Religion denying science?

[theStrugle]

Hi all,

I need your opinion on theses guys comments, im pretty short of knowledge. Thanks in advance.​

On February 20 2007 19:25 jtan wrote:
The religious, at least the strong believers, are basicly denying science which in my opinion is a very bad thing.​

Yeah this is definitely a problem. Science and religion can actually coexist. People need to be able to accept that. You can still believe in God and accept that the Earth is not the center of the universe. Not everything in the bible needs to be followed word for word.

So something I’m curious about. Does anyone out there who considers themselves a devout Christian ever wonder what the bible would be like had it been written today? Surely many of the rules God laid down applied back to a time when humans were struggling to survive. “Go and take dominion of the Earth”, “Multiply”, “Use the resources of my gift to you.” Would not his message be slightly different today in this world of overpopulation, and limited resources? Would he perhaps have included a footnote or two saying “take care of my gift to you?” Would he not have also said “use science and technology to your advantage?”

Surely on a religious basis, you can agree that the bible would look different written today? There’s no need to word for word follow such an old book. If I were to plan a trip to Russia, pick up an encyclopedia written in the 1982, and research Russia to better plan my trip… well I’d be very unprepared for what I would actually experience, no? We need to learn to adapt things we already had. Old concepts, laid out ages ago, or in the bible, can still be the basis of ways to do things today, but surely we can improve upon them to fit our needs. The surgical procedure of a C-section for example, is over 200 years old. At the time of it’s invention, it was always fatal to the mother, and served only to save the child. Nowadays we can take that same concept and improve it, using the same idea in a modern sense. Why can’t Christianity do this with their book? Take the teachings and the message of your god and apply them to todays society.

AIDS is thought to be punishment for sin in many people’s eyes, no? Leprosy was thought to be punishment for sin. I’m pretty sure Jesus went out of his way to help them out. Why must the Christian right protest funding for AIDS research? They protest contraceptives, but surely we know them to be nothing but beneficial? (and speaking strictly from a biblical sense, isn’t the bed only defiled if multiple people join? I don’t think the bible has any words of any sort condemning birth control). Why must they protest that? And certain passages altogether should be ignored when we realize how blatantly wrong they are. In Duetromony for example, we are told that if a man rapes a non-married woman, he must marry her. Seriously, no one in their right mind would force a woman to marry the man who raped her. To use another medical example, doctors used to bleed sick people. Obviously today we realize what a horrible idea that is. Times change and we need to learn to change our ideas along with it.

---

 

[FuzzyBunny116]

Nothing amazingly inspired here. He is arguing in generalities to begin with, and there is nothing particularly heretical there. Later on, he states

“AIDS is thought to be punishment for sin in many people’s eyes, no? Leprosy was thought to be punishment for sin. I’m pretty sure Jesus went out of his way to help them out. Why must the Christian right protest funding for AIDS research?”

I think this a pretty minority held view within the Church.

He then tells us contraceptives are nothing but beneficial. I really can’t say how foolish this is. If you considered increased wedlock, adultery, abortion, and divorce “nothing but beneficial”," then this discussion ends now.
catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html

The Deuteronomy example was anulled by Christ’s coming.
He presents no new ideas, and provides, in my opinion, little evidence backing it up.

 

[Atreyu]

If the Bible were written today, then it would look exactly the same. Actually, it’s a bit of a silly hypothesis, as the Bible (indeed, all of Revelation) needed thousands of years to be revealed.

There are some good points and bad points of this blog entry (I’m guessing that’s what it is). First of all, I believe that science is necessary, and so indeed it can coexist with religion - in fact it has to! God does not contradict Himself. Actually, that’s about where the good points end…

There is a very strong case that contraceptives actually promote AIDS and HIV. Abstinence really is the only way to prevent the spread of these diseases. Since it is dogma that contraception is intrinsically disordered (and dogma is something that can never change), it doesn’t matter when the Bible was written for this to still be forbidden. And indeed, the Bible does discuss contraception in the story of Onan, Genesis 38.

Now, the Old Testament laws can be broken into three groups:

1. 
   *]Moral laws.
   *]Civil laws.
   *]Ceremonial laws.
   
   The Ceremonial laws where the precursors to the Sacraments and the New Covenant. They - along with the civil laws - were abrogated with the New Covenant. The moral laws are eternal, and summed up in the Ten Commandments. The passage in Deuteronomy therefore doesn’t apply to us these days. I don’t see why we would object too much to it being there in the first place though - those times were very different.

 

[theStrugle]

thanks for the quick reply, its quite a good learning for me too.

