I have a legitimate question that I want to repsectfully ask. I do not want to engage in a bash religion thread. There has been a lot of discusion recently with the feeding tube debate and the IMAX controvery discussed here earlier that have put religion and science at direct odds against each other. Regarding the debate about creationism vs. evolution, we hear the religious community disregarding science claiming that evolution is simply a theory. Regarding Schaivo, I've heard comments by the religious community similiar to this: "We should not be playing god with peoples lives so we should leave the feeding tube in." So this leads me to my question. If the religious community cannot support what science has provided us with regards to evolution, how do you reconcile what science has provided us to keep people alive with a machine for years? I think it is the mormons that refuse to take medicine because they leave the act of healing 'in God's hands.' I don't necessary understand that but I can respect their full immursion in faith. In this case, on the surface, it seems many Christians accept science sometimes and other times not. I'm not being argumentative. I'm just curious. How do you reconcile that?
I beleive that one does not invalidate the other I think religion explained science when science was not understood the more we understand science the less religion explains the less faith we need Science in my mind is an explaination of the mechanism God uses to do his work I can strike a match and be a god to primative man them knowing how i did it . .. does not change the fact that i did it Rocket River
It's strange that science explains these things better than the Big Guy's book. Of course, our society would probably be in bad shape if he divulged nuclear power or something worse to the guys back in BC.
I think Science explains Science better than the bible. But it doesn't explain a spiritual relationship with God better. As Max has said repeatedly, the bible was never meant to be a science text. It isn't meant to tell the future, it is meant to help people develop their relationship with God. It is a spiritual text book, and does that better than any science book. Science explains evolution, the creation of the earth, and other science related facts far better than the bible, because the bible doesn't really attempt to explain that stuff on the same level.
exactly Advance technology could explain alot of miracles but could u imagine explaining radio to a person of that age I mean honestly. . .If I could teleport or some of the Star trek stuff If I used the replicato ro insta-heal folx I would be worshiped, Killed as a mutant or alien, or people would think it was a trick [mostly] The more you do it . .and it is not seen as a trick . . .folx would come to beleive you was not . .. normal and would grow to fear you or worship you to get next to you because they could not comprehend it fully the mechanisms of how it was done. in that day an age. . they would have killed ya pure and simple Perhaps the priest decided that most folx were not READY for the responsibility ether mental [able to comprehend it] or emotionally [Can you imagine guns during the crusades? or nuclear weapons?] Rocket River
The case of Religion V Science was settled with a restraining order keeping Religion from approaching Science within 200 feet. Many believers will seemingly hold contradictory thoughts when they believe they are going for an overall higher goal. For instance consider how staunch defenders of States Rights like Tom DeLay have been eagerly federalizing a state issue.
Please, I was tying to have a civil conversation but any more conversation about Tom DeLay will force me to upchuck profusely. Sorry, I haven't used the term upchuck in years and felt the need.
Science is a tool towards serving the interest of humanity. Religion is supposed to be one person's connection to spirituality, but it's inevitable that its interests would become something greater than each person. There is no mutual exclusion between the two. The advancement of science, technology, and knowledge can be seen as increasing the quality of living and the power of humanity, but there are times when that power will come into conflict with the certain doctrines of different religions. Yet power and improving the quality of life also comes in different forms and tools such as politics and money. There isn't as large a controversy from religious groups when corruption sinks in the economic and political levels. Or at least, the impetus for change has not been felt from these groups. The consequences from abusing those two tools could negatively effect as much or more people than science. Science and technology have increased the power of our political leaders to the scale where hundreds of million people will be affected. Are the two to be blamed when that power is used unjustly and unmorally? So why do people, who have certain key objections of science, accept that corruption of money and politics are the natural inclinations of man when science is another tool that man should control responsibly? Perhaps organized religious groups view the corruption of politics and money as another interest groups' fight, or maybe they've been guilty in some form that prevents them from tackling the issue head on. Whatever is the case, it seems that when times are the hardest or when the future is the bleakest, organized religion is the group that benefits the most in terms of membership. Human spirituality has the potential for us to envision past the needs other interests say we have to fulfill. We can see past the need to accumulate wealth we might never use. We can live beyond the borders of nations and celebrate humanity. We wouldn't feel compelled to build more efficient tools that have no impact towards happiness and awareness. We wouldn't need to formulate the answers of why when the greatest why will never be solved in the realm of science. Science will provide more questions upon answers, when the most basic question all of us ask will not be answered by science. Our knowledge in the scale and magnitude of the universe is as limited as our time spent on this world, most likely even far less. For the influencial, religion is another tool. Different groups will use it as selectively as they use science. As tools, none will advance the goals of its original intentions. Collectively, we are possibly happier with that. It's better to strive for a dream than to reach the summit of one's own truth.
i think most of you have very distorted views on what Christians and other people of faith in the Creator actually believe.
