Reconciliation between Christianity and science
-
What like how?Originally posted by devoid05:like how?? -
Reseachers have studied and classified human civilisation into different ages. If you notice, all major religions were borned in the period that was called the Age of Superstition. With the rapid advances in science, coupled with the human race's thirst for knowledge, the Age of Enlightenment is fast dawning.
-
how is my argument absurb?
-
The fundamental fact is that mythology (religion) and fact-finding (science) can never reconcile.Originally posted by devoid05:how is my argument absurb?
What you are stating is simply how advances in science can help in recruitment and communication operations of religious bodies, but the truth is that science will one day prove religions to be true or false, and I am quite sure that any religion that believes in a creator will find themselves to be opposing science. -
Thanks for the reply to devoid05Originally posted by F Takumi:What you are stating is simply how advances in science can help in recruitment and communication operations of religious bodies, but the truth is that science will one day prove religions to be true or false ....
We are opening a big can of worms, on the nature of proofs and other cheam stuff. Headache again. Seeing the same arguments resurfacing in different forums and topics. Bet someone will quote Karl Popper soon. -
what you says does make some sense... science and religion does come into conflict sometimes. like social darwinism and all that stuff.Originally posted by F Takumi:The fundamental fact is that mythology (religion) and fact-finding (science) can never reconcile.
What you are stating is simply how advances in science can help in recruitment and communication operations of religious bodies, but the truth is that science will one day prove religions to be true or false, and I am quite sure that any religion that believes in a creator will find themselves to be opposing science.
i am not so sure when you said that people who believe in a creator will find themselves opposing science. similarly, people who find themselves immersed in scientific research will not find themselves opposed to religion. religion appeals to the heart and science appeals to the head. yes, there is some measure of truth in the fact that science has created the questioning self in us, causing us to diminish our belief in the intangible, causing many people to fall away from the faith. but science does not deserve to be labelled as the enemy of the faith because of this. science and religion are both intrinsic facets of human beings. while science appeals to the head, religion appeals to the heart. people who keep the faith may not agree with some things scientists have postulated, for example, social darwinism. but what about media evangelists who make use of scientific advances (satellites and tv) to further their causes? believers should simply discard the postulates which come in conflict with their beliefs while learning more abt God's laws of nature through scientific studies, for example, newton's law of gravitation and the theory of relativity, while using religion as a tool to gain fulfillment in life.
science will one day prove religions to be false? hmm... think again. in what ways does science prove religion false? on the other hand, science has helped to prove religion true. for example, radioactive carbon dating, involving the use of science, has helped many archaeologists and theology scholars discover the ancient ruins of the mount where jesus preached, and the places where moses stepped foot on. without science, all these would have been impossible. some scientists have argued that since everything can be explained away by science, there is no need for a god or gods as he cannot be proven to have existed. however, what they do not realise is that even science, in all its greatness, cannot find a total conclusive cure for cancer nor duplicate the human brain. even scientists are bewildered by the phenomenon they observe. the failiability of science itself has caused many to put their faith in celestial beings above. -
Which one?Originally posted by Icemoon:Thanks for the reply to devoid05
We are opening a big can of worms, on the nature of proofs and other cheam stuff. Headache again. Seeing the same arguments resurfacing in different forums and topics. Bet someone will quote Karl Popper soon.
"No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude"
or
"Science may be described as the art of systematic over-simplification"
-
u guys cut it out, i am having a headache reading this...