 

[Cath01]

Re: sceince

There has yet to be a scientific discovery that contradicts Catholic Teaching.

Science is continually “catching up” to the try to capture a shred of the infinite possibilities of our Universe (which is in God’s domain).

Even the big bang theory. Even the Adam and Eve story.
Remember, not all parts of the Bible are literal. Just like today, not all writing is literal.
BUT, the teachings ARE teachings of truth.

The whole science and Universities began through the Catholic Church long long ago. God gives us gifts, and through education and using our gifts we can offer more to this world and its people. Of course we have the responsibility to respect our world, but that is another issue altogether.

 

[jonk]

Not everything in the bible needs to be followed word for word.

That is true in a sense. But everything in the Bible is true nevertheless. We have the Magisterium and Tradition as an authoritative interpreter of the Bible, and it is not for us to decide which parts of the Bible are to be taken literally and which parts are to be taken allegorically.

Though many Protestants attempt to take as much of the Bible literally as possible with some unusual results, this is understandable - they prefer to err on the side of caution. When Baptists say that the Bible is 100% true and the Word of God, the Catholic Church is with them 100%. We disagree on who does the interpreting.

“Go and take dominion of the Earth”, “Multiply”

God’s commandments are not to be taken lightly. Go forth and multiply is as valid now as ever. The earth is for our benefit.

Would not his message be slightly different today in this world of overpopulation, and limited resources?

Try and read up on the other side of the overpopulation argument. You might be surprised. In my opinion, it’s another scare from the 70s that’s as bunk as global cooling. Did you know that the current world fertility rate has dropped to just 2.9? The UN thinks that the population will level off mid-century and perhaps start to decline. I’m not a fan of the UN’s moral agenda, but even they see it now.

Would he perhaps have included a footnote or two saying “take care of my gift to you?” Would he not have also said “use science and technology to your advantage?”

What is not to do with salvation is of secondary importance. He could have said that, but chose not to. Or maybe there is a passage in the Bible that I’m not aware of. Nevertheless, most Christian churches believe that we are to be good stewards of this earth, and that God’s giving us dominion over it means that we have to be responsible for it too. It does not mean, however, that we treat the earth with undue reverence, especially where doing so would be harmful to other people, for that would be verging on Nature-worship, a form of idolatry.

Surely on a religious basis, you can agree that the bible would look different written today? There’s no need to word for word follow such an old book.

If it were written today, it would be written differently, yes. However, its correct interpretation would be exactly the same as the correct interpretation of the Bible we have today in the Catholic Church. God is eternal and unchanging. His laws are universal and immutable.

We need to learn to adapt things we already had. Old concepts, laid out ages ago, or in the bible, can still be the basis of ways to do things today, but surely we can improve upon them to fit our needs.

We cannot improve upon God’s law. It is perfect. To attempt to do so would be to remake our Maker in our own image. It would be presumptuous and end in disaster. We cannot reinterpret God’s Word with the times. It is, always has been and always will be the absolute Truth. Our needs are secondary to God’s will. It is prideful to assume otherwise.

 

[jonk]

The surgical procedure of a C-section for example, is over 200 years old. At the time of it’s invention, it was always fatal to the mother, and served only to save the child. Nowadays we can take that same concept and improve it, using the same idea in a modern sense. Why can’t Christianity do this with their book? Take the teachings and the message of your god and apply them to todays society.

The moral laws and religious truths revealed in the Bible are perfect and absolutely true. We cannot improve upon the message of the Book. We can very much take the message of our Eternal Father and apply it to today’s society. The fact that today’s society doesn’t listen is why we have sky high divorce rates, millions getting murdered by abortion every year and why the West could potentially be nearing a demographic crisis.

AIDS is thought to be punishment for sin in many people’s eyes, no? Leprosy was thought to be punishment for sin. I’m pretty sure Jesus went out of his way to help them out. Why must the Christian right protest funding for AIDS research? They protest contraceptives, but surely we know them to be nothing but beneficial? (and speaking strictly from a biblical sense, isn’t the bed only defiled if multiple people join? I don’t think the bible has any words of any sort condemning birth control). Why must they protest that?

Read about Uganda. Read what the Protestant Reformers had to say about birth control. They believed in Sola Scriptura. The morals laid forth in the Bible are true, even if it is not immediately apparent.

In Duetromony for example, we are told that if a man rapes a non-married woman, he must marry her. Seriously, no one in their right mind would force a woman to marry the man who raped her. To use another medical example, doctors used to bleed sick people. Obviously today we realize what a horrible idea that is. Times change and we need to learn to change our ideas along with it.

