Science has so many points against God, like the Big Bang, and evolution of Man .......
We can often hear statements like the one quoted above, essentially stating that science and faith are at odds with eachother.
The Big Bang theory and the theory of Evolution is often seen by secular people as some sort of proof that God doesn't exist. Very often you can hear statements such as : Science will eventually take the place of religion because more and more things will be explained by science.
Of course these statements imply a certain understanding of what science is ánd of what religion or faith is. Secular people often assume that religion (all religions ?) is a way of explaining the world the same way science explains the world. They do not see any difference between religions, such as the Greek mythology, the Roman mythology, the Germanistic mythology and the Christian faith.
On the other hand many secular people believe in science the way other people believe in a religion: Science will eventually solve every human problem, including the problem of death and obtaining eternal life.
Is the only function for religion to explain the world the same way science does or is faith, in particular the Christian faith, something else ?
What are your thoughts ?
How do you look upon science and how do you look upon faith ? What functions do they have and will science eventually replace faith ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeI think Science proves Man does not understand God.
Science has so many points against God, like the Big Bang, and evolution of Man .......
We can often hear statements like the one quoted above, essentially stating that science and faith are at odds with eachother.
The Big Bang theory and the theory of Evolution is often seen by secular people as some sort of proof that God doesn't exist. Very of ...[text shortened]... look upon faith ? What functions do they have and will science eventually replace faith ?
So when Man thinks the Earth is 6K old... that is man thinking... Not what God did.
I am happy on my fence, I can believe in God (whoever that might be) and Science.
It is Man that is often wrong.
P-
IMHO, science has absolutely nothing to say about the existence or nonexistence of God (or gods). Evolution and the Big Bang are questions of mechanism, not of whether there is an intelligent creator behind it all. Science is simply not capable of answering, or even asking, that question.
Back in the latest iteration of the Evolution debate here ( http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?id=12079&page=11 ) I posted a couple of times where I tried to address this very question and included a quote from Stephen Jay Gould about prominent scientists in the field of evolution who were either Christians or atheists. In Gould's estimation (and I am in agreement) this demonstrates that among the people who are closest to the field, it is certainly NOT possible to assert that science has disproven God.
There are atheists among those scientists, of course. There are even people like Richard Dawkins who have said (and I am not quoting because I don't have the exact quote to hand) that the Theory of Evolution has made it possible to be an atheist in that it removes the necessity of a God. But even those strong and strident atheists do NOT say that Evolution "disproves" God, merely that it is compatible with the nonexistence of God.
Now, as I have said before, I am not a believer. My disbelief does not, however, result from my acceptance of science as a methodology to learn about the universe. My own disbelief has much more to do with other problems I have with the internals of Christianity. Science does not address those issues.
It is not at all clear to me that science and religion are necessarily competitors. For some of us they do seem to be competitors, but as the Gould passage I mentioned above points out it is not legitimate to generalize and say they must be competitors for all of us. The existence of respected, intelligent colleagues for whom science and religion are complementary rather than competing world views is strong evidence that the view of science and religion as irreconcilable competitors cannot be taken for granted.
I believe that my religious views are correct, as I am sure you believe of yours, but it would be arrogant to assert that one's own views are the only possible or legitimate views. Christ certainly taught that humility is a virtue and arrogance a vice. Whether evolution (or science in general) is compatible or incompatible with your religious views does not make evolution incompatible with all religious or even all Christian positions. Some of those positions may be wrong, in fact, some of those Christian belief sets are certainly wrong since they are incompatible with other Christian belief sets. I am certainly not about to assert, for example, that one of "free will" or "predestination" is not Christian. I will assert that (at least) one of them is incorrect, but both are fervently held by people who profess the divinity of Jesus Christ and the authority of the Bible. My own beliefs on the matter are my own beliefs, but regardless of how strongly anybody believes one or the other, that belief may be wrong and yet the person may still be a Christian. It is not for me or any other person to know who is and who is not a "true" Christian.