(As you know) Religion is such an interesting phenomena to me becuase it seems the need to have an answer to the unknowable is so universal, so endemic to the human psyche. Just about every civilization has had myths about the nature of a creator or gods that are greater than man that they believe in and worship even though they cannot be supported with rational arguments or empirical data. As civilizations evolve an new ones become dominant, they invariably replace the old gods with their own, usually ridiculiing the predicessors beliefs as ridiculous when in reality their own myths are just as baseless. Religions seem to all need to answer the questions of science, dictate a code for worldly conduct and extend one's consciousness beyond death. That's a tall order but ,it seems also to be promoted as the primary means to gain and maintain political power. He who controls the religion controls the nation. And as we know, power corrupts. Science on the other hand accepts that there are things that are unknowable, seeks to understand reality instead of promoting myths and as far as I know has never been a basis for any domination or repression.
Krosfyah, very good questions here, because you seem sincere. I don't disregard science at all, and yet I am convinced that evolution is a theory. These two views are consistent and held by many scientists. science comes from the Latin 'scientia' which means to know or have knowledge. Religion answers the questions- Where we came from. Why we are here, and where we are going. Science observes the processes that are put in place for these purposes. In simple terms God decided we needed hands and created them. Scientists spend their time trying to figure out how all those capillaries got stuffed into the end of your little finger. And we choose whether we will use our hands for good or evil. We need science to help us understand what God created. We need God to help us use it for the purpose he designed. Science does a very poor job in determining origins. They take a depth of earth and declare to the world it is 10 million years old. Then they find a bone fragment at the same depth and declare it is 10 million years old. Then they turn around and find a bone fragment and declare it is 10 million years old so they announce to the world that the depth they found it in is 10 million years old. It is circular reasoning at best. I was a devout evolutionist all through college, and then I started thinking. That ruined me. The only way to keep evolution a poor theory is to make it a scientific fact. Unless the evolutionary process stopped ubruptly about 6000 yrs ago there is no observable evidence to support it. It actually should be moved to a hypothesis. Imagine taking a snapshot yesterday of the world in a macro evolutionary process. For billions of years we have been in the grinding process of macro evolution as species after species painfully slowly evolve. Why looking across this evolutionary panorama we would expect to find billions and billions of transition species, 'links' if you please. Links everywhere observable and varifiable links as the long trudging process of macro evolution marches onward, ever evolving species, links between species just validating the assumptions of evolution for scientists everywhere. Think of the headlines- "5000 new 'links' observed between amphibians and reptiles just yesterday". That would have to be the case if evolution was scientific fact. But I can't think of even one example of a transition or 'link' scientifically observable today. For a science that demands, promotes and rests upon gradual transition between species it gives me a headache that it is not observable. Species are distint. That is scientific. Transition is missing. That must be religion. Leave science alone. It is doing fine helping us acheive a better understanding of the world God created. Leave origins to God. He did a good job in the beginning.
Neither can tell you what will happen in life. Therein lies the fundamental flaw of both science and religion. Neither idea really does much of anything. Science can explain somethings, and provides evidence, but looks at itself funny when something like love comes into the equation. Life breaks the rules of science. Why? Who knows, it makes no sense, but it does. Religion explains almost everything, but provides no givens and has almost no evidence to back it up. So both ideas are fundamentally flawed. Which is why if you are looking for something to believe in, something to guide you, Science or Religion, you may want to consider that there is some idea that is better than both, and that there will soon be a third option. This is the mark of greatness. You have Jesus. You have Einstein. And there will be another. Someone who has an idea that takes everything a little further than both science and religion. I wouldn't try to reconcile the two ideas. I really wouldn't. I'm not going to say there is no value in reconcilation because I believe that there is. But there is something so much greater out there. Reconcilation is interesting, and someone should spend some time trying to do that, but if you really want to do something with your life, start seeking the inevitable, a new idea.
did you know that a majority of people who identified themselves as evangelical in a Time poll said they agreed with the decision to remove the feeding tube?
PhiSlammaJamma, good points, but I would say it a little differently: Religion explains some things very well, and provides absolutes for moral actions and the evidence backs it up. For example, You get up and get drunk every morning beat your wife and throw her around. Guarantee you that you are damaging her and your marriage. And there is ample observable proof to back that up. Or you molest your own children and they turn out traumatized and they are damaged physically and mentally. Or someone lies to you and gains access to your personal wealth and plunders you leaving you bankrupt. Swindled as they say. Or someone pulls a home invasion on your wife and rapes her simply because he saw her in the mall and fell in love with her. Everyone does what is right in their own eyes. Right and wrong may be in the eye of the beholder, but a religion with the correct absolute truths can be avaluable asset when choosing how to love your neighbor.
I would rather understand and decide for myself why my actions are correct or not in each unique given situation, rather than relying on predefined "absolutes". There can be no absolutes when everything is in constant change. No two situations are exactly the same. If moral absolutes exist we all might as well get lobotomies. There then becomes no reason to think.
