There Is No Conflict Between Science and Religion

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Aleksander Ulyanov, Apr 12, 2014.

  1. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    41,184
    Likes Received:
    16,180
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    http://discovermagazine.com/2007/oct/06-intelligent-design-people-dont-get-theology-either

    Old article, but this stuff doesn't date. Makes sense to me

    Teilhard de Chardin, btw, predicted the Internet in the 1930's. I have read a lot of SciFi that CLAIMS to have predicted the Internet, but didn't really. Teilhard's followers have never made the claim but I can't see what else his "noosphere" or "overmind" could be in actual reality
     
  2. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There is no fundamental conflict between religion and science. However, there is a conflict between science and some claims that come out of religion. By extension, there is also a conflict between the way these religious claims obtain their information and how they present their information. This is not a fundamental aspect of religion, but it is one that is correlated to the extent that religion still has not managed to produce very many claims that can even be addressed by any process, scientific or otherwise, that has a record of coming up with true information.

    For instance, the text above calls God luminous. Luminous means giving off light, for a standard definition of light. I don't know if a religious person interprets this as full of energy or whatnot, but metaphors and the like are not verifiable by any process which can come up with true information, mostly because you can interpret it in another way if you don't like the output, which means it is not falsifiable. If the religious claims could phrase themselves in a way such that we can assess them, it would be quite compatible with science. At the moment, that doesn't happen very often.
     
  3. Wizard From Oz

    Wizard From Oz Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Messages:
    9,676
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I would be tempted to go back to 1928 and David Keller's Revolt Of The Pedestrians Not only do I feel he predicted a version of the internet but predicted the obesity crisis inflicting many in our modern era
     
  4. cupid dave

    cupid dave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    17,005
    Likes Received:
    80
    Trophy Points:
    48
    But you do not disagree with the correspondence between the Big Bang Theory and Gen 1:1, right?

    And you can see that Gen 1:9 compares well with the very first Tectonics that describe the Panthalassic Ocean and the singular piece of land call Rodinia (or Pangea), right?

    And much more conforms with the sciences too.
     
  5. cupid dave

    cupid dave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    17,005
    Likes Received:
    80
    Trophy Points:
    48

    Why...?
    Why should we not announce that Genesis seems accurate, and correct on this, that the "six durations" were the "six ages" marked in the layers of soil?

    Especially if we use the Hebrew dictionary and realize that the word used for "days," (yowm), actually means durations, though often used for half days or full days in the Hebrew literature.


    [​IMG]
     
  6. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As far as I can find on the internet, Genesis 1:1 only includes "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.", which at best can linguistically be described to "correspond" to pretty much anything.

    The point here is that doing comparisons like is not impressive unless we can give an idea of how likely it is that you'd get it right without a good method for obtaining true information. That's why medical studies have control groups. A method sometimes conforming to reality in an undefined and variable way is useless. As I say, there are plenty of claims that conform, but so is there is spiderman, so I don't see how that's a good argument for anything.
     
  7. cupid dave

    cupid dave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    17,005
    Likes Received:
    80
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Its good that Science can be seen to correspond to Genesis about the Creation.

    Otherwise, the bible bashers could hold the old church people to what they say Genesis might have meant to them, when they did not understand the facts of science.

    Now it is clear, the some Observer of the first elemental wave functions created EVERYTHING that would swell up and become the cosmos of today.
    This means Science does support the bible, once we know both.
     
  8. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm having a problem with your use of the word "correspond". The way which I've been using it above, reality corresponds just as well to Spiderman as the Bible, so that shouldn't actually be an impressive statement, and it does not necessarily means that it lends any "support".

    Also, I don't understand the sentence about old church people.
     
  9. cupid dave

    cupid dave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    17,005
    Likes Received:
    80
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The older people were raised learning things like evolution is not in the Bible, when it actually seem clearly to be there.

    But I am saying that line for line, things such as the Big Bang beginning correspond with Genesis 1;1 pretty well.
    Until 1940, in this Age, many men and scientists actually thought the universe was always there.
    Genesis went out there with statement #1, IMO.

    And, again, Genesis was correct about the delay of visible light during the Cosmic Dark Age of 4 million years before Atoms had formed.

    And again, when Gen 1:9 stated that, "all the waters of the earth were gathered up into one place, together," Pangea was rather on target ,when we only found out about it in 1929.

    Then, the Plant Kingdom was first.
    Genesis correctly tells us that the Animal kingdom came second.

    Its all pretty much on target.
     
  10. anomaly

    anomaly Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2013
    Messages:
    2,667
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Ah the wonder of interpretation ... you can make it mean anything you want.

    With literally tens of thousands of interpretations of this book it is very easy to pick one that suites you.
     
