How to bring Science and Religion closer together?

[sinnerdexter]

“If the Bible can be related to real-life and scientifically then why not?” - this is how.

Atheists seem to believe that the source of the problem is Religion and do their best to promote against it. I don’t believe this is the way forward and instead is causing more disruption as you’ll never be able to kill God and the message of God. We need to unite as a species to progress and our first priority should be the health of our planet, for if our ecosystem is destroyed we will surely die. We can apply scientific evidence to religious books and use created-things to promote the idea of God, as well as science and advancement; saving the world is advancement for humanity. If humans were able to create a bible that talked of peace and eternal life 2000 years ago, then any human with an educated mind can create a bible now, in more depth and with better equations - more spirit and more wisdom; and by doing so are continuing spreading the message God, which is peace and good.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Anselm33]

“If the Bible can be related to real-life and scientifically then why not?” - this is how.

Atheists seem to believe that the source of the problem is Religion and do their best to promote against it. I don’t believe this is the way forward and instead is causing more disruption as you’ll never be able to kill God and the message of God.
What are your thoughts?/

 

[Tuno]

“If the Bible can be related to real-life and scientifically then why not?”

Of course it can be so related. But despite arguments from within faith systems, (this applies to all "Bibles of any faith) that doesn’t work from outside of or between faith systems. These systems are working in different quadrants in an overlapping but exclusive way, though they are necessarily connected because of being aspects of the same Reality base, we might say. So while they are related, they are not congruent, as they deal with differing aspects of the human experience and this is easily graphable. Religion and atheism are on the left side of that and science is on the right. They are both “squarely” within the totality of experience. Neither religion, atheism, nor science can prove or disprove God, yet all three can “point” to a Supreme by various routs through the substrate of awareness, which yet is dependent on its substrate, Consciousness.

In the mean time, for various reasons, none consistent with actuality, both religion and science together are being used by some to prove and disprove that anything significant is happening in terms of environmental change, etc. you name the topic. But then we have individuals on here who yet believe that the Earth is only 6Kyo! (hey–that could be a logo for a young earther’s T shirt!)

Though there is a system that unites both science and “religion,” most religions and sciences dismiss it because the proponents of either are not willing or able to do the necessary exercises to arrive at the fundamental premise of that Way, even by intellect. So the critical faculties we all have, Sinnerdexter, are all subverted to “proving” and defending belief systems supported to some extent or other by faith or science or a cocktail of both, all in any case insufficient to the problem at hand and blinding at best.

And there is nothing so entrenched as religious belief. All of it. Any of it. It is more difficult to get a religionist to look at themselves than to awaken a stupefied sleeping inebriate to get them out of a burning building. Atheists are no better. And we might remember thatn following the ages old dictum to “know thyself,” we generally accept a third party model of what we are about rather than look directly at the phenomenon at hand: our ouwn state of awareness relative to a Constant. We are all fallible to the addictive human condition of needing to be right at almost any cost, even to death. Why? Because according to the unexamined* parochial contents of our limited mind, we are! We actually believe that there is a 1/1 correspondence between out thoughts and perceptions and Reality. But that is why “magic” works, isn’t it?

So you are fighting here the myopic miasma of partial truths that mesmerize the greatest portions of populations. That we think we know is truly one of the most potent and sweetest poisons willingly taken by all of us. Blessings and good luck, because if you manage to crack someone’s defenses, invariably the first reaction is denial. The number of those who can actually see themselves clearly must be incalculably small. Indeed, Walt Kelly was right: "We have met the enemy and he is us!

*Yes, I'm aware that almost all of us will claim we do introspect and think about ourselves. But invariably we tend to do that using assumptions of dubious value already embedded in our mental patterns, or through patterns assimilated as normalized habituations from our childhood or even later. We "reason" ignorant of our own ignorance and take that faulty logic as actual thinking.

 

[grannymh]

“If the Bible can be related to real-life and scientifically then why not?” - this is how.

Atheists seem to believe that the source of the problem is Religion and do their best to promote against it. I don’t believe this is the way forward and instead is causing more disruption as you’ll never be able to kill God and the message of God. We need to unite as a species to progress and our first priority should be the health of our planet, for if our ecosystem is destroyed we will surely die. We can apply scientific evidence to religious books and use created-things to promote the idea of God, as well as science and advancement; saving the world is advancement for humanity. If humans were able to create a bible that talked of peace and eternal life 2000 years ago, then any human with an educated mind can create a bible now, in more depth and with better equations - more spirit and more wisdom; and by doing so are continuing spreading the message God, which is peace and good.

