Religion and science

[Lyehopper]

Well, at least the agenda is in plain view. I see no problems with the agenda.

And about common sense: it just doesn't always point in the right direction. That is why scientists prefer facts and theories over common sense.

Regards,

Karel

So do you think Jesus resurrected a rotten, stinking corpse back to life or not?

[Karel]

I personally have not been convinced by any of them that man evolved from a lower life form. The fossil record just ain't there Karel. This group has an agenda and it's clearly stated on the website.

Please excuse me for using common sense, but how can something as complex as life in general, reproduction, the human brain, the human eye, our solar system.... a bumble bee. Just happen by accident? I think these things were designed and created. Why is that so hard to fathom?

Karel, do you think the account I mentioned at John chapter 11 really happened?

Well, at least the agenda is in plain view. I see no problems with the agenda.

And about common sense: it just doesn't always point in the right direction. That is why scientists prefer facts and theories over common sense.

Regards,

Karel

[Lyehopper]

Over 700 scientists called Steve disagree with you

Regards,

Karel

I personally have not been convinced by any of them that man evolved from a lower life form. The fossil record just ain't there Karel. This group has an agenda and it's clearly stated on the website.

Please excuse me for using common sense, but how can something as complex as life in general, reproduction, the human brain, the human eye, our solar system.... a bumble bee. Just happen by accident? I think these things were designed and created. Why is that so hard to fathom?

Karel, do you think the account I mentioned at John chapter 11 really happened?

[Karel]

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. [...]

Over 700 scientists called Steve disagree with you

Regards,

Karel

[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....

[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.

[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]

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]

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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

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