Religion and science

[peanuts]

Peanuts, I believe Jesus is the Son of God, thus not his equal...

... an endless debate in which no one is convinced and feelings get hurt.

Thank you, Rob. I'm really glad that you answered that question. But it makes my mind wander to a thought which is related. I hope you will be kind enough to answer this, as well, but I understand if you don't:

To reiterate some of your beliefs:
You say that Christ is the firstborn creature, right?

So, was the body that we all know as Jesus a shell for the firstborn creature? And which received a "holy injection" on the Earth by God at a predetermined time according to His plan through the geneology which was listed in the Bible? Is there anything in the Bible which says anything about the time that Jesus' flesh became divine, or is that completely impossible?

I ask, because like many of us, I am on an unending search for truth. Unfortunately, I don't really find too many complete truths in life. I prefer to keep some things as dreams, some as ideas, and some as beliefs. Realizing, of course, that the # of each decreases as I go down the line. So, I ask because I want ideas. Your beliefs are important ideas for me to explore, and I thank you for sharing them.

[ParkTwain]

Religionists are at it on all fronts; watch out for the next Inquisition

I did not mean to say that every legend agrees on every detail on the list, although reading it back I can see where it could be taken that way. Nevertheless, there is an uncanny similarity and common thread that runs through ancient legends from virtually every place on earth.

Do you mean to say "from virtually every place on earth with a civilization related to and descended from the Mesopotamian peoples"? Such as relating to the story of Gilgamesh, the precursor to the Biblical story of the Flood? Isn't that a more accurate statement? There have been lots of riverine cultures that have come and gone over the millenia, especially in pre-history. So it's not surprising that such a culture, with probably limited technology to react to, much less control, the flooding of the neighborhood river, would have built into its local mythology some serious teachings to respect the power of flooding water and that this is due to catastrophic local flooding in that tribe's own undocumented past. It's quite a stretch to reason, using any mythology found from these peoples, that each is pointing to a specific event in real past time.

This is all voodoo talk. This is also why religion-based geopolitics needs to be globally called out for being a failed, and extremely dangerous, basis for sustainable and rational decision-making all around the world, regardless of the society.

I would rather not debate religion on a stock chat board, but you guys have set a revealing precedent.

There is a core group of atheist "public intellectuals" who have decided to place the religious establishments around the world (or should I say at least the English-speaking world) on notice that they're not going to "play nice" about these issues. Wired magazine picked up on this several months ago in this article:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html

This is indeed a competition of ideas, but one that does not have to result in violence or overt aggression. To the extent that a participant in this competition of ideas allows the interaction to devolve into aggression, that participant should be "disqualified" from further participation in the competition. There is far too much for the aggregated human race to lose.

For more products of this "engagement" between atheists and religionists see:

http://www.edge.org/

Here's another little item in the recent news:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061211/ts_nm/usa_pentagon_religion_dc_1

And another:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20061231_chris_hedges_americas_holy_warriors/

As a humorous aside, watch this discussion on an episode of CNN's "Crossfire" program from 1986 in which the musician Frank Zappa lets the cat out of the bag by anticipating the possibility of "theocratic fascism" gaining political ascendancy in the U.S.

http://blog.wfmu.org/freeform/2006/02/frank_zappa_ver.html

Here's another interesting topic, regarding a particular series of debates in the mid-1960s between scholars of ancient Mid-East societies and the religion-based "catastrophist" author Immanuel Velikovsky:

http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/vsachs.html

(Abraham Sachs was for the latter part of his career a colleague of Otto Neugebauer -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_E._Neugebauer --, the renowned scholar of exact sciences in antiquity, in the history of mathematics department at Brown Univ, in Providence, RI.)

Who was Immanuel Velikovsky?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velikovsky

//
Velikovsky was a passionate Zionist, and this did steer the focus of his work, although its scope was considerably more far-reaching than this. The entire body of work could be said to stem from an attempt to solve the following problem: that there appeared to be insufficient correlation in the written or archeological records between Jewish history (as recorded in Biblical and other sources) and the history of the adjoining nations (especially Egypt).

