Why does everyone pit science against God? I'm not saying it's just those who challenge Christianity, but some Christians, too. People come at Christians saying that God is disproved by science, and some Christians hide their head under a rock and say that science is all wrong and is the crutch of atheists. Has anyone ever considered that God and science can work together? For example, I'm a Christian. I believe that God created the heavens and the earth in six days (the seventh was for rest). However, a God-day is not necessarily a Earth-day. God could have created the earth in 7 billion years; it's all the same for Him. Personally, I think the six days are symbolism. As for evolution, I don't think it's "of the devil". There's archeological evidence pointing to it, just like there's archeological evidence pointing to the events of the Bible. But, what most people don't grasp is that maybe God created humans through evolution. Obviously, I won't know until I die, but, in Genesis, it says that God created Adam from dust. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the theories of evolution the "cosmic soup" theory, where there was a blend of just the right amounts of minerals and a sudden flash of heat, then life occured? Well, I could very well be wrong, but it seems like God and science could work together. Very few people think that, but that's just my two cents.
Your way of thought were very similar to mine. I too am a Christian, I have learned both creation and evolution. Sometimes I wonder: When God created, did he give permission for them to evolve? In my views, it could be possible, but now I doubt it everytime I think about it. There is not enough evidence to support evolution, though scientists are frantically searching. So that diswades me from thinking that Permission was given. Main thing is what you said, Science VS. God... God gave us knowledge... and the will to exersise and strive for more knowledge. Science is the process of striving for information as to how this world works. So when you look at it, God gave us Science so we can have the oppritunity to better understand our world. However, some people are turning their backs to God, and want to scientifically prove that he doesn't exsist. This is the reason for the constant arguements. I fully don't understand it all, this is what I've percieved thus far...
Of course it has been considered, it IS considered by some people, there are others who share your beliefs that the two work hand in hand. There will always be extremists though who completely denounce one in the favour of the other, which they are entitled to do; it is their choice after all. I’m not entirely sure so I may be wrong in saying this, but I think most people accept the Bible as symbolism now as opposed to a literal detailing of events. I do think that is a very good point though, when you are a Being that exists for all of time and beyond, what is a day? I shall be thinking about that for a while now xD This is very true; there is also evidence of evolution occurring now. For example bacteria will evolve and adapt to different environments and conditions; its evolution on a small scale. I won’t pretend to be knowledgeable about other more impressive occurrences because I would probably get something wrong and look like a twat, but I do know there is evidence for ongoing evolution even now. As for the archaeological evidence pointing towards events in the Bible, well that is actually very true, there are some instances where archaeological excavation has helped reinforce some of the stories told in the Bible. However, archaeological work and historical study has also DISPROVED some of the stories in the Bible. So with regards to archaeology and religion, I think that it can be theorised that events occurred in the past that would have seemed miraculous and fantastic and completely inexplicable so the cause was attributed to God. Plus in a time when story telling was the high form of entertainment it makes sense that some events that may have been perfectly ordinary by modern standards would have been exaggerated and enriched to be seen as more exciting and marvellous. Whether those events did occur isn’t what is questioned, it is the cause of those events was it the work of God or was it the work of perfectly ordinary acts of nature that just couldn’t be explained at that time? The Bible was not written by God, it was written by man, and can’t really be used as evidence of God. In some ways it is like a story book meant to teach people about morals and help them to live as a good Christian. It isn’t that people don’t grasp the possibility; it is that the two ideas of how we came to be, Evolution and Creationism, conflict with each other too much. To pick and choose aspects from either side is just too convenient if not a little greedy, in my opinion anyway. Though again, I love your theory behind it, maybe I am just not up to date on modern debates between the two, but I hadn’t thought about that before. However, to flip it to the other side, maybe science is what created God, all of these things were occurring because of science and nature, only we didn’t fully understand the world around us, we barely do now, so humans came up with the idea of God to explain science. That is something that has been suggested as often as God creating everything through Science. There is actually a lot of evidence pointing towards evolution, certainly more than creationism. Archaeologists and scientists, as well as palaeontologists have all uncovered evidence of evolution. There is no doubt that evolution has happened in the past and is continuing to occur even now. The flaw with that is that God was also a way to better understand our world; the things that made no sense to us were attributed to a Higher Power to explain them. That was how we came to understand the world. Science has changed that no doubt, but if Science was given to us by the hand of God then He gave to us His downfall. As we look at the world around us and learn to understand it better, we can see that the events and occurrences of the past that we would once have called miracles are now nothing more than the workings of nature. This doesn’t mean that they are any less breathtaking or extraordinary; it just means we can understand them and how they work a little more. Take a tornado for example; when in the past we would have been absolutely terrified and thought it was the destruction of God coming down on us, now we can say they are the cause of weather, we can even predict them and give people warning. Of course it is possible that God would want us to learn all of this so that we could find ways to save people, but then you would have to ask, why bother sending the tornado in the first place? That isn’t the reason for the arguments. There are arguments because there are different opinions; it can’t be attributed just to those who are scientifically minded, followers of God also help in the conflict as they try to turn their back on science and dispute it, but let me ask you, if God gave us the gift of science, then isn’t turning your back on what science teaches us similar to turning your back on God Himself anyway? You’re turning on what He teaches you and dismissing it, so in turn you dismiss Him, if science IS all wrong, then doesn’t that mean that God is deliberately trying to deceive and trick His followers? Science and Religion will always have differences and be on opposing sides, for sure there will be times they meet and shake hands in the middle, but there are too many ideas that conflict between the two for them to both exist amongst sunshine and lollipops. This being a perfect example.
