Science & Religion

[epiphany08]

In modern times many people either trust in science or believe in religion but I believe the two are one.

The problem with words is that it forms a strict category where if something did not completely comply with the definition of that term, it is said to be not associated with that term.

Science is merely mans study of the environment we live in and ultimately is just a tool of God. God created what we know today as DNA, evolution, and all the periodic elements. These are just all part of his miracles in creation. But science cannot study the conscience, the faith, the belief. These too are also of God. Because they are intangible with no known way of proving or analyzing how they work, many fanatics of science rule them out altogether.

God wishes for us to believe in that which we do not know is certain, that is just how he wishes it to be. He could perform miracles for every bad situation that ever occurs in this world but why shelter your children than teach them to learn (not saying that God does not perform any miracles). Jesus was put in this world to defy what was common knowledge then and to preach the truth. Ultimately he was prosecuted, suffered, and died. Shortly he was resurrected for eternal life. Because it is hard for us, humans, to understand this, as everything in our logical reasoning minds defy this, many of us wonder what truly happened. But those that do believe, who choose to believe, who tell themselves and pray unto God, I choose to believe that which I do not see, that which I do not understand, will be blessed for it. God could have easily chosen something which we could understand, but he chose not to. This is just God’s will. You could say he delights in those who believe in the unbelievable.

As man continues his journey unto this earth and as we learn more knowledge about the earth that we live in, we discover more about this earth but less about God. Man’s reasoning is mathematic, 1 + 1 must equal 2. We apply this sort of logic with everything that we see today, whether it is the shape of a chair, or the distance it takes to get from one place to another. Through the study of our environment, we as humans feel like we understand everything about what is around us. We have become cocky, arrogant, and confident in that we have unraveled this earth and know everything about it. How false that is I cannot begin to tell you. There are things in this world that we are not meant to understand. The conscience, heroic acts, temptations, empathy, etc. We as humans must accept that there are things we are just unable to understand because we cannot touch it, cannot feel it, and cannot see it; but just because so does not mean it doesn’t exist. Man was closer to God at the beginning of time than we are now.

All in all, what I’m trying to say is this. Believe there is a higher power, Someone guiding our life, teaching us along the way. He will not force decisions upon us, but he will put us in situations where you have a choice. This choice may go against all reasoning and everyone around you will tell you that you are a fool for doing it. But listen to your heart, for your belief is there for a purpose, a means to guide you. Judge the decision by the power of that belief. And ultimately, accept to yourself, that we are merely humans who may not be designed to understand this world and how it works; so therefore, anything and everything is possible. When a situation comes where you feel as if there is no way out, pray unto Him who guides you, and He will show you the way.

 

[akasseb]

In modern times many people either trust in science or believe in religion but I believe the two are one.

I don’t really think we can say that science and religion are one. But we can say that God is the author of all truth, and that truth cannot contradict truth. Thus, scientific truths cannot contradict religious truths when properly understood. This is one of those classic Catholic both/and situations. Catholics believe in both science and religion.

We must remember that the terms religion and science are fluid and ambiguous. Simply defining the terms is a crucial aspect in this debate. There are several models that have been put forward as representing the relationship between science and religion: conflict thesis, non-overlapping magisteria, dialogue, and integration. There are arguments for and against all four perspectives. Plus, the relationships can change over time and circumstance. Personally, I have rejected the conflict thesis. I happen to believe that dialogue is the best approach in most circumstances at the societal level. Integration, however, should be the norm when it comes to individuals. For instance I see no problem being a faithful and informed Catholic, while accepting everything that science has to offer.

As an aside we have to ask ourselves, why did science develop in Europe?

 

[epiphany08]

We must remember that the terms religion and science are fluid and ambiguous. Simply defining the terms is a crucial aspect in this debate.

Science - systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Religion - a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. (don’t completely agree with all of this definition but it will work)

Stark contrast is that one is the truth of the physical and the material world whereas the other is the truth of the supernatural. These terms do not negate each other, rather, they compliment each other. Therefore, one is able to create a new term “Universalism”, or what have you, which may combine the both. Point being, science and religion are both terms that have strict boundaries. I ask that you think not in line with terms but with knowledge; in essence, think broad.