Regarding the specific question of whether belief in the falsity of evolution is an absolute requirement for a Christian, the clearest reasonably short statement that I have found from the leading "creation scientists" is from Evolution and the Modern Christian by Henry M. Morris (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.: Philadelphia. 1967). I admit that I have not found a clear and specific claim that rejection of evolution is a "requirement for salvation." On the other hand, Morris certainly leaves that impression all over the place. The following passage is from pp. 56-57:
Many people have tried to explain away the record of this chapter [Gen 1--prn] by calling it an allegory, or hymn, or myth. But this is impossible without simultaneously undermining the integrity of all the rest of the Bible. This first chapter of Genesis fits perfectly into the historical record of the rest of the book of Genesis, which in turn is foundational to the entire Bible.
The second, third, and fourth chapters amplify the outline in Chapter One, especially as it relates to man, and then describe the developments immediately following the Creation. The rest of Genesis describes in chronological form the events of early history down to the establishment of the nation of Israel and its exile in Egypt. The rest of the Bible, especially the New Testament frequently quotes from, and alludes to, the book of Genesis, including its earliest chapters. If the early chapters of Genesis are not historical and correct, there is no escaping the conclusion that Paul and Peter and the other writers of the New Testament, were guilty of either ignorance or misrepresentation when they cited these events as true and as, in fact, foundational in the entire plan of salvation.
Especially significant is the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ Himself frequently quoted from Genesis. In one instance He used a quotation from both Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 (Matthew 19:4-6), thus stamping these chapters as both historically accurate and divinely inspired.
Thus, one cannot legitimately question the historicity of the creation record without questioning the judgment or veracity of the Apostles and of Christ Himself. And this, of course, is an option which is not open to any consistent Christian.
Note that Morris never actually says here that belief in a superliteral reading of Genesis 1 is "required for salvation", but does say that Paul and Peter cited the events recounted there "as true and as, in fact foundational in the entire plan of salvation." Similarly, Morris claims that the fact that Jesus quoted from Genesis implies that the creation story in Genesis 1-2 is "both historically accurate and divinely inspired" when, in fact, only the latter is implied. (Obviously this follows only with the additional premise that Jesus is/was God. 🙂 )
My take on this is that Morris' conclusion follows only if we beg the question and deny to Paul and Peter (and Christ!) the same poetic license that he is denying to God. If the early chapters of Genesis should be interpreted poetically rather than literally, then Paul's or Peter's or Christ's quotations from those passages should be taken as quotations of poetry and evaluated in that light. I see no requirement outside of Henry Morris' own mind that Peter, Paul or Jesus must eschew poetry.
I have argued elsewhere (not here) that the literalist position itself suffers from internal problems that have nothing to do with evolution. For that reason, as well as others, one cannot interpret the Bible without reference to external evidence. We really do have to trust that the external evidence is not misleading. And that evidence clearly points to, e.g., an old earth -- much older than the 6000 years that the literalists insist on. Taken together these points strongly indicate to me that from a Christian perspective the "poetic" or "mythic" interpretation of Genesis (or at least, certainly, the early chapters) is much more consonant with the totality of the evidence.
Morris is saying that it is not possible to be a ("consistent" ) Christian if you don't accept his conclusion that Genesis 1-2 (and everything else) is true in a literal, non-poetic, unimaginative sense. I say that it is not worth being a Christian if you don't believe that God has a better imagination than Henry Morris.
Best Regards,
Paul
(P.S.: For the "anti-plagiarism" crowd 🙂 I have excerpted freely in these posts both here and in the Evolution thread from a series of essays that I wrote a number of years back, but which are not currently available on the web.)
Originally posted by ivanhoeI don't know too many atheists that would make most of the claims you do in the post.
Science has so many points against God, like the Big Bang, and evolution of Man .......
We can often hear statements like the one quoted above, essentially stating that science and faith are at odds with eachother.
The Big Bang theory and the theory of Evolution is often seen by secular people as some sort of proof that God doesn't exist. Very of ...[text shortened]... look upon faith ? What functions do they have and will science eventually replace faith ?