That is a discipline and not a moral law. The passage in question has an alternative interpretation of meaning premarital sex instead of rape. I don’t know enough about it, but I could argue that it made sense at the time. I can imagine that to be because such a woman would be undesirable for marriage, and she couldn’t exactly work in the fields or go on welfare to support herself. Back then, women were dependent on men, whether you like it or not, and God, in that case, would have been holding the man up to his responsibility to support her. Whereas disciplines change with culture, moral laws, however, don’t.

Times change. God doesn’t. Nuff sed.

 

[jonk]

I should say, theStrugle, that I don’t mean to sound so rude and adversarial. I think that your opinions are valid, but I am rather forcefully presenting the opposing point of view, which is my own. There are a million things I could point out where you are right. For example, regarding overpopulation - while remaining open to life, we are supposed to be prudent, so your point is not completely lost on me.

And yes, there are ways in which God’s message can be adapted to today’s world without compromising its integrity. I’m rather arguing against the extreme liberal view, which is probably not your own and which you didn’t mean to imply.

I can see why contraception would seem prudent and logical nowadays, but it is immoral and it has social consequences that prove it. Pope Paul VI foresaw many of those in Humanae Vitae.

I very much believe that we should help people who suffer from AIDS, so don’t knock me for being nasty.

And yes, I agree that the passage about rape does sound crazy in today’s world, but I don’t think that God was being cruel. We have to stop projecting our own culture onto the past.

Don’t get mad. It’s good to learn what other people think, and I very much respect your view.

 

[a_cermak]

I can see why contraception would seem prudent and logical nowadays, but it is immoral and it has social consequences that prove it. Pope Paul VI foresaw many of those in Humanae Vitae.

Does it really have worse social consequences than what came before? I’m not so sure. Yes we all know about increased divorce today, but what about people whose only reason for staying married was the need to rear the children? What about the girls whose dreams were ruined by an unexpected child and who were forced to marry the father? What about that same girl who wanted to go to college but instead had 3 more children so couldn’t work outside the home even though she ardently wanted to be a journalist or scientist?

Because many women were dependent on their husbands for support, and could not support their children themselves, they stayed on in bad marriages.

So I’m not sure that the social consequences are any worse than they were prior to widely available, reliable contraception. But it is the case that every woman now has the freedom to choose whether she’ll use them or not.

 

[jonk]

a_cermak,

I agree that from an unbiased social perspective, there are circumstances in which contraception may prevent negative situations, although I contend that the social consequences of the use of contraception are worse than those of non-use.

You do accept, albeit dismissively, that there has been an increase in divorce, and that’s good. But is a 500% increase in a few generations not astounding? Just think of the social consequences of divorce - it means that more children are raised in poverty. It also means that many children miss out on having a father in their lives, and boys in particular are adversely affected by that, and are much more prone to becoming involved in crime (violence, rape etc.) later in life. Children of both sexes perform worse academically, more likely to take drugs, more likely to engage in underage sex, etc. Marriage as a social institution, from a multicultural and secular perspective, was meant precisely for providing a stable environment in which to raise children.

You say that girls whose dreams were ruined by an unplanned child and were forced to marry their child’s father. I completely agree with you that that is a sad situation and that contraception in each individual circumstance would have significantly reduced the risk of that happening. But there was societal pressure against that, and both the girl and her boyfriend knew the potential consequences of what they were doing. And it was often the man who was pressured to marry in order to do the “honourable” thing and support his partner and kids. She had a choice in the first place though, because rape was illegal. I should also make a point that two evils - the use of contraception and premarital sex - do not make a right, even if their consequences are not immediately apparent.

I’m not going to defend the way things were in the past, although in many ways I could, but let’s compare it with what we have today. With contraception, many societal prohibitions seemed to stop making sense, even though they held true despite the use of birth control. Early unplanned pregnancy is way higher than it was in the recent past. And this necessitates ready access to abortion, although I am not aware if there are more unplanned kids being born to unmarried young girls now than there were in the past or if a huge proportion is aborted. Are not many a girl’s dreams ruined today if she does the honourable thing and decides not to abort her child? Do girls who choose to abort go on and always realise their dreams anyway? Are girls who choose life predestined not to realise their dreams? (There is of course the option of adoption.) And where is the societal pressure for the guy to do the honourable thing?

Are marriages any happier now than they were in the past? And staying in a subjectively bad marriage (one that doesn’t seem fulfilling or meaningful) is probably preferable to children being raised in a broken home. And by no means am I in support of someone staying in an objectively bad marriage - one that is abusive. But I think it is the duty of every parent to put the wellbeing of their children ahead of their own.