Personally, I have rejected the conflict thesis.

If you read what I said then you would understand I too as well. But, due to social impact, previous and current, the war between both institutions, and man’s egotism, many people feel it is only possible to find one credible while the other fallible. This is a common misconception.

As an aside we have to ask ourselves, why did science develop in Europe?

Science, in itself, like religion, developed from man’s search for the truth. Only rather than looking inward, man decided to look outward.

 

[tonyrey]

“To the popular mind, science is completely inimical to religion: science embraces facts and evidence while religion professes blind faith. Like many simplistic popular notions, this view is mistaken. **Modern science is not only compatible with Christianity, it in fact finds its origins in Christianity. ** This is not to say that the Bible is a science textbook that contains raw scientific truths, as some evangelical Christians would have us believe. The Christian faith contains deeper truths-- truths with philosophical consequences that make conceivable the mind’s exploration of nature: man’s place in God’s creation, who God is and how he freely created a cosmos.”

columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html

 

[StrawberryJam]

Those who think science is arrogant, does not understand how science works.

Arrogance is reserved for those who have all the answers.

youtu.be/DZGINaRUEkU

 

[rinnie]

Science and Religion can be a great thing. The problem is when Science tries to change the work of God, it always fails.

Sometimes its an emotional failure. sometimes physical. sometimes both.

Like for instance when a man wants to become a women. Its impossible. Sure science can change the looks even some organs. But science cannot change DNA.

We need Science, and it helps alot of people. But when Science tries to become God thats when we get into trouble every time.

 

[James_Least]

There are a couple of distinctions which need to be clarified:

1. There is a true science and a pseudo science.
2. There is true religion and a myriad of pseudo religions.

We do err when we try to verify God in our test tubes and archeological digs. God said what He meant, and meant what He said regardless of whether we verify it or believe it.
Truth is Truth whether we believe it or not.

God made everything–including us. We are clay–God is The Potter. We have trouble with the fact that we are not Eternal, Omnicient, Almighty and Omnipresent; even though we think somehow we can become such. God is still I AM THAT I AM.

We do err when we try to harmonize creation and evolution–a kind of theistic evolution. God did not use random chance to make the complexity of information which many call nature. God spoke and worlds were made. Man wants to believe in some sort of Big Bang plus a lot of mutation, permutation and probability.(The laws of probability say: No es possible.)

Many are given over to strong delusion–believing a lie. These are more signs of the time–when Jesus said He would return. Are we ready? Where will we be in a hundred billion years?

Peace.,

James Least

 

[Charlemagne_II]

akasseb
**
As an aside we have to ask ourselves, why did science develop in Europe? **

Science didn’t just develop in Europe. There have been scientific and technological developments in many cultures all over the world from earliest times.

The reasons science developed so spectacularly in Europe, I think, are three.

(1) Science had been dormant for several centuries. Dormancy is sometimes good for any spectacular cultural development. Dormancy often means that when a new human activity begins, it will begin with a great burst of curiosity and excitement. It is like a robust young man rising from a long night’s sleep on a beautiful spring morning. This I think is what happened from the 13th century on in Europe.

1. Science required a milieu in which to develop. The university system, invented and built by the Catholic Church throughout Europe, provided ideal forums for the exchange of ideas theological, philosophical, and scientific. The Church’s contributions in this area have been sadly dismissed and overshadowed by the case of Galileo. Also, the Church alone promoted the universal language, Latin, by which intellectuals from every culture could read and be influenced by each others work.

(3)) Scientific development in Europe experienced a tremendous burst of creativity as a result of Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press. The volume and speed of reproducing scientific texts and sending them out to all parts of Europe meant that scientists everywhere would immediately have access to each others work and be inspired to new heights of knowledge. As Isaac Newton himself said, “If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants.”

 

[StrawberryJam]

Science and Religion can be a great thing. The problem is when Science tries to change the work of God, it always fails.

Sometimes its an emotional failure. sometimes physical. sometimes both.

Like for instance when a man wants to become a women. Its impossible. Sure science can change the looks even some organs. But science cannot change DNA.