Velikovsky searched for common mention of events within literary records, and in the Ipuwer Papyrus, he believed he had found a contemporary Egyptian account of the Israelite Exodus - moreover, he interpreted both accounts as descriptions of a great natural catastrophe. Velikovsky attempted to investigate the physical cause of the Exodus event, and extrapolated backwards and forwards in history from this point, cross-comparing written and mythical records from cultures on every inhabited continent, using them to attempt synchronisms of the historical records, yielding what he believed to be further periodic natural catastrophes which can be global in scale.

He arrived at a body of radical inter-disciplinary ideas which might be summarized as:

* Planet Earth has suffered natural catastrophes on a global scale, both before and during mankind's recorded history.
* There is evidence for these catastrophes in the geological record (here Velikovsky was espousing Catastrophist ideas as opposed to the prevailing Uniformitarian notions) and archeological record. The extinction of many species had occurred catastrophically, not by gradual Darwinian means.
* The catastrophes which occurred within the memory of mankind are recorded in myths, legends and written history of all ancient cultures and civilisations. Velikovsky pointed to striking concordances in the accounts of many cultures, and proposed that they referred to the same real events, all couched in the individual religious and cultural viewpoints of their authors. He put forward the psychoanalytic idea of "Cultural Amnesia" as a mechanism whereby these literal records came to be regarded as mere myths and legends.
* The cause of these natural catastrophes were close encounters between the Earth and other bodies with the solar system - not least what were now the planets Saturn, Jupiter, Venus and Mars, these bodies having moved upon different orbits within human memory.
* To explain the celestial mechanics necessary to permit these changes to the configuration of the solar system, Velikovsky proposed that electromagnetic forces played a much greater role than acknowledged in a purely Newtonian (gravitation-only) model.
* Velikovsky argued that the conventional chronology of the Near East and classical world, based upon Egyptian Sothic dating and the king lists of Manetho, was wholly flawed. This was the reason for the apparent absence of correlation between the Biblical record and those of neighbouring cultures, and also the cause of the enigmatic "dark ages" in Greece and elsewhere. Velikovsky shifted several chronologies and dynasties from the Egyptian Old Kingdom to Ptolemaic times by centuries (a scheme he called the Revised Chronology), placing the Exodus contemporary with the fall of the Middle Kingdom of Egypt. He proposed numerous other synchronisms stretching up to the time of Alexander the Great. He argued that these eliminate phantom "dark ages", and vindicate the biblical accounts of history and those recorded by Herodotus. For further details, see the Ages in Chaos article.

Some of Velikovsky's specific postulated catastrophes included:

* A tentative suggestion that Earth had once been a satellite of a "proto-Saturn" body, before its current Solar orbit.
* That the Deluge (Noah's Flood) had been caused by proto-Saturn entering a nova state, and ejecting much of its mass into space.
* A suggestion that the planet Mercury was involved in the Tower of Babel catastrophe.
* Jupiter had been the culprit for the catastrophe which saw the destruction of the "Cities of the Plain" (Sodom and Gomorrah)
* Periodic close contacts with a cometary Venus (which had been ejected from Jupiter) had caused the Exodus events (c.1500 BCE) and Joshua's subsequent "sun standing still" incident.
* Periodic close contacts with Mars had caused havoc in the 8th and 7th centuries BCE.
//

And just to add a little more spice to the discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism

This article gives you some sense of the difficulty of admitting "facticity" to the language used in the Hebrew Old Testament, as opposed to approaching the text more as a literary work of many authors over a long stretch of time, but with the need for a religious elite to derive from the text a meaningful, coherent, authoritative theology and practical doctrines. In other words, you see the inherent difficulty of attempting to construct, then later to hold together, a religion derived from a set of ancient texts, especially when the cultural and historical context of the writing of those works is to a great extent lost to those of us in the present day.

My basic thesis here is that religion can quite readily be recognized today for what it has, in fact, always been: a man-made social movement used to integrate people into hierarchical societies. Thought control, to cause the many to serve the few (an inherently anti-democratic regime, an idea which, in the case of the founding of the American nation, was finally in human history thrown over by creating, unlike the Greeks, a foundation for a set of political institutions that is "agnostic" about the practice of religion by its citizens). Or, Karel, am I neglecting the precursor example of the Netherlands in the 17th and 18th centuries (though ignoring the anachronism of the monarchy, of course). ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands/history )

There is the presumption among religions that "revelation supersedes reason." Religion also invents a supernatural rationale as the basis for, and practice of, the "natural" human sense of the (practical) need for "ethical" conduct as part of being a member of a social group. And this is a very "useful" function, speaking objectively, of a religion for that social group. Of course, the end-result of this approach is that the non-elite members of the religion-based society are de fact "sheep" and at the mercy of the elites at the "top" of the hierarchy.