What are your thoughts?

The point is not to bring science and religion together.

The point is that both science and religion should be seeking truth sincerely and diligently.

The teachings of Catholicism can be compatible with what we learn of nature through scientific research, provided we understand correctly Divine Revelation, as taught by the Catholic Church, and we do our scientific research consistently and rigorously.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[inocente]

That we think we know is truly one of the most potent and sweetest poisons willingly taken by all of us.

Agreed. The way to truth isn’t by zealously proclaiming certainty but by continuously admitting doubt. Only through incessant doubt can we find our way to any meaningful conviction, and even then we need to remain open to new doubts. A dab of humility is always good for the soul.

The hero is the one that jumps over the top not knowing what’s in store. That’s the true leap of faith - not knowing.

 

[turtle18]

There is no need to bring science and religion closer together. God created Science. They do not oppose each other. If you think about the life of Jesus and the Gospels, he doesn’t mention science once. Why is that? He created the entire universe; he knew exactly how everything was. Because the Creator didn’t come to explain creation; He came to teach us how to live and love one another. It’s just that simple. God is an artist and a creator; science is the tool He uses to create. That is the beauty and complexity of God.

Most people are interested in God and his creation but scientists end up getting stuck on the tools He uses to create. They acknowledge creation is beautiful, magnificent but then most of them spend their time counting the number of thistles on the paintbrush instead of viewing the painting and contemplating the painter.

 

[fhansen]

“If the Bible can be related to real-life and scientifically then why not?” - this is how.

Atheists seem to believe that the source of the problem is Religion and do their best to promote against it. I don’t believe this is the way forward and instead is causing more disruption as you’ll never be able to kill God and the message of God. We need to unite as a species to progress and our first priority should be the health of our planet, for if our ecosystem is destroyed we will surely die. We can apply scientific evidence to religious books and use created-things to promote the idea of God, as well as science and advancement; saving the world is advancement for humanity. If humans were able to create a bible that talked of peace and eternal life 2000 years ago, then any human with an educated mind can create a bible now, in more depth and with better equations - more spirit and more wisdom; and by doing so are continuing spreading the message God, which is peace and good.

What are your thoughts?

Of course Catholics don’t generally believe the bible-or the theological truths contained in it-was created by humans.

 

[edwest2]

Agreed. The way to truth isn’t by zealously proclaiming certainty but by continuously admitting doubt. Only through incessant doubt can we find our way to any meaningful conviction, and even then we need to remain open to new doubts. A dab of humility is always good for the soul.

The hero is the one that jumps over the top not knowing what’s in store. That’s the true leap of faith - not knowing.

What ??? Incessant doubt does not solve anything. The way science works is there is a problem, it needs to be solved, and hopefully, it gets solved. I remember when a one megabyte chip was the size of a quarter. The question/problem was: How can we make components on a chip even smaller? That’s where researchers began to look for solutions. Research - any kind of research - does not begin with doubt. It happens precisely because of hope. Anyone who does research must first believe an answer can be found. Yes, some may not find it, but others, in this example, did. That’s how progress and development occurs.

And by the way, once you have the answer, it does not mean there is another answer out there. 2+2=4. Period. Not maybe.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

There is no need to bring science and religion closer together. God created Science. They do not oppose each other. If you think about the life of Jesus and the Gospels, he doesn’t mention science once. Why is that? He created the entire universe; he knew exactly how everything was. Because the Creator didn’t come to explain creation; He came to teach us how to live and love one another. It’s just that simple. God is an artist and a creator; science is the tool He uses to create. That is the beauty and complexity of God.

Most people are interested in God and his creation but scientists end up getting stuck on the tools He uses to create. They acknowledge creation is beautiful, magnificent but then most of them spend their time counting the number of thistles on the paintbrush instead of viewing the painting and contemplating the painter.