OK, Staunch Athiest Alert, so if I offend, I honestly don't mean it. I tend to get too far into Religious debate. Like Styx said, it's creationism that really cannot work with science, and since that is one of the initial teachings of the Bible in Genesis, it's one of the things that many Christians grow up believing. Hence the sizeable conflict. Personally, I believe that we're here by complete chance. Big Bang or not, something happened to nothing to make everything, and if things had gone wrong, well, we wouldn't know, would we? Everything that can happen, has happened, and at each of those choices, branches into another "Timeline" or sequence of events. There's a name for this... I think it's String Theory? Anyway, I Digress. I agree that the Bible is intended as Symbolism more than anything, as anyone who can take the entire Bible as literal fact is, again no offence, a fool. I don't deny that there may have been a bloke around called Jesus in Year 30AD who preached goodness and all that jazz, but some of it is amoral, and in a modern world, even offensive to some (particularly with attitudes to women, etc.) There's nothing wrong with a collaboration between religious and scientific ideas. A large percentage of American Scientists believe in the existence of some form of Deity (around 73%, I believe) However, the Christian faith is separated into so many different cliques, all with various interpretations and beliefs. AT the end of the day, you can't change people's beliefs, but only prove to them fact. Neither Science nor Religion can do either when it comes to God, aside from the evolution argument, so there's always going to be some manner of divide.
This thread makes me smile. We need more people to preach this. Speaking as a formerly devout Catholic, I can vouch for this. I really can't think of the Bible as anything but symbolism. Yes, I think this is what causes a great deal of controversy and debate over God's existence; no one thinks of what "omnipotence" or "omniscience" would actually mean in realistic context. This is why the Bible gets so much flak imo, because it uses such mundane terms to describe what is probably not mundane in the slightest. Assuming any part of it is true, of course. I can back you up. Ever heard of CCR5-Δ32? It's a gene mutation that flourished in Europe during the time of the Black Death. It protects against smallpox and HIV. Now it's being used in various procedures to either suppress or cure HIV/AIDS. More mid-scale than small-scale, but it is observable and recent. Funny, this kind of reminds me of Romance of the Three Kingdoms, a historical fiction. Zhuge Liang, a legendary military strategist who is one of a handful believed to have contributed significantly to the 36 Stratagems of ancient Chinese warfare, was basically retconned into a full-blown sorcerer, able to produce fire and wind with prayer and even come back to life. Exactly. It's a guideline. The whole of religion is basically a guideline, with some splashes of colorful speculation. I've always thought that was kind of the point from the beginning, but I guess most people take it to extremes. Evolution and creationism don't conflict at all because creationism is an origin theory; its purely scientific equivalent would be the Big Bang theory, or something similar. This is part of what drives me up the wall sometimes; there are various scientific disciplines, and many can be fairly well isolated from the others and considered one at a time. People don't seem to understand this. Regardless, it makes more sense to me to say that the complex system of phenomena that we know as the world was set in motion by a central, intelligent designer, as opposed to saying it was all just random chance. Not to argue against you in particular, but science has been wrong about very fundamental things before. See maggots growing on molded bread and Earth being flat. And one must be cautious of thinking that we've moved beyond such basic errors; for all we know, we've only dug ourselves further and further into an intellectual pit from which we can only hope to be rescued. To ask why one would bother sending a tornado is to ask why one would bother with evil or destructive elements at all, which is in turn to doubt the dangers of complacency. But this is something better saved for a discussion of theodicy. God did not give us the gift of science. We gave ourselves that gift. What God gave us, if anything, is the power and freedom to create the scientific discipline. Science is science; in common context, it refers to the natural sciences. Religion is philosophy; it is an entirely separate entity. There is no overlap in any case that would cause contradiction; any perceived overlap of this variety is an over-extension of one dominion or the other. In a nutshell, science is outward study, philosophy is inward. Not only can they co-exist, but it is necessary that they co-exist. What most likely cannot co-exist are those who over-extend either science or religion to encompass each other.