On the other hand, there is "value" in having these inherently intolerant religions to the extent that, until there is an even greater degree of communication and shared understanding of humanity's past among the planet's various peoples, religious wars keep a lid on the planet's human population. The problem with warfare among large groups of people today is that, with nuclear weapons available, the geographical extent and toxic residue from any world-wide war is a threat to the great majority of present-day human populations; this has been recognized since the early days of the existence of thermonuclear weaponry. To combine worldwide religion-driven geopolitical power-grabs with nuclear weaponry is a dire and present emergency.

It will probably be very bad for the ongoing social cohesiveness of American society in the next couple of decades as the majority becomes aware of the bad faith and ethical hypocrisy shown by the cultural and political elites of the present day with respect to their utilizing evangelical Christianity for nothing less than a profoundly and destructively disruptive power grab by certain social groups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

also see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Haggard

(Before Haggard's "fall" he was actually intereviewed by Richard Dawkins for his documentary TV series.)

Thus spake Torquemada ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torquemada and http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14783a.htm ), the Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition:

"When you are sure you are right, you have a moral obligation to impose your will on anyone who disagrees with you."

[ParkTwain]

Yes, I do believe God made the earth in six literal, 24 hour days as Genesis account says, "it was morning and evening, the second day . . . the third day, etc."

NBB, do you have a bachelor's degree from an American university? Did you ever take a science class either in high school or in college? Have you ever heard of the current-day science of geology and its basic body of knowledge?

[Lyehopper]

You know what's funny?.... I'm a Bible believing Christan and I disagree with NBB about many things he says.... I disagree with Karel about many things that he says.... And I actually agree with much of what Park says. Not the part about atheism, as clearly I believe in Almighty God as the intelligent designer and creator of the universe (although I don't know how many literal 24 hour days he did it in)..... But what I'm hearing Park say (and Frank Zappa say).... I also say.... Organized religion (not just Christianity) is a problem in the world today due to it's involvement with politics and political movements. Yes, it is indeed a huge problem and source of warfare and strife. Now on the other hand, as I've also said, it's not Gods fault.... It's not the Bible's fault.... It's the men running these organizations fault.... Remember this; Jesus Christ was non-political and he actually exposed the religious leaders of his day for the very same things....

[ParkTwain]

God's Torturers

So you mean it's a case of "I don't hate God, it's his Fan Club I can't stand"?

And also "I believe in the separation of Church and Hate."



Difficult-to-read short essay "God's Torturers":

http://www.counterpunch.org/garcia03282006.html

[Karel]

Karel, forgive me for the ambiguous wording. What I meant was, all of the flood legends agree on multiple central points, among which are .... etc. I did not mean to say that every legend agrees on every detail on the list, although reading it back I can see where it could be taken that way. Nevertheless, there is an uncanny similarity and common thread that runs through ancient legends from virtually every place on earth.

While I didn't answer them, neither did I ignore them. It took me two hours to gather up and type that previous post, at the end of which I said it "appears neither of us will convince the other of the real or alleged deficiencies in the bases for his beliefs." It is apparent we have reached an impasse, and I'm willing to let it lie.

Ok, you cleared up what you meant with your claim, no problem there. And yes, I have noticed that such a discussion takes a lot out of my time too. I agree to let the discussion lie.

Regards,

Karel

[Karel]

Karel,
So as a strict Catholic would you disagree with their doctrine and the Bible as written if there were irrefutable scientific evidence disputing what has been written in the scriptures. I see instances where what the Bible states and what seems rock solid scientific evidence to the contrary differ. My faith and belief in God and how he created heaven and earth and started all of this and what a strictly scientific point of reference states sometimes collide and leave me with questions that are hard to answer. I'm sure many feel the same way caught between their faith and science. Is that the price of intelligence and being an inquisitive open minded personality. [...]