Science is mentioned in the Bible. It was mentioned for the same reason it gets mentioned today – because it’s misused to promote an ideology. If scientists just stuck to the facts, everything would be fine. But those who use science as a hammer post here to disprove Biblical events, which science cannot study and has not studied. That is the problem.

Pope John Paul II encouraged a closer relationship and such a relationship should exist, but anti-theists see science as a convenient weapon and misuse it.

God bless,
Ed

 

[turtle18]

Science is mentioned in the Bible. It was mentioned for the same reason it gets mentioned today – because it’s misused to promote an ideology. If scientists just stuck to the facts, everything would be fine. But those who use science as a hammer post here to disprove Biblical events, which science cannot study and has not studied. That is the problem.

Pope John Paul II encouraged a closer relationship and such a relationship should exist, but anti-theists see science as a convenient weapon and misuse it.

God bless,
Ed

I didn’t say science wasn’t mentioned in the Bible. I just said Jesus didn’t mention anything about science in the Gospels. Big difference. Sometimes I wonder when Jesus looked up to the sky at night what it was He really saw. Because He created it!

Like anything else from God, science is very useful, complex, beautiful and wonderful. But like anything else from God, it also has the potential to be completely misused and used wrongly. Science glorifies God. I feel sorry for people who thing science disproves God, in my mind it is quite the contrary. But like I said in my original post, they can’t get beyond God’s “tool” to see God. Wow, how could anyone ever study something so complex and think it just happened on accident? The other amazing thing about science is that absolutely everything has a purpose, (even the appendix!! HAHA )

I am beautifully, wonderfully, marveously made, cell by cell, DNA strand by DNA strand!

 

[inocente]

Anyone who does research must first believe an answer can be found. Yes, some may not find it, but others, in this example, did. That’s how progress and development occurs.

Perhaps I could have explained it better. I work in the IT industry, and every year since the ‘80s there have been people who were absolutely certain that we had reached the maximum speed of the chips that could be made. But others always doubted them, and pushed on to make faster chips. In the same way, natural science can never be certain it has reached an absolute truth, only that the theories work out in practice. The exploration would stop if we were certain we were right. That’s a lesson we can take into our own lives.

(2+2=4 is outside natural science. That branch of math starts with axioms that make it true by definition.)

Pope John Paul II encouraged a closer relationship and such a relationship should exist, but anti-theists see science as a convenient weapon and misuse it.

It’s a two-way street.

The different branches of science have independently found evidence that converge on one coherent view, “neither sought nor fabricated” in John Paul II’s words. There are libraries full of evidence, and every day more evidence is added.

Yet there are zealots who, in their absolute certainty, disregard that evidence. This gets up the nose of others, me included. By seeing their own interpretation of the Bible as a convenient weapon they misuse the Gospel, polarize the uncommitted, and turn some into anti-theists.

 

[Tuno]

I wonder, EdWest, if you might see that Inocente has good points here. For instance, 2+2=4 only works in the base 10 numbering system we commonly use. Btu even in that one can say 12+12=2. In a base 3 system 2+2=10. Or is is 1? Long time since math class! And of course there is that signature on here someone has that says “There are only 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary and those who don’t.”

Certainly yo are pointing with your use of that example of addition that there are immutable laws. That is true. But isn’t Nature more analog than digital? Even scientists distinguish between “hard” and “soft” sciences. Even in logic, "either/or’ is but one level of possibility, even though most people don’t get past that.

And there is much to be said about the similarities of Bible bashers and Bible pounders. Same dynamic, different contents. And so it goes.

 

[inocente]

In a base 3 system 2+2=10.

It’s 11 (think of it as a 3 column and a units column). Someone else here has the sig 2 + 2 = 5 (for very large values of 2).

 

[Tuno]

Thanks, Inocente. It is encouraging that I can come up with at least two wrong answers to a simple equation! Think how good I must be at philosophy!!! At least I’m not lysdexic.

Homer Simpson? I remember massacring responses when I was a kid in church with vague attempts at Latin. “Jesub” is small stuff, LOL!

 

[edwest2]

Perhaps I could have explained it better. I work in the IT industry, and every year since the ‘80s there have been people who were absolutely certain that we had reached the maximum speed of the chips that could be made. But others always doubted them, and pushed on to make faster chips. In the same way, natural science can never be certain it has reached an absolute truth, only that the theories work out in practice. The exploration would stop if we were certain we were right. That’s a lesson we can take into our own lives.