Thank you, I didn’t know that. Just a little. Though that is where conflict comes in, those who take it to the extreme cannot accept that it is not literal, and you cannot believe in the Bible as a literal factual account AND accept the ideas of science. For example, the age of the earth and how mankind came to be. I know what you mean, but random chances and occurences happen all the time around us every day. Its possible it was all chance and luck. That is something I am fully aware of, it is an argument I have actually given several times, especially recently. Ironically the example you give (the earth being flat) is an example I have given a lot xD Science isn't definite fact, but we are more confident in what we know now as opposed to just saying God did it. The point I was making was that if God had gives us science, as Indignation suggested, then in a way He was handing over His downfall. Suddenly people can make all of these new observations and speculations and yes they may be wrong but they make so much sense in the here and now, more sense to some than the idea of some Higher Power sat commanding over everything. Exactly so, and I was having that discussion with someone else last night, if you have the power to select who lives and dies when and where, they why create chaos and destruction to do it? As you say though, thats a discussion for another topic. That was in direct response to Indignation's post: My point was arguing against why that is a reasonable idea. I agree it wasn't handed to us. To accept both co-existing happily is a relatively new thing, before that would have been frowned on, look at the people who were persecuted for being scientists, and the people who suffered because they were religious. The way that there is still a general trend for religious people to be looked down on as scientific people are praised and looked up to. People are more accepting now, increasingly so, but for the present time, whilst the two CAN co-exist happily, they won't. Though I disagree that there aren't cases where the two conflict. Or at least ideas and theories where the two can't co-exist. (I apologise in advance if I am not making much sense @_@ I not long got home from work)
I like an amalgamation between the two mediums. Science is largely theory; hardly any of it has actually been properly proven. As such, I can't deny the need people feel for a 'belief' system, a need for answers. If Science can give me those answers, that's fine. If God can give me those answers, that's fine as well. The mix of the two is possible, but most likely not on a large scale, in the case of a whole community, for example. I can only see it coming from independent thinkers, who construed their own belief system together, not purely science based, but not purely religiously based. I don't know, I can only make a logical guess on what's going on around me. I don't think it's whether one is right and the other is wrong, it's about how it benefits you and those around you. I wouldn't care what you put your money on, whether it was God or the Big Bang, as long as you’re pleased with the choice, and don't regret it. ROTK, FTW!!! Zhuge Liang, FTW!! XD
Define "proven", please. Anyways, as has already been said, science is only completely incompatible with certain religious beliefs, like creationism. At the end of the day, you can believe whatever you want, but regarding my position in this debate, I think most people should at least respect the methodology of science and what it's helped accomplish even if they don't agree with every scientific finding ever. Science is an inescapable part of just about everyone's life, it's one of the cornerstones of modern society, the only reason any of us is using this forum at this very moment is due to scientific research and experimentation that allowed the creation of computers, the internet, etc. It's not a perfect system by any means, but it's one of the successful areas of human endeavor, and in regards to establishing truth claims, I don't really think we have anything much better right now. Additionally, I don't think anyone's rejection of either religious belief or scientific research has any value whatsoever if it's ill-founded. Case in point: with a google search you can find hundreds of creationist sites dedicated to the attempt of discrediting evolution, the Big Bang, old earth, and any other phenomenons science regards as true. Now, science does not encourage dogmatism in any way, criticism of any and all postulates is not unwelcome and even necessary for us to make progress, critical thinking is part of what makes science what it is. However, there is a difference between an informed, well-read, well-thought out critique of something, and just grasping at straws to try and prove a dogma. Most of these sites fall into the latter, many of them completely misrepresent science and spread rumors that should have been put to bed ages ago (ie we evolved from modern day apes, there is no proof for evolution, irreducible complexity somehow discredits evolution, etc). This would be the equivalent of someone trying to discredit the Bible by pointing out contradictions based on taking verses out of context. It's reprehensible, dishonest and does a disservice to both science and religion.
By proven I mean that there has not been scientific studies, observations or tangible tests that have produced prudent results in order to support a number of scientific claims. I believe, last time I checked, around only 7% of theories have been proven scientifically correct. Though I could be wrong about the data, I do know for sure that proven sciences is very low.