-
Science merely proved that Jesus existed, which is a historical fact, but it does not imply that Jesus is a god-like being. With the emergence of Big Bang, Evolution and many other findings, the "facts" stated in the bible were being proved to be just bedtime stories.Originally posted by devoid05:what you says does make some sense... science and religion does come into conflict sometimes. like social darwinism and all that stuff.
i am not so sure when you said that people who believe in a creator will find themselves opposing science. similarly, people who find themselves immersed in scientific research will not find themselves opposed to religion. religion appeals to the heart and science appeals to the head. yes, there is some measure of truth in the fact that science has created the questioning self in us, causing us to diminish our belief in the intangible, causing many people to fall away from the faith. but science does not deserve to be labelled as the enemy of the faith because of this. science and religion are both intrinsic facets of human beings. while science appeals to the head, religion appeals to the heart. people who keep the faith may not agree with some things scientists have postulated, for example, social darwinism. but what about media evangelists who make use of scientific advances (satellites and tv) to further their causes? believers should simply discard the postulates which come in conflict with their beliefs while learning more abt God's laws of nature through scientific studies, for example, newton's law of gravitation and the theory of relativity, while using religion as a tool to gain fulfillment in life.
science will one day prove religions to be false? hmm... think again. in what ways does science prove religion false? on the other hand, science has helped to prove religion true. for example, radioactive carbon dating, involving the use of science, has helped many archaeologists and theology scholars discover the ancient ruins of the mount where jesus preached, and the places where moses stepped foot on. without science, all these would have been impossible. some scientists have argued that since everything can be explained away by science, there is no need for a god or gods as he cannot be proven to have existed. however, what they do not realise is that even science, in all its greatness, cannot find a total conclusive cure for cancer nor duplicate the human brain. even scientists are bewildered by the phenomenon they observe. the failiability of science itself has caused many to put their faith in celestial beings above. -
Com'on man... I don't see any reconcilliation between christianity and science. First, almost all the things written there r proven by science to be false. Bible do not believe in evolution, a billion years old galaxy and noah ark to fail to carry all the animals in the world. Not only so, the essense of christianity is against the essence of science. In science, they ask u to reason, to use logics and to prove out and allow other people to verify your theories. For christianty, they force u to stop using your reasoning and logic, they seek blind obedience and ask people to have faith so they do not need to verify anything. The only thing tat why the people in here say tat science is a reconcillation betwen christianity is just because of the following
Science is useful for answering the 'how?' questions, describing how things work. What science can't do is answer the 'why?
The answer is, there is no reason to ask why. Science believes tat things come out naturally and not planned. If things come out naturally, then there isn't have a purpose to begin with. If u believe tat everything is here for a purpose, then u already is biased and have a form of religion in place.science has in fact helped religion exert its influence in the modern day world. take for example, christian networks all over the world. through such programmes, one can become a christian just by calling a hotline.
Tis just meant science is used as a tool. Similarly science had also made terrorists or other religions or countries or cults to exert its influence too. Saying tat science has helped religion to exert its influence is the same as saying tat knives help christainity to exert its influence during its crusaders days. U should see tat their enemies is using knives as well.science and religion should coexist together. they are not mutually exclusive, for the idea of being so mechanized in today's world has created a void in us that science is not only unable to fill, but amplifies. this is when religion comes in, to fill the void inside us -- after all humans have a psychological affinity with religion.
Strangely there r many non believer tat do not experience tis voidreligion shld serve as a moral guideline for scientists when they carry out their research. having religious consciousess actually helps curb the abuse of science.
Moral doesn't have to stemmed from a religion. People r aware of how to live in society and repurcussion from a certain action. We need morals, not religion and morals and religion r mutually exclusivewhile science appeals to the head, religion appeals to the heart
If it isn't right, why believe in it ? Before u let your heart take control, first establish the facts tat your putting your emotion in is worth itscience will one day prove religions to be false? hmm... think again. in what ways does science prove religion false?