Originally posted by ivanhoe
On the other hand many secular people believe in science the way other people believe in a religion: Science will eventually solve every human problem, including the problem of death and obtaining eternal life.
This is a total mischaracterization. Most secular people do not think science will solve every human problem, especially that crap about eternal life.
Originally posted by ivanhoe
The Big Bang theory and the theory of Evolution is often seen by secular people as some sort of proof that God doesn't exist.
I don't know what bonehead atheists (or secular people) you've been talking to. The rational ones that I associate with do not see these as "proof" that God doesn't exist. Although they may call into question some myths concerning the natural world that theists attach to their particular god or gods.
Originally posted by ivanhoe
Very often you can hear statements such as : Science will eventually take the place of religion because more and more things will be explained by science.
I'm confused by what "[s]cience will eventually take the place of religion" is supposed to mean. I would say that some men (a much larger percentage of men in the past) appealed to faith and religious doctrine to explain the mysteries of nature. The more science has been loosed from the repressive grip of the Church (I'm speaking of the West now.), the more man has been able to understand the workings of the universe. So to the extent that faith-based claims to knowledge offered by religion are testable (the Great Flood, cosmic model of Heavenly spheres, Young Earth Creationism), science will replace religion because it is a superior method for gaining knowledge of the universe. On the other hand science will never test anything that by definition is not associated with the natural. So all faith-based speculation of non-natural entities will never be replaced by science.
Originally posted by ivanhoe
Secular people often assume that religion (all religions ?) is a way of explaining the world the same way science explains the world.
Sometimes atheists claim that one purpose of religion is to explain what we don't yet understand about the natural world from scientific study. Things like why it rains or where lightning comes from or where the big bang came from have all at one time or another or by one religion or another been given the answer, "The rain god makes it rain," or "Thor is throwing down lightning," or "Jehovah did it." This is often referred to in atheist circles as the "God of the Gaps" method. If there is a "gap" in our scientific knowledge, then some theists immediately insert their god or gods as an explaination, only withdrawing once science has long confirmed a natural origin.
Originally posted by ivanhoe
They do not see any difference between religions, such as the Greek mythology, the Roman mythology, the Germanistic mythology and the Christian faith.
Well come on now, give us some credit! We do see differences between these mythologies (xtian one included). That is a major reason why we give them all different names, so that we distinguish between them to discuss their differences. If we saw no differences, then we would call it all mythology with no distinguishing adjectives.
That said, I don't see any reason to give xtianity some special status above these other supernatural worldviews. To me it is just another myth. Remember when the Romans fed the xtains to the lions, they shouted, "Atheists!"
Originally posted by ivanhoe
On the other hand many secular people believe in science the way other people believe in a religion: Science will eventually solve every human problem, including the problem of death and obtaining eternal life.
This is a major misconception and one that I hear or read often from some xtians. Let's make this clear. We atheists do not believe in science the way other people believe in a religion. We do not worship science. We don't use faith in science.
Science is a tool based in logic and reason that allows us to make verifiable claims about the universe and to better explain and better understand the workings of the universe. We no more treat science as a religion than we treat language or mathematics as a religion. Science is simply a reliable tool for gaining verifiable knowledge. Something we can't say about faith. (to read more about faith vs. religion check out my posts in the thread " Question about religion" page 2)
Originally posted by ivanhoe
Is the only function for religion to explain the world the same way science does or is faith, in particular the Christian faith, something else?
What are your thoughts ?
How do you look upon science and how do you look upon faith ? What functions do they have and will science eventually replace faith ?
science: a method derived from logic and reason used to understand the workings of our external world by testing hypothesis.
faith: a way to claim knowledge that cannot be supported by reason.
or as Mark Twain said, "Faith is believing what you know isn't so."
xtian faith: just another faith-based myth derived from Hebrew mythology.
I think of religion is a component of culture. It is like literature or dance or music in this regard. I just think many religionists put too much stock in faith, and it often leads to unfortunate consequences.