(2+2=4 is outside natural science. That branch of math starts with axioms that make it true by definition.)

It’s a two-way street.

The different branches of science have independently found evidence that converge on one coherent view, “neither sought nor fabricated” in John Paul II’s words. There are libraries full of evidence, and every day more evidence is added.

Yet there are zealots who, in their absolute certainty, disregard that evidence. This gets up the nose of others, me included. By seeing their own interpretation of the Bible as a convenient weapon they misuse the Gospel, polarize the uncommitted, and turn some into anti-theists.

You are not making any sense. Science is interested in finding solutions. The truth you are talking about has little to do with the Bible.

I have studied the history of technological progress for years. Just because we can make devices today we could not make 10 years ago has nothing to do with the Bible. Nothing.

Research only concerns itself with trying applications and insights gained by human effort. It has nothing to do with the Bible.

The evidence you are talking about is currently the primary weapon of the anti-theist. If you are sincere, I suggest you provide clear, unambiguous consequences for ignoring this evidence. I can see none.

God bless,
Ed

 

[JDaniel]

I’d say, “Get rid of the morons!”

jd

 

[Tuno]

Why, JD? If we had more ons than offs, I think we would all get along better. As for Mr. wild wild West, I have found as many using science for attempting to demonstrate God as not. Most don’t even relate to this kind of question. And cheeez, the Bible thumpers who bash science, I don’t get it. How about them young Earthers on here?

But let me ask you this: Who gave you the awareness which you use that includes the facets of science and the facets of religion, whether you agree with them or not? And if that awareness contains all that, how do you discern such contents? What is the nature of the container and the Light to it? Is your essence different because you think you comprehend your own stance and think you understand your adversaries? Does the cup change because of its contents? What cup are you holding, and is it so overflowing with your own stuff that you cannot receive more?

 

[JDaniel]

Why, JD? If we had more ons than offs, I think we would all get along better. As for Mr. wild wild West, I have found as many using science for attempting to demonstrate God as not. Most don’t even relate to this kind of question. And cheeez, the Bible thumpers who bash science, I don’t get it. How about them young Earthers on here?

But let me ask you this: Who gave you the awareness which you use that includes the facets of science and the facets of religion, whether you agree with them or not? And if that awareness contains all that, how do you discern such contents? What is the nature of the container and the Light to it? Is your essence different because you think you comprehend your own stance and think you understand your adversaries? Does the cup change because of its contents? What cup are you holding, and is it so overflowing with your own stuff that you cannot receive more?

I don’t care how you do it, Tuno, just do it!

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Why, JD? If we had more ons than offs, I think we would all get along better. As for Mr. wild wild West, I have found as many using science for attempting to demonstrate God as not. Most don’t even relate to this kind of question. And cheeez, the Bible thumpers who bash science, I don’t get it. How about them young Earthers on here?

But let me ask you this: Who gave you the awareness which you use that includes the facets of science and the facets of religion, whether you agree with them or not? And if that awareness contains all that, how do you discern such contents? What is the nature of the container and the Light to it? Is your essence different because you think you comprehend your own stance and think you understand your adversaries? Does the cup change because of its contents? What cup are you holding, and is it so overflowing with your own stuff that you cannot receive more?

You know, I have watched and been a part of gatherings of scientists and religionists who walked along the aisles, elbow to elbow, without a single shout or evil glance. I was a science teacher. But, I didn’t have an agenda. Or, perhaps I was confident of my material and teaching ability, as were those teachers who taught religion.

We really need to unleash a horde of anti-moron-scientist-religionist spider hawks to sting them and bring them to their unborn! Still alive! Paralyzed! But, not blinded! And, save them at the last moment, whenever they’ve repented their prideful ways!

Well, it might work?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Religionists, as a general rule, don’t have very many problems, if any, with scientists. What would be incredible would be a gathering of both to work together to try to come closer to answers. But, you’ve seen Dawkins on the telly. Complete psycho. When his mind senses a religionists, his nose and mouth start twitching and watering. Of course, he’s not much of a scientist. But we have got to get the likes of him to fade into the dim light. However, he needs to sell books

I don’t know; seems like a lost cause. But, I hope not.

God bless,
jd