Ski, I am trying to wind down my participation in this discussion, but I still want to give you an answer. Especially since in my last few post I have not really been talking about my religion. Science and scholarship are not my religion. But the problem you touch upon, about the relationship between faith and reason, is really extremely complex, and not in the least because unfettered reason is often viewed as threatening to faith. And in a sense it is. It threatens the simple, unsophisticated faith of simple, unsophisticated people. And that is a real problem, because any answer to the threat is necessarily sophisticated too. But we cannot demand sophistication as a requirement for faith. We shouldn't even want to.

I am not a strict Catholic; I am way out in left field, or whatever side of the field you like to associate with "avant-garde". "Higher criticism" from my point of view is just a basis for everything that followed, right up to postmodernist thinking (a can of worms in itself). But as regards the relation between faith and reason, and faith and science specifically, the Catholic Church is quite open. Basically it sees no conflict and no need to insist that science should fit doctrinal conclusions. Of course scientists should behave morally and responsibly, but they should also do science, as objective and sharp possible, as long as they leave doctrine to the Church.

Right now I don't think that, from an "avant-garde" point of view, the "conflict" between science and the bible is any longer the place were things happen in the faith/reason debate. That place now rather is the problem of consciousness, self and free will, introduced by the neurosciences. Just to put your problems in perspective and give you something else to worry about

I think the basis of your problem is not your understanding of science, imperfect as this must be for laypersons like you and me. The problem is your view of the Bible. You try to combine a more or less sophisticated view of science with (as far as I can judge) a more or less unsophisticated view of the Bible. If the problem is urgent for you, I would therefore advise you to educate yourself in more modern interpretations of the Bible. (No, not postmodern! But then, who knows.)

My position in a nutshell would be: we should not underestimate the humanity of the Bible. That is not to deny its divinity, but in my eyes the divine is not something that you can approach directly. It emerges from we don't know where, out of the most common and unexpected things, touches us deeply, and when we think we have finally got it, it has escaped us already.

I am firmly convinced that only when we study the Bible as a truly human book, with all the human limitations that this implies, we will be able to disclose the divine inspiration that guides it. Or rather, that inspiration will disclose itself to us.

Regards,

Karel

[mrmarket]

I think, as long as everyone can agree, that we have each learned something from everyone else, it makes sense for this discussion to continue. What baffles me is how it landed on the subject thread. However in the same line of reasoning, based on the fact that this discussion has been vigorous, even though off topic, it begs for continuation...

carry on.

[skiracer]

I think, as long as everyone can agree, that we have each learned something from everyone else, it makes sense for this discussion to continue. What baffles me is how it landed on the subject thread. However in the same line of reasoning, based on the fact that this discussion has been vigorous, even though off topic, it begs for continuation...

carry on.

At least as long as we don't alienate ourselves from one another because of our differing beliefs and ideas.
Karel,
Thanks for your response to my question. I am not having a problem with my faith or beliefs. But at times I find it hard to dispel solid scientific proof that disputes what I see in the Bible. I think alot of people find themselves in the same situation.

[Karel]

[...]

My basic thesis here is that religion can quite readily be recognized today for what it has, in fact, always been: a man-made social movement used to integrate people into hierarchical societies. Thought control, to cause the many to serve the few (an inherently anti-democratic regime, an idea which, in the case of the founding of the American nation, was finally in human history thrown over by creating, unlike the Greeks, a foundation for a set of political institutions that is "agnostic" about the practice of religion by its citizens). Or, Karel, am I neglecting the precursor example of the Netherlands in the 17th and 18th centuries (though ignoring the anachronism of the monarchy, of course). ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands/history )

[...]

I think that the Netherlands in that period indeed were a remarkable tolerant republic, not only in practice, but also in principle. The United States deserve the credit for taking the next step and getting it right constitutionally. Our monarchy is a 19th century affectation. It proved to be a passing fad, but now we can't get rid of it, or rather won't, because by now the monarchy only has a symbolical and emotional function, and it is sort of cute.

Regards,

Karel

[Karel]

At least as long as we don't alienate ourselves from one another because of our differing beliefs and ideas.
Karel,
Thanks for your response to my question. I am not having a problem with my faith or beliefs. But at times I find it hard to dispel solid scientific proof that disputes what I see in the Bible. I think alot of people find themselves in the same situation.

