the Bible is extremely figurative. When reading any of the parables, literalism becomes indefensible. Likewise for the psalms.

Thirdly, Protestants - give up the whole inerrancy spiel, I mean yesterday! You might have needed it in those debates with Catholics over correct doctrine four and a half centuries ago, but it is not necessary now. I'm not talking about salvation purposes - for that, the Bible is a guide which must be presumed infallible. I'm talking about all-around infallibility doctrine. Protestantism is alive and well, and can very well survive without inerrancy doctrine, especially considering the field of Higher Criticism that modern Biblical scholarship has adopted. Kerygmatic Christians didn't believe the Bible as we know it today to be inerrant - especially because the entire concept of what the 'Bible' would consist of was in debate back then! So, who's to say what's 'inspired' and what's not aside from the decisions of some Imperial councils fifteen or sixteen hundred years ago? Complete inerrancy falls apart - just give it up.

Can't we all just appreciate the Bible for what it really is - an amalgamation of beautiful Hebrew and Greek literary works that has become the basis for a great religion?

[Zarathustra]

Well, that rant was all well and good, but does is it really germane to the conversation?

[MagusYanam]

HannahJoy wrote:

If the Bible has any authority in spiritual matters, it has the same authority in scientific matters for the same reason. The Bible's authority, if it has any, comes from God, and if God is omniscient, He knows all about science.

Oh well. I guess it wasn't really germane to the conversation, but I have a tendency to go off on a tangent from time to time.