Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know if it happens to be the books I tend to read or what, but so often I read things that remind me of the exchanges that go on in this forum daily. More specifically having to do with the relationship between religion and science. For example, I just read the following yesterday...
"And the second, the Age of Enlightenment allowed the curious to freely inquire about what the rocks and sediments had to say about how the modern landscape formed... and to question the Biblical version of events."
"Charles nonetheless saw an opportunity to indulge his curiosity for the natural world and a comfortable life in this role. Many clergymen of the day were also naturalists or hobby geologists, following their scientific curiosity as a means to understand God's handiwork."
When reading the above, what comes to mind for a religious person? What comes to mind for an atheist?
I know what more often than not comes to my mind. Yours?
I don't know if it happens to be the books I tend to read or what, but so often I read things that remind me of the exchanges that go on in this forum daily. More specifically having to do with the relationship between religion and science. For example, I just read the following yesterday...
"And the second, the Age of Enlightenment allowed the curious to freely inquire about what the rocks and sediments had to say about how the modern landscape formed... and to question the Biblical version of events."
"Charles nonetheless saw an opportunity to indulge his curiosity for the natural world and a comfortable life in this role. Many clergymen of the day were also naturalists or hobby geologists, following their scientific curiosity as a means to understand God's handiwork."
When reading the above, what comes to mind for a religious person? What comes to mind for an atheist?
I know what more often than not comes to my mind. Yours?
PS: Can you guess who this "Charles" might be?
Either Charles Lyell or Charles Darwin.
And it is true that many of the first geologists were Christian clergymen. As I understand it, geology began in an effort to confirm the biblical flood story only to in fact disprove the biblical flood. By the end of the 19th century, most clergymen accepted that the Flood never happened. The modern fundamentalist belief in the historicity of the biblical flood is the result of a book that was written in the 1960's by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris called 'The Genesis Flood' and the birth of the Creation Research Society.
As a Christian I have no problem with going with the geologic evidence which shows that the biblical Flood never happened, nor did the Genesis creation stories of which there are two conflicting creation accounts. I go with the scientific evidence.
There's a place for both religion and science. They don't have to be either in agreement or disagreement. Each person can and should make his/her own decisions about how far to go with either. But don't expect any kind of agreement. That's where a "problem" can enter, and the real "problem" in the opening post / thread.
There's not a problem with religion and science, but how people choose to use (and abuse) them. People should always look at the human element first in all potential "problems", rather than the topics themselves. Religion and science aren't people.
There's a place for both religion and science. They don't have to be either in agreement or disagreement. Each person can and should make his/her own decisions about how far to go with either. But don't expect any kind of agreement. That's where a "problem" can enter, and the real "problem" in the opening post / thread.
There's not a problem with religion and science, but how people choose to use (and abuse) them. People should always look at the human element first in all potential "problems", rather than the topics themselves. Religion and science aren't people.
yes. good insights expressed in post above.
also with regards to the opening post, there is no "what does an atheist think" or "what does a religious person think." there is simply what this or that person thinks. there is no unified "how atheists think." there is no unified "how religious people think". that is a reductive, superficial (lacking depth), and simplistic premise.
also it is a false dichotomy (in the opening post) to counterpose "atheist" against "religious." because 72% of non-religious (the religious "nones") believe in God, higher power, or spiritual force. There are religious people who are atheists; 22% of atheists believe in higher power or spiritual force; 24% of atheists acknowledge that there is something spiritual beyond the natural world; 67% of “no religion" think humans have souls or spirits in addition to their physical bodies
72% of the "no religion" believe in God, Higher Power or spiritual force
Pew data for USA, link below
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
I don't know if it happens to be the books I tend to read or what, but so often I read things that remind me of the exchanges that go on in this forum daily. More specifically having to do with the relationship between religion and science. For example, I just read the following yesterday..."And the second, the Age of Enlightenment allowed the curious to freely inquire about what the rocks and sediments had to say about how the modern landscape formed... and to question the Biblical version of events.""Charles nonetheless saw an opportunity to indulge his curiosity for the natural world and a comfortable life in this role. Many clergymen of the day were also naturalists or hobby geologists, following their scientific curiosity as a means to understand God's handiwork."
When reading the above, what comes to mind for a religious person? What comes to mind for an atheist?
I know what more often than not comes to my mind. Yours? PS: Can you guess who this "Charles" might be?
There's a place for both religion and science. They don't have to be either in agreement or disagreement. Each person can and should make his/her own decisions about how far to go with either. But don't expect any kind of agreement. That's where a "problem" can enter, and the real "problem" in the opening post / thread.
There's not a problem with religion and science, but how people choose to use (and abuse) them. People should always look at the human element first in all potential "problems", rather than the topics themselves. Religion and science aren't people.
This is a version of the "non-overlapping magisteria" argument (originally promoted by paleontologist Steven Jay Gould) that essentially says that if you squint correctly, there's no real conflict between religion and science.
In Gould's view, religion operates in the realm of human meaning, purpose and values and has a different toolset for dealing with those. However, allowing these two magisteria to coexist respectfully, is only possible for theists who do not take their beliefs so seriously that they are obsessed with their own rightness (RIGHTeousness) and are willing to take some approach to holy writ other than the route of inerrantists and literalists. This gives room for two things to be "true" at the same time in a sense, such as that god created the world a few thousand years ago in 7 days, vs that the world is almost incomprehensibly old and that life evolves by natural selection from earlier forms. As a theist, you come up with things like the "gap theory" where you insert those billions of years of evolution in between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, and/or, you just see the accounts of creation and the Fall as legends essentially, as object lessons rather than historical accounts. But not all Christians are willing to do this.
Of course science doesn't claim to explain 100% of everything. Things it can't explain, it often can explain down the road, given more data and understanding. But I don't see that introducing gods into the picture explains that which is currently unexplainable, or could ever explain it in the future.
A subset of things may never be explainable, such as things that would require us to exit the universe and observe it from outside of itself .. and so what? This manufactured need to understand everything at all times is what gets humanity into trouble.
Last edited by mordant; 04-14-2024 at 11:50 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