We need Science, and it helps alot of people. But when Science tries to become God thats when we get into trouble every time.

You do not understand science to say this. Anymore than someone whining about how they don’t like how their pastor has their church set up.
Science should not be treated as a failure anymore than religion should for it’s shortcomings.
Ignorance of Science should be a concern for Catholics today.

 

[fhansen]

In modern times many people either trust in science or believe in religion but I believe the two are one.

Not sure how anyone could trust in science. As far as we can tell it’s restricted to gaining knowledge that’s interesting but otherwise pretty mundane-yesterdays’ news.

 

[akasseb]

akasseb
**
As an aside we have to ask ourselves, why did science develop in Europe? **

Science didn’t just develop in Europe. There have been scientific and technological developments in many cultures all over the world from earliest times.

The reasons science developed so spectacularly in Europe, I think, are three.

(1) Science had been dormant for several centuries. Dormancy is sometimes good for any spectacular cultural development. Dormancy often means that when a new human activity begins, it will begin with a great burst of curiosity and excitement. It is like a robust young man rising from a long night’s sleep on a beautiful spring morning. This I think is what happened from the 13th century on in Europe.

1. Science required a milieu in which to develop. The university system, invented and built by the Catholic Church throughout Europe, provided ideal forums for the exchange of ideas theological, philosophical, and scientific. The Church’s contributions in this area have been sadly dismissed and overshadowed by the case of Galileo. Also, the Church alone promoted the universal language, Latin, by which intellectuals from every culture could read and be influenced by each others work.

(3)) Scientific development in Europe experienced a tremendous burst of creativity as a result of Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press. The volume and speed of reproducing scientific texts and sending them out to all parts of Europe meant that scientists everywhere would immediately have access to each others work and be inspired to new heights of knowledge. As Isaac Newton himself said, “If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants.”

It was a rhetorical question, as I am well aware of the reasons why the Scientific Revolution occurred in Europe (I have immersed myself in the works of such authors as Grant, Lindberg, Hannam, Crombie, Duhem, and Jaki, to name a few). But your post is certainly helpful for those new to the subject matter. All of the factors you mentioned were absolutely essential to the development of science.

Also interesting is the fact that as Europe was on the verge of the Scientific Revolution, Arabic science had essentially stopped dead in its tracks.

P.S. The quote from Newton actually finds its source in the 12th century, from one Bernard of Chartres.

 

[akasseb]

Not sure how anyone could trust in science. As far as we can tell it’s restricted to gaining knowledge that’s interesting but otherwise pretty mundane-yesterdays’ news.

Statements like this should not be made in public. Just think of the science involved in the marvel that is modern medicine. What about the science behind the technological explosion that allows us the privilege of enjoying the Catholic Answers Forums? In my opinion, all solid science should be embraced. Per my previous post, there can be no contradiction between religious truths and scientific truths because God is the author of all truth. Now, there are certainly anti-Catholics who try to use science to discredit the Faith. This is partly due to the fact that there are certain currents of Christianity that have stepped outside the bounds of science into anti-intellectual literalism. These groups are easy fodder for the enemies of Christianity. But this should never be the case with the Catholic Church.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Not sure how anyone could trust in science. As far as we can tell it’s restricted to gaining knowledge that’s interesting but otherwise pretty mundane-yesterdays’ news.

Science is not for everyone. No one should trust anything. That is why we have Science.
There is nothing mundane about it.

 

[fhansen]

Statements like this should not be made in public. Just think of the science involved in the marvel that is modern medicine. What about the science behind the technological explosion that allows us the privilege of enjoying the Catholic Answers Forums? In my opinion, all solid science should be embraced. Per my previous post, there can be no contradiction between religious truths and scientific truths because God is the author of all truth. Now, there are certainly anti-Catholics who try to use science to discredit the Faith. This is partly due to the fact that there are certain currents of Christianity that have stepped outside the bounds of science into anti-intellectual literalism. These groups are easy fodder for the enemies of Christianity. But this should never be the case with the Catholic Church.