I think it is easily arguable that contraception has precipitated many negative social changes. But that’s just half the story.

What about the negative spiritual consequences? You are an Episcopalian, so you likely believe many forms of contraception are not always or ever bad. Fair enough. While I disagree and believe that contraception is sinful, I respect your right to believe that.

However, the “wonderful” thing that is the sexual revolution and the rapid decline in morality - not just sexual - would have been impossible without contraception.
We have an increase in premarital sex. That is a sin.
We have an increase in divorce and remarriage. That is a sin.
We have an increase in promiscuity. That is a sin.
A general lowering of sexual morality means an increase in the practice of sexually deviant behaviour. That is a sin.
We have the legalisation, and the widespread practice of, abortion. That is absolutely vile.
The legalisation of abortion has led us to relativise life. What about euthanasia?
Since marriage is no longer geared towards the raising of children, we have the legitimisation of homosexual marriage, unions or behaviour. That is the legitimisation of sin.
What about gay adoption? That is an abominable evil inflicted upon a child.

How many millions of people have turned away from our Lord, Jesus Christ because of those sins? Has not Christianity lost much of its credibility by preaching that which is so rarely practised nowadays? Has not much of Christianity now been corrupted and accepted those sins as legitimate? How many children were raised never hearing about our Lord because their parents lost faith? How many souls have been lost, and how many more are we going to lose?

And let me tell you, while I am proud of my mother for raising me the way she did, I don’t think there should be any dispute about what family arrangement is usually preferable. She did make the right choice with regard to abortion, and I am eternally indebted to her for that.

 

[rwoehmke]

What’s so great about the Catholic Church is its ability to relate ancient wisdom to new situations. Through science we have advanced in how we do things and in the conditions under which we live, but the sins we committ have hardly changed at all of mans history. It is the teaching authority of the Church which helps us to apply the oldest of moral principles to a changing style of our existenece. It also keeps before us the fact that as skilled as we might be at science we still cannot answer the questions God asked of Job.

 

[Seamus_Sully]

Yiddishe Kop!!

Science denies religion.

Science denies psychology.

Science denies history.

History and psychology try to inimate and use scinece so they can be valid.

Good Day!!

 

[Cath01]

a) With the coming of Christ, the message became LOVE. HE took it all on for us.
b) Words were written by people, therefore cannot be perfect. The message however can be.

Non-truths disprove one another soon enough. 2000 years and our “advanced” society cannot prove against the truths that the Catholic Church stands for.

Science may deny religeion, but religeon founded science.

The message of truth never changes, if it deviates from truth in some ways, then the message as a whole is no longer a purely truthful message.

We as humans can never grasp the entire truth. Thus the mystery. The Catholic faith embraces this and allows for the awareness and understanding that there IS a mystery. That is what is important. By doing that, that is an admission of truth into the faith in itself.
\

Secondly, the whole god of a second world thing.
Is that motive not one that is based on a selfish premise?
It makes it about YOU, if you aer that person.
That flies in the face of unconditional love for others. You cannot be selfish to that degree and still believe in unconditional love for others. They contradict.
Sorry.

Now, about divorce.
The Catholic Church teaches Humility and love for others.
MANY cases of divorce are because people direct their love into their own self.

I challenge you to analyze EVERY relationship that you have seen break down, and tell me that selfish motives are not playing some part in it. I would expect that the large part is affected by this.
Selfishness = directing your love (which needs to be shared with others) unto yourself (on the way to being “only yourself”)
EXTEND that to infinity, and you are left in a world where people are on their own, only loving themselves.

We are on that slope. As selfishness spreads, unconditional love for others diminishes. They are opposing forces.

Where do your choices place you? Each one of us needs to think about that, myself included. We need to constantly remind ourselves that the loving decision might bemore difficult, but the RIGHT decision.
So, for divorce - perhaps the better question is did they actually get married under unconditional love to begin with?
I would think that is an area of concern, because so much of society does not promote love. (as opposed to materialism - or straight out selfishness for that matter).

 

[Nullasalus]

I don’t think religion typically denies science. Informs it, perhaps. Supports it, at times.

Most of the problems I see are when scientists mix philosophy and religious commentary with their announcements.

 

[Cath01]

And Philosophy is the description of mathematical principles by people who do not understand them.

I agree about the commentary, that can be frustrating. However in many cases, the commentary is about bringing community together in some form. I guess it becomes about content.