Yes, I considered that as a serious possibility. But perhaps it was stronger than that and did I miss something, because I now hear you saying "I find it hard to dispel solid scientific proof ...". I personally cannot understand why anyone would want to do that, but it would make my subsequent advice superfluous (except as a lead-in to my own position). Or was it a slip of the keyboard?

Regards,

Karel

[skiracer]

I see many with unwavoring faith that hold to what the Bible states and will not consider the scientific point of view or any evidence of another concept. I cannot say they are wrong in what they believe. On the other hand at times it is very hard for me to not appreciate the scientific point of view at least to some degree. Can you live in both concepts of faith in God and the Bible as written and stated and while doing so still accept what seems to be solid evidence of other ideas and concepts.


Karel,
I was trying to state that although I want to believe in my faith in God and in the Bible as it is written in scriptures I find it sometimes hard to not consider what solid scientific facts show and am at times torn between the two in accepting what to believe. I think there are alot of people out there that have strong faith and belief in God, Jesus, and the Bible but find themselves questioning some of the contradictionary points between the Bible and scientific fact. I guess my point was to ask if you are experiencing any of the same feelings. Not to question your faith and beliefs in how you perceive God and the Bible but to just ask that question.

[Karel]

Ski, No, I don't experience being torn in two. I really love science: the feeling of wonder for what happens around us, the unbounded curiosity, the excitement of tracking down a solution. And I really, really love the Bible, for the light and joy and insights it gives, time and again. After that, any conflicts that may occur are reduced to challenges: how can I think this in both worlds, for I want to live in both worlds. Of course I do not always succeed, but I find I can let such things rest, and they do not trouble me really, except intellectually.

About the "unwavering faith of people who will not consider the scientific point of view": perhaps they are doing the same as me, but they can handle less or no science. Perhaps they get nothing out of science, and so don't feel committed to it. I think that may be alright, very likely science isn't for everyone. But for me personally that is hard to imagine.

Regards,

Karel

[skiracer]

Ski, No, I don't experience being torn in two. I really love science: the feeling of wonder for what happens around us, the unbounded curiosity, the excitement of tracking down a solution. And I really, really love the Bible, for the light and joy and insights it gives, time and again. After that, any conflicts that may occur are reduced to challenges: how can I think this in both worlds, for I want to live in both worlds. Of course I do not always succeed, but I find I can let such things rest, and they do not trouble me really, except intellectually.

About the "unwavering faith of people who will not consider the scientific point of view": perhaps they are doing the same as me, but they can handle less or no science. Perhaps they get nothing out of science, and so don't feel committed to it. I think that may be alright, very likely science isn't for everyone. But for me personally that is hard to imagine.

Regards,

Karel

My feelings are very close to yours Karel. I would find it hard to live without either.

[Lyehopper]

....I was trying to state that although I want to believe in my faith in God and in the Bible as it is written in scriptures I find it sometimes hard to not consider what solid scientific facts show and am at times torn between the two in accepting what to believe.

By "solid scientific facts" do you mean Darwin's theory of evolution? I think the theory is not "solid" at all. It's full of holes. I have no problem with science agreeing with the Bible as I think the Bible agrees with science. Mind you, It does not agree with all scientific theory (as a theory is not proven science) but with proven science in general. For example; Long ago as men were freaking out that they might sail off the end of a flat earth.... the Bible had already stated that the earth was round, centuries before "science" agreed with it (Isaiah 40: 22)....

I believe that the universe is so complex and precise that it had to have an intelligent, powerful and loving designer and creator and that humans are stuck on this planet for a purpose that's larger than they are.... AND I think the Bible contains the answers to all of humankind's problems.

There are things in the Bible that science can't explain though.

For example: The Bible tells of dead people being brought back to life. Can science explain how a man, so dead that his flesh had begun to decompose and stink, was resurrected to life, healthy and whole? (John 11:1-44).... Well, no it can't. But many people witnessed this and talked about it.... To believe this a persons needs "faith".... I personally beleive it really happened and I have faith it will happen again (John 5:25-29).... Science and faith don't necessarily mix sometimes....