Addressing conflict between religion and science

[cho_pilo]

Cho Pilo,

This topic is one that is near and dear to me, and one that I have written extensively on. To put it bluntly, there is no conflict between religion and science, or more specifically between Catholicism and science. In my book I do exactly what you want to do in your post, take the apparent conflict point by point using modern science. If you want more info, feel free to PM me.

To briefly address your post: you are right on the money. The Bible does not say the Earth is 6000 years old, neither does His other book of divine revelation: Creation. Unfortunately what the literalists do is throw the baby out with the bath water. They think the Bible has to be understood in a literalistic sense from cover to cover, else none of it is true, which is ridiculous. And no, saying the Earth is 4.6 billion years old does not diminish God’s omnipotence in any way, shape, or form, or make the Bible anything less than God’s inerrant Word. We do a disservice to both God and His Word when we put them in a box so that they conform to our preconceived ideals. You rightly quote 2 Peter 3:8, and I would also recommend reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 109-119 and 159.

Of course, Catholics can believe whichever way they so want (old Earth or young Earth), as it is not a matter of salvation and the Church does not pronounce on scientific matters such as these. I do have a hard time, though, believing that either Augustine or Aquinas would be young-Earthers were they alive today and given modern scientific evidence.

One final thought. I do take exception to the statement that the 1st Creation account (Genesis 1) mirrors evolution save for Adam and Eve. It is somewhat similar to evolution as displayed in the fossil record, but trees and plants (day 3) did not precede sea and sky creatures (day 5) nor the sun (day 4). And birds and flying reptiles (day 5) did not precede land animals (day 6). The creation of man last (end of day 6) is actually correct, as humans are very recent to the history of life on Earth.

Hope this helps, and I look forward to the next topic

How do you work this out?

Religion is all about believing something specifically where there is no evidence (faith), whereas science is all about evidence.

Seems two completely opposite approaches.

 

[Pieman333272]

Of course Science and religion are in conflict. Who better to flesh out this argument then Neil deGrasse Tyson:

youtube.com/watch?v=0vrpPPV_yPY

A perfect example of this is Newton. He never invoked god for his research, because he knew how the mathematics and physics worked, and invoking god into that is not necessary nor required. But when he was at the limit of his knowledge, he invoked god. To the point where his superstitions inhibited him from going further with his research.

The historical fact that god is invoked at the edge of scientific knowledge implies directly that the two are mutually incompatible.

Not really. God is a non-scientific being, so he’s not supposed to be used for an answer in science because of methodological naturalism. That doesn’t exclude the compatibility between God and science, based around the implications and understanding of science in relation to religion.

 

[Jehoshua]

Not being an educated scientist of any branch myself I cannot go into an argument on scientific knowledge.

–

However according to my limited understanding of catholic philosophy faith and reason (as stated by the pope and the Church) need not be contradictory, as reason serves as a corrective to faith. Faith without reason veers off into superstition and fanaticism, as we see in a few particular schools of Islam which reject reason and also in many fundamentalist protestant sects. Thus faith in true religion (the Catholic Church) is corrected (note correction does not mean totally altered but merely guided away from superstitious error) by reason, as unreasonable faith is superstition. I would like to note here that revealed truth cannot be changed and many things by default which cannot be known by reason (the trinity for example) are known by revelation.

Likewise reason without faith leads only into a cold and ultimately unfullfilling and shallow understanding of the world which leads inevitably into a negative and self-destructive mentality (From my experience most “strong atheists” have very pessimistic and negative attitudes although of course each individual is unique and exceptions occur). Thus faith serves as a corrective to reason and science by opening the door to fuller appreciation of reality beyond a cold mechanical understanding of the world thus leading the individual and the whole society into a more fullfilling existence and appreciation of creation.

As I said my understanding of this area of Catholic philosophy is somewhat limited thus if you can find an official document from the Magisterium on the topic you should refer to that instead of my explanation. But basically this is catholic reasoning on the topic.

 

[white_sheep]

Of course Science and religion are in conflict. Who better to flesh out this argument then Neil deGrasse Tyson:

youtube.com/watch?v=0vrpPPV_yPY

A perfect example of this is Newton. He never invoked god for his research, because he knew how the mathematics and physics worked, and invoking god into that is not necessary nor required. But when he was at the limit of his knowledge, he invoked god. To the point where his superstitions inhibited him from going further with his research.

The historical fact that god is invoked at the edge of scientific knowledge implies directly that the two are mutually incompatible.

Ok, so where’s the conflict?

 

[buffalo]

Of course Science and religion are in conflict. Who better to flesh out this argument then Neil deGrasse Tyson:

youtube.com/watch?v=0vrpPPV_yPY

A perfect example of this is Newton. He never invoked god for his research, because he knew how the mathematics and physics worked, and invoking god into that is not necessary nor required. But when he was at the limit of his knowledge, he invoked god. To the point where his superstitions inhibited him from going further with his research.

The historical fact that god is invoked at the edge of scientific knowledge implies directly that the two are mutually incompatible.

I would argue that materialists have painted themselves into a corner since a priori they rule out the supernatural. This is irrational. Science and its consequent reasoning should be illuminated by the truth of Revelation.