Earth revolves around sun, earth is not flat, evolution is true, galaxy not crated in days, galaxy not 10,000 years old, Noah ark is impossible, population couldn't have bcome so diverse after noah and so on and so forth -
welcome back SIS
-
I agree with SiS , those people who turn to religion are finding a easy way out of finding out about things . Apparently for them God is the greatest but how can they prove it? It just takes some common sense to find out what to do and not , instead of relying on religion. Is it okay to steal ? Definitely not if your own things were stolen. So on and so forth... To me , Jesus is just a person cashing in to the Jewish fate that he's the messiah. Some chosed to believe , some not .. Now it evolved to a cult , evolution does exists . God evolved from an almightly ruler to someone who gets his son to do the job and finally someone who watchs the world go chaotic. He changed , so did many things in the world. That's evolution too. Music evolves too , are we always listening to classical , never to change but believing that it's the only best? If God created all this , why new forms of things still appear? Is all this out of God's control? He's giving us free will ? Just because some couple eat a fruit , he decide to leave the world alone by condemning them? If I were him , I would reprimand them , make them understand. God don't give warnings , why did he gives reminders then? Reminders just as Jesus , so many prophets ? Okay , their own will .. Only God have the answer to all these , but he's not doing justice to his 'creations' , letting them survive on blind faith alone.
-
We can see if science and christianity can be reconciled by considering:
Creationism or Evolution.
I dun believe the debate will ever end. Imo, science and religion are two opposing doctrines. One is based on empirical evidence and probabilities, the other is based on blind faith.
I am for evolution. -
That is right. You can still be a theistic evolutionist. Reconciled liao.Originally posted by lwflee:I am for evolution.
Case closed. -
A theistic evolutionist is one who had rejected some passages from the bible. In short he is one tat employ buffet type selection in the bible. Tat doesn;t really make him a true christian
-
Nope, they don't reject. To put it simply, they just happen to interpret in other ways.Originally posted by stupidissmart:A theistic evolutionist is one who had rejected some passages from the bible. -
How about like only a certain group of believers is like that? You don't find Catholics arguing with their life about creationism. I think Catholics are more "open" about this issue.
-
Nope, they don't reject. To put it simply, they just happen to interpret in other ways.
I find it almost impossible to interpret the bible in such a way tat says god actually evolve people, not create.How about like only a certain group of believers is like that? You don't find Catholics arguing with their life about creationism. I think Catholics are more "open" about this issue.
tat doesn't means they believe in evolution either... they just argue lesser on tis... -
Huh, if people are evolved by God, then who created them?Originally posted by stupidissmart:I find it almost impossible to interpret the bible in such a way tat says god actually evolve people, not create.
Aiyah, I dunno what I'm talking liao lah .. a bit like using formula of circle to calculate area of square liddat .. evolution and creation in your context are quite separate things to me. -
Bear in mind many religions existed for many centuries. Unless they have been fully described as such by reliable third parties, religion has never been reconciling with science in the first place.
ah lau is wise!
Bear in mind people like Galileo who kept quiet about telling the church who view anything like the fact that the earth revolves the sun as heretic, Took sometime for the Church to recognise that.
Bear in mind too, early Christians strive to rid of anything unfamiliar to Christianity, such as the Alexanderian science and paganism in and out of the Roman Empire.
Archimedes was left floating out of sphere till some good souls bring him back.
Lastly, imagine for the last two hundred years, without these advances in technology, will we be still so good as to say religion wanna reconcile with science?
In fact, i viewed that, because technology has such huge impact on our lives, with the fact many people are becoming secular and do not believe in any religion at all, its fruitless to talk about religion to them. In fact, it should be that religion mellows down and play along the science line.
Think about it. Many people of all faiths would attribute disaster, miracles and paranormal activities to god and religion, in the past. Heck, hardly any sane people wouldnt be saying such things in modern time. Religion therefore approach a different line to convert people to their side. Only recently do i see religion trying to play along logic and science, rather than faith, Many overly educated people of today would definitely not listen to anything illogical or cannot be proven by science.
While i do not deny religion may reconcile with science, bear in mind, it is only becoming a recent trend, rather than something that is there all along.
Similarly, if there is no technology or science on the tip of our tongue today, i think, we will be all condemning science like hell today.. -
It's officially called "The Theory of Evolution".