As to the last question, I think I addressed it in my post. Just so you know this post has two purposes. The first is to rebutt what I think is a mischaracterization of most secular or atheistic people; and the second is to offer what I think a religion is for.
Originally posted by prnOriginally posted by prn
IMHO, science has absolutely nothing to say about the existence or nonexistence of God (or gods). Evolution and the Big Bang are questions of mechanism, not of whether there is an intelligent creator behind it all. Science is simply not capable of answering, or even asking, that question.
Back in the latest iteration of the Evolution debate here ( http://www. ...[text shortened]... essays that I wrote a number of years back, but which are not currently available on the web.)
who is not a "true" Christian
Please! Have some respect for patent law! You need to write it as follows: True Christian TM.
This is important, even though there is much dispute over who owns the trademark. 😉
In regards to your quote from Morris, I would like to highlight part of it and add to your rebuttal.
From Morris:
Many people have tried to explain away the record of this chapter by calling it an allegory, or hymn, or myth. But this is impossible without simultaneously undermining the integrity of all the rest of the Bible.
I think Morris's point only makes sense if you grant the canonization of the Bible. There are 66 books in most bibles, more books in others. The Jews don't see the entire New Testament belonging with the Old Testament in one big story.
So I would take issue with his statement by saying that it is impossible (or nearly impossible) without undermining the integrity of his [Morris] interpretation of the 66-book Bible.
Originally posted by telerionTelerion: "This is a total mischaracterization. Most secular people do not think science will solve every human problem, especially that crap about eternal life."
I don't know too many atheists that would make most of the claims you do in the post.
Originally posted by ivanhoe
[b]On the other hand many secular people believe in science the way other people believe in a religion: Science will eventually solve every human problem, including the problem of death and obtaining eternal life.
This is ...[text shortened]... of most secular or atheistic people; and the second is to offer what I think a religion is for.[/b]
I didn't say "most secular people" I said "many".
Telerion: "I'm confused by what "[s]cience will eventually take the place of religion" is supposed to mean."
So am I.
Originally posted by ivanhoe
They do not see any difference between religions, such as the Greek mythology, the Roman mythology, the Germanistic mythology and the Christian faith.
Telerion: "Well come on now, give us some credit! We do see differences between these mythologies (xtian one included). That is a major reason why we give them all different names, so that we distinguish between them to discuss their differences. If we saw no differences, then we would call it all mythology with no distinguishing "
Telerion: "That said, I don't see any reason to give xtianity some special status above these other supernatural worldviews. To me it is just another myth."
See, that's what I mean. We will come to this later if I have the time to discuss the writings and theories of René Girard.
Originally posted by prnprn: "I say that it is not worth being a Christian if you don't believe that God has a better imagination than Henry Morris."
IMHO, science has absolutely nothing to say about the existence or nonexistence of God (or gods). Evolution and the Big Bang are questions of mechanism, not of whether there is an intelligent creator behind it all. Science is simply not capable ...[text shortened]... f years back, but which are not currently available on the web.)
😵
I agree with what you said.
Both (serious) science and (serious) faith are looking for the truth, therefore they cannot possibly be theoretically incompatible. However the truth we find by using science can influence the interpretation we give to the Holy Scriptures. If you want to find them you can find instances in which the INTERPRETATION of the bible influences the scientific interpretation of facts. Many interpretors of scripture do not wish to give up their interpretation for a better one. This does not necessarily mean Scripture is wrong. If I understood Phlabibit's post correctly, that is also where he is referring to.
The big question remains however. What exactly are the core issues faith is adressing ? Are these the issues of creation/evolution, round/flat earth or are other issues more fundamental ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeScience has nothing to do with religion.
Science has so many points against God, like the Big Bang, and evolution of Man .......
We can often hear statements like the one quoted above, essentially stating that science and faith are at odds with eachother.
The Big Bang theory and the theory of Evolution is often seen by secular people as some sort of proof that God doesn't exist. Very of ...[text shortened]... look upon faith ? What functions do they have and will science eventually replace faith ?