  11. cupid dave

    cupid dave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    17,005
    Likes Received:
    80
    Trophy Points:
    48

    But only the one I recommend fits with the facts of science, so why not use the one which now has been proven correct????
     
  12. anomaly

    anomaly Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2013
    Messages:
    2,667
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    It doesn't fit with science ... you interpret it to fit with science.

    Science uses clear concise terms with evidence that is falsifiable. What you have here is supposition and interpretation of mythology. It's not even close to science!
     
  13. cupid dave

    cupid dave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    17,005
    Likes Received:
    80
    Trophy Points:
    48
    ?
    Yes.
    I interpret scripture based upon history, science, etc.

    That should make sense if one wants what is read to be true.

    If one reads things in the Bible in ways that deny science and facts, then those interpretations are wrong, definitely.
     
  14. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And the sun came after the plants?

    It's not unreasonable to figure out or guess that the plants came before animals (although the specifics of whether the first life was animal or plant is not settled, it would make sense that eating little pockets of chemicals would be simpler and therefore a more likely start than photosynthesis). There is no credence lent for getting simple things right.

    Nor is there any credence for waving around claims so broad and undefined that they can be shown to be true for several different interpretations of things. In that case, the skill lies in making claims that can be true under several versions of truth and not in actually getting things right. It is not a direct attack against religion as such, but seeing how that is the best thing religion has managed to come with so far, it is a harsh blow against the reason people believe in the first place, rather than the specifics of what they believe.
     
  15. Burzmali

    Burzmali Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    6,335
    Likes Received:
    2,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The bolded part above is all anyone needs to know about your understanding of science and the Bible. You want it to be true, so you will contort the Bible and science to be compatible with one another. As was already pointed out, and you have agreed, it's pretty easy to make the Bible say whatever you want it to. Not so easy with science, though you make plenty of attempts.

    And this is the difference between the obstinately religious and the folks who accept reality. While no one can truly claim to be without bias, those of us who aren't yoked to religion generally allow evidence to lead us to an understanding of what is real. But most religious people seem to work the other way, letting their desired dictate which evidence they accept and reject.
     
  16. anomaly

    anomaly Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2013
    Messages:
    2,667
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Your claim is not proof. Your interpretation is not proof.

    I see you still haven't answered my question from the other thread... who created evil?
     
  17. anomaly

    anomaly Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2013
    Messages:
    2,667
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    My bolds. Enough said!
     
  18. cupid dave

    cupid dave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    17,005
    Likes Received:
    80
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Of course not.
    Sun is just a star which is part of the heavens created in Gen 1:1.

    You and church people use the English meaning of the word, "made," to mean "created."

    [​IMG]



    If you check that Hebrew word out in the dictionary, it means "to act with effect" as the Time Keeper for the Sidereal and Solar Clocks.
     
  19. cupid dave

    cupid dave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    17,005
    Likes Received:
    80
    Trophy Points:
    48
    That is just childishly trying to discredit the FACTS, that things like "In the beginning" equates to the Big Bang.
    It tells us the Universe was not ALWAYS there.
     
  20. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So how does that change the problem? What if God "acted with the effect of the sun"? It still supposedly happened before plants.
     
  21. cupid dave

    cupid dave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    17,005
    Likes Received:
    80
    Trophy Points:
    48

    The sun had always been there.
    It wasn't "created" on the 4th "day."

    It was "assigned the job" of regulating the Solar Clock.
    The Plants had had Sun light.
     
  22. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So what did that assigning actually do? Was the sun up all the time before then?
     
  23. cupid dave

    cupid dave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    17,005
    Likes Received:
    80
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Yes...

    The Sun was up there all the time just as Gen 1:1 said.
    All that happened was that the Solar Clock began keeping time on Earth, which supports the idea hat these first six "days" were NOT earth days.
     
  24. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Apparently the bible means whatever the reader wishes it to.

    Creationism, Intelligent design - its just an exercise in trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Its nothing more than a desperate attempt to validate scriptures so that the fantasy that it is god's inerrant word can be maintained.
     
  25. Burzmali

    Burzmali Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    6,335
    Likes Received:
    2,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Except the Big Bang theory doesn't conclude that the universe has not always been here. Only that the universe transitioned from a prior state (possibly a singularity) to its current form. We don't really know what state the universe was in prior to the Big Bang. For all we know, there could be some point at which the universe contracts back to that state, and then expands again, in an endless cycle. But it doesn't matter. Whatever is determined scientifically, you will simply reinterpret your special book to coincide with it. Because you want it to be true, as you said, so you will force it to be compatible with reality. Which is fine as far as your own spirituality is concerned, and as long as you don't try to use that book as some kind of authority on anything.
     

Share This Page