So, evolution is not a science. It is still called a "theory" because, no one soul even up till today can prove, 100% sure that evolution is true and that humans evolved way back from bacteria. -
U mixed up the terms of science with usual usage of the word theory. Because it is called theory doesn't means it do not have scientific soundness in it. In scientific terms, when some idea which is not proven is given, they r called "hypothesis", not theory. When they r calld theory, it meant it can be known as a FACT
from dictionary.com
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Words from Douglas J. Futuyma http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century. -
so why don't they drop 'theory' from the term?
-
I find it very strange,people believe in potiananak,ghost,vampire,etc, yet don't believe in God.
-
Law: A descriptive generalization or pattern about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances, often stated in a form of a mathematical equation.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of how the natural world works that explains facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
Before a theory can be included in the system of science, it must meet all of the following criteria:
its ability to explain what has been observed;
its ability to predict what has not yet been observed; and
its ability to be tested by further experimentation and to be modified as required by the acquisition of new data.
http://users.aristotle.net/~asta/science.htm
In short, both r at the same level . The only difference is one is a descriptive explanation while the other can show its behavior mathematically. In short, theories r models tat explain a certain phenomenon in which sometimes laws r derived from it. There r a lot of other science theories as well
Atomic Theory: This theory states that the atom is the smallest unit of matter. The atom is composted of the nucleus in the middle of the atom that is composed of neutrons and protons (both of these may break down into smaller particles). The neutrons have no charge. The protons have a positive charge. Surround the nucleus are electrons that swirl around the nucleus in a large region, rather than orbiting in a fixed pattern (electron cloud). The electrons have a negative charge. Many modern scientists have contributed to our current view of the atom in which the electrons swirl around the nucleus in a large region (electron cloud), rather than orbiting in a fixed pattern. Plus modern quantum theory shows how atomic particles such as electrons may also be seen as having wavelike properties (see below).
Gravity Theory: Gravitation, or gravity, is a force that attracts all objects in the universe. The most familiar of the four fundamental interactions of matter, gravitation has several characteristics that distinguish it from the other interactions. (1). It is universal, (2). it is always attractive, (3). it is a long-range interaction, and (4). it is a long-range attractive force affecting all matter.
Cell Theory: The cell theory of life states: (1). All living material is made up of cells; (2). all cells are derived from previously existing cells; most cells arise by cell division, but in sexual organisms they may be formed by the fusion of sperm and egg; (3). a cell is the most elementary unit of life; (4). every cell is bounded by a plasma membrane, an extremely thin skin separating it from the environment and from other cells; (5). all cells have strong biochemical similarities; and (6). most cells are small, about 0.001 cm (0.0004 in) in length; for example, the smallest cells of the microorganism mycoplasma are 0.3 micrometers in size, whereas some giant algae cells may be several centimeters long.
Quantum Theory: This theory that says that energy exist in tiny discrete units called quanta. Just as earlier theory showed how light, generally seen as a wave motion, could also in some ways be seen as composed of discrete particles (photons), quantum theory shows how atomic particles such as electrons may also be seen as having wavelike properties. Quantum theory is the basis of particle physics, modern theoretical chemistry, and the solid-state physics that describes the behavior of the silicon chips used in computers. Quantum theory and the theory of relativity together form the theoretical basis of modern physics. Later work by scientists elaborated the theory into what is called quantum mechanics (or wave mechanics).
The Germ Theory of Disease: French bacteriologist Louis Pasteur is considered the founder of microbiology. Pasteur argued that infectious diseases were caused by germs. The germ theory has affect our views on infectious disease, surgery, hospital management, agriculture, and industry
DO u believe tat atoms r made from proton, neutrons and electrons ? Do u believe in gravity ? Do u believe tat living things r made up of cells ? Do u believe in photons which is used to explain the discrete level of energy of element ? Do u believe tat germs exists ? Surely these r science knowledge tat even kids knows about