Religion is faith, people trying to make sense of their little world by giving humanly understandings to matters they don't comprehend. To make themselves feel better.
God is like Santa Claus for grown ups.
Science attempts to prove matters. Not whether there is a God or no God, that is insignificant. When nobody believes in a God, that God will cease to exist by itself. Like if nobody believed in Santa Claus, then children won't get presents from him any more.
Science has proven that the earth revolves around the sun. Nothing to do with God.
Originally posted by ivanhoe
I didn't say "most secular people" I said "many".
Well, if you mean by "many" an overwhelming minority, then by all means continue to abuse the word "many." What you have built in your post is a straw man arguement, plain and simple. Instead of addressing a more common rationalist point of view, you have constructed an easy-to-refute substitute.
I also know you have evaded me in the past on this very issue of faith vs. reason (see "Question about Religion" page 4). You claimed then that you had other things to do. Well since you are here now, let me repost my response (slightly edited) on the issue of faith vs. reason (to be done in the next post).
Originally posted by ivanhoe
Telerion: "I'm confused by what "[s]cience will eventually take the place of religion" is supposed to mean."
So am I.
Well, if you look back over my post, rather than snipping out one line and offering up a curt response, you will remember that I tried to explain what I thought it might mean. What do you agree/disagree with from that response?
Originally posted by ivanhoe
Telerion: "Well come on now, give us some credit! We do see differences between these mythologies (xtian one included). That is a major reason why we give them all different names, so that we distinguish between them to discuss their differences. If we saw no differences, then we would call it all mythology with no distinguishing "
Telerion: "That said, I don't see any reason to give xtianity some special status above these other supernatural worldviews. To me it is just another myth."
See, that's what I mean.
Again snipping things out of context (You dropped the word "adjectives" after "distinguishing." I'm sure it was unintended but that error really warps what I said!). These statements are not at odds with one another. The first says that there are differences between mythologies. By these I mean differences of characteristics (names, types and number of gods, histories, etc.). Now the second says that despite some major differences, Xtianity does not escape being a mythology.
An example: A lion, a deer, and a sparrow. These are all animals.
Now this is not to say that they are not different in many respects. We give them different names and filings. Never the less these differences are not enough for anyone of them to be regarded as non-animal.
I look forward to what Girard has to say. And I look forward to your well-reasoned objections to my old post.
Here is that old post addressing faith vs. reason. Again slightly edited.
Originally posted by telerion
I've heard it said before that faith and reason go hand in hand, that there is knowledge which reason cannot grasp and only faith can attain.
I like the way, George H. Smith deals with this in his book, Atheism: The Case Against God (pgs. 95-124 are especially appropriate). Faith and reason do not go hand in hand. In his words, "The concept of faith itself carries a 'built-in' deprecation of reason; and without this anti-reason element, the concept of faith is rendered meaningless."
In order to appeal to faith, one must some how limit reason's ability to attain knowledge. Otherwise what is the need for faith? If all knowledge can come through reason then why confuse the matter by appealing to faith? Reason (here meaning rational thought) must in some way be inadequate for faith to be necessary. Faith then is a tool to justify claims for which there is insufficient evidence to accept them rationally. When our reason cannot warrant a claim to knowledge then say that reason is incapable of attaining this knowledge and claim it on faith. This holds no truer than when trying to establish knowledge of non-natural entities.
He also argues that you must establish the "epistemological credentials" (122) of faith before appealing to it. That is, can you show us that faith is a better method for attaining knowledge then say a flip of a coin? I haven't found faith to be a reliable method of gaining knowledge in the physical world. Reason however has been quite useful in this regard.
This brings us to his closing argument in the section.
"Insofar as faith is possible, it is irrational; insofar as faith is rational, it is impossible." (123) If something can be known rationally, then reason is sufficient for this and there is no need to appeal to faith. If something cannot be known rationally, then one can appeal to faith but cannot say to know it by reason. So you can claim knowledge based on reason or you claim knowledge based on faith, but not both at the same time.