 

[You]

Of course Science and religion are in conflict. Who better to flesh out this argument then Neil deGrasse Tyson:

youtube.com/watch?v=0vrpPPV_yPY

A perfect example of this is Newton. He never invoked god for his research, because he knew how the mathematics and physics worked, and invoking god into that is not necessary nor required. But when he was at the limit of his knowledge, he invoked god. To the point where his superstitions inhibited him from going further with his research.

The historical fact that god is invoked at the edge of scientific knowledge implies directly that the two are mutually incompatible.

It isn’t the gaps that cause people to believe in a Creator, its what is between the gaps that causes people to believe in a Creator.

 

[buffalo]

It isn’t the gaps that cause people to believe in a Creator, its what is between the gaps that causes people to believe in a Creator.

In any case, there will always be at least one gap or we would be God. That in itself puts limits on what science can know.

 

[hazcompat]

t=0

peace

 

[You]

In any case, there will always be at least one gap or we would be God. That in itself puts limits on what science can know.

True, true. No scientist will ever know all science, and science does not know about the non-material - even the non-material outside of the Big Bang. For science there too must be the unknown non-material reality; but the conflict, if there ever is one, is about the nature of the unknown and unknowable - is it friendly and judgemental, or is it unconscious and impersonal?

 

[buffalo]

True, true. No scientist will ever know all science, and science does not know about the non-material - even the non-material outside of the Big Bang. For science there too must be the unknown non-material reality; but the conflict, if there ever is one, is about the nature of the unknown and unknowable - is it friendly and judgemental, or is it unconscious and impersonal?

Here is the kicker. Being inside this frame of reference we could never know. Revelation though speaks to us from One outside this frame, namely God. We must respect and treasure this information.

 

[You]

Here is the kicker. Being inside this frame of reference we could never know. Revelation though speaks to us from One outside this frame, namely God. We must respect and treasure this information.

Truly.
Revelation speaks to humans like sunshine speaks to flowers.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

While you are reveling about Revelation, please answer me this: while science is cross cultural and the laws of physics operate regardless of political, social, or religious paradigms, how is one to choose which of over 38K Christian revelations, not to mention all the rest, is correct, and therefore the one to use in classrooms? PLEASE don’t say “Because we “know” ours is right…” I will send you to the next room filled with representatives of those nearly 40 thousand denominations and you guys can have it out. The winner goes to the next round, with the Muslims, and then…

 

[hazcompat]

One Bread One Body One Lord of All.

peace

 

[buffalo]

While you are reveling about Revelation, please answer me this: while science is cross cultural and the laws of physics operate regardless of political, social, or religious paradigms, how is one to choose which of over 38K Christian revelations, not to mention all the rest, is correct, and therefore the one to use in classrooms? PLEASE don’t say “Because we “know” ours is right…” I will send you to the next room filled with representatives of those nearly 40 thousand denominations and you guys can have it out. The winner goes to the next round, with the Muslims, and then…

The true church is the one founded by Jesus Christ. Look back and other than Catholicism all were founded by mere mortals. The true Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. protected by the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church is in possession of the fullness of truth. It preserves it this way - a three legged stool - tradition, scripture and the magisterium. Take away any one and the stool topples.

Anyone in earnestly seeking the truth can find this for himself.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Wow! THAT’s what that noise was…

It toppled for me, Buffalo. I mean it has value, maybe great value to some. And I’m sorry, but I am bound to follow my conscience as much as you are to follow yours. I am happy for you that you are partaking in something that works for you. And I have no doubt that you will reap all the blessings you earn thereby.

 

[buffalo]

Wow! THAT’s what that noise was…

It toppled for me, Buffalo. I mean it has value, maybe great value to some. And I’m sorry, but I am bound to follow my conscience as much as you are to follow yours. I am happy for you that you are partaking in something that works for you. And I have no doubt that you will reap all the blessings you earn thereby.

Curious though - which leg crumbled for you and why?

 

[Ranklyfrank]

All three at once, ignominiously, and without my bidding or wish.

Your boat just hasn’t hit the wall yet, Truman.

 

[buffalo]

All three at once, ignominiously, and without my bidding or wish.

Your boat just hasn’t hit the wall yet, Truman.

What? I don’t get it.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Go to Netflix or something and find a copy of “The Truman Show.” Watch it.

 

[tonyrey]

While you are reveling about Revelation, please answer me this: while science is cross cultural and the laws of physics operate regardless of political, social, or religious paradigms, how is one to choose which of over 38K Christian revelations, not to mention all the rest, is correct, and therefore the one to use in classrooms? PLEASE don’t say “Because we “know” ours is right…” I will send you to the next room filled with representatives of those nearly 40 thousand denominations and you guys can have it out. The winner goes to the next round, with the Muslims, and then…

You overestimate the unity of scientific opinion. There have been a fair number of scandals due to the Establishment’s reluctance to consider new ideas and the falsification of results by scientists unwilling to abandon their claim to fame and fortune. NeoDarwinism is one example of intolerant orthodoxy. As in other walks of life the domain of science is to a large extent a closed shop in which there is ruthless competition for academic posts and lucrative research awards. So much for the unselfish quest for objective truth!