Telerion,
I've said it before but i'm afraid a discussion with you will be rather fruitless, but let me try and grab the tiger by the tail. Reading your posts I wondered whether you think wisdom can be "produced" by science. In other words what is the difference between wisdom and knowledge. How is wisdom "produced" or "gathered" and how is knowledge "produced" or "gathered" ?
A second point is that the gods of Greek, Roman and Germanic mythology are indeed mythologies and therefore part of man made cultural folklore to explain the world. If you put the Judeo-Christian tradition based on God's revelation in the same category you are mistaken. But what can I do if you do not wish to make this fundamental distinction between the two. As I said a discussion will be very hard and (almost ?) impossible if you intend to defend that position like a fundamental Christian would defend his stance on creationism.
Originally posted by ivanhoe
I've said it before but i'm afraid a discussion with you will be rather fruitless.
Yes. I have begun to see as much myself. I would like to say that in my opinion it is because you do not address the assertions in my post. You throw out curt one-line responses that fail to even touch my arguements.
Originally posted by ivanhoe
Reading your posts I wondered whether you think wisdom can be "produced" by science. In other words what is the difference between wisdom and knowledge. How is wisdom "produced" or "gathered" and how is knowledge "produced" or "gathered" ?
In this case, you have chosen to depart on a red herring about "wisdom" and "knowledge." I can only assume that you have conceded the near entirety of my posts (with the exception of your disagreement on mythology). This of course would be strange considering that it directly conflicts with your worldview as you've described it.
Well, here we go down a rabbit trail but . . .
I would say that "wisdom" is just a subset of reason. By reason I don't just mean deductive proof writting. I mean rational thought. A wise person has gained through the application of reason to experience (either immediate or shared from another), knowledge about the world.
Example: Bob watches TBN. He sees a wonderful minister on the screen who asks for a "love offering" to see the work of the Lord done. The minister promises that if Bob will trust the Lord and give up generously from his income, the Lord will be faithful to provide for Bob. Now wanting to be faithful to the Lord, Bob sends in his next paycheck. Next week, Bob and his family face hunger and eviction from their apartment. To make matters worse Bob learns from the paper that the minister has been charged with fraud and drug trafficking. Bob gains new wisdom by applying his reason and decides to be careful about who he trusts with his money.
So in otherwords, wisdom is a specific type of knowledge. I'd like to note that there is nothing about wisdom that would imply the supernatural and thus a need for faith.
Originally posted by ivanhoe
A second point is that the gods of Greek, Roman and Germanic mythology are indeed mythologies and therefore part of man made cultural folklore to explain the world. If you put the Judeo-Christian tradition based on God's revelation in the same category you are mistaken.
Well the first part of this is right on in my opinion. The slip comes in the second sentence when you claim that Judeo-Christian tradition is "based on God's revelation." Why should anyone accept this? You have begged the question. I'd claim that is just a spin off of Hebrew tradition. The essential question is why should I believe that Jehovah or God (as xtianity has so presumptiously called their deity) is not man-made? Why should I not believe an ancient Greek's claim that their gods are not man-made?
Originally posted by ivanhoe
As I said a discussion will be very hard and (almost ?) impossible if you intend to defend that position like a fundamental Christian would defend his stance on creationism.
A fundamentalist xtian defends his specific form of creationism in this face of overwhelming evidence. My position is not like that because you have not presented any evidence and have provided absolutely no reasoning. All you've done so far is beg the question, make brute-fact assertions with no supporting material, and get salty when I don't go along with it.
So I guess that unless I take for granted that your god is real and not just a fabrication like every other god in history, then you won't talk to me? Fair enough.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI'd say ask a chaotician. They can very clearly explain why the odds are astronomically in favor of God.
Science has so many points against God, like the Big Bang, and evolution of Man .......
We can often hear statements like the one quoted above, essentially stating that science and faith are at odds with eachother.
The Big Bang theory and the theory of Evolution is often seen by secular people as some sort of proof that God doesn't exist. Very of ...[text shortened]... look upon faith ? What functions do they have and will science eventually replace faith ?