That was quite a rant. Embracing is one thing-trusting-as in placing ones faith and hope in something to ultimately resolve the human angst that comes from not knowing where we came from, where we’re going, or why we’re here meanwhile, would be naive if placed on the doorstep of science-and many people do that very thing, to the exclusion of religion.

 

[fhansen]

Science is not for everyone. No one should trust anything. That is why we have Science.
There is nothing mundane about it.

I think you miss my point. Science is fun, science is exciting, science is useful. Science, IMO, can never contradict faith. I love to read the findings of archeologists, physicists, biologists, paleontologists-we’ll be gaining knowledge and solving riddles in the near future that have puzzled humankind for centuries. Very profound truths will undoubtedly be unearthed.

But it still won’t be enough-enough to satisfy mans’ need to know himself and why he’s here. Technology is a good, but it’s not enough either. For example, faster means of communication, labor saving devices, great gains in knowledge, all serve to promise us a brighter future, longer lives, more efficiency in work, etc. But we become as bored-probably even more so, after the novelty of the latest and greatest wears off. And we simply find we’re no better off, no happier. There’s nothing new under the sun; vanity of vanities, everything is vanity, as the writer of Ecclesiastes proclaims.

For a Christian, the study of science is the study of one portion of the mind of God. But even here, it’s only one aspect-and not the major one, IMO. And to this extent, and in this way, it’s mundane in a relative sense.

 

[James_Least]

Whilst contemplating our navels, trying to determine if the first man, Adam, had a navel, we veered into a ditch of primordial ooze, made by a heretofore unnamed comet from the galaxy of Ort, the coordinates of which are still under investigation, pending additional funding from the government.

Since monkeys have navels too, surely we must have descended from them.

We live in a world of pseudo-intellectual bunk promulgated by the father of all lies. i.e. Spiritual wickedness in high places. All of the various world views cannot be true. They could all be false.

Let us go back and carefully review the first 100 episodes of Star Trek. There will be a royalty due of course–to Gene Roddenberry’s estate. This will probably be less co$tly than running the hallowed halls of academia for advanced navel contemplation. However, Oxford and Cambridge have never been available to the masses.

We have made the circle again. God is still here–He made the circle–along with the first navel and everything else that was made. Evolved and made are two completely incompatible concepts. They both cannot be right.

Now what? Genesis 1:1, " In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth…" He told us where we came from–yet we spend billions trying to prove/disprove this fact. Surely, we are living in a world of agnostics–those who say we cannot know the answers of origin with any certainty. Seems many of these folk also write books–two hundred pages of rubbish for $24.95–in hardbacks.

The Bible is still free for the asking in dozens of languages and dialects–even in braille.

Where will we be in 1,000,000,000,000 years? Probably still paying on the national debt. Maybe we will have figured out how to print federal reserve notes faster to go along with a new discovery of strategic red ink reserves buried under the remains of New York City, long since inundated by global warming.

Yep, cyberspace is cool; but it cannot save the soul. See: John 14:6.

Time for a reality check. What is in your wallet?

Peace,

James Least

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Wisdom is far more important than science. The greatest scientist in the world, Albert Einstein, urged the creation of the atomic bomb. Not exactly wisdom, as he later admitted.

Wisdom, not science, is at the heart of religion. Religion is vastly more important than science, and it is vastly important that one finds a religion that is true rather than one that is false.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Wisdom is far more important than science. The greatest scientist in the world, Albert Einstein, urged the creation of the atomic bomb. Not exactly wisdom, as he later admitted.

Wisdom, not science, is at the heart of religion. Religion is vastly more important than science, and it is vastly important that one finds a religion that is true rather than one that is false.

I agree with you. There is a big difference between science and the wisdom found in religion.

Science is filled with half-truths and is filled with corruption. Technology does not flow from science like is so commonly believed in our society. Technology is amazing, science is not.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Wisdom is far more important than science. The greatest scientist in the world, Albert Einstein, urged the creation of the atomic bomb. Not exactly wisdom, as he later admitted.

Wisdom, not science, is at the heart of religion. Religion is vastly more important than science, and it is vastly important that one finds a religion that is true rather than one that is false.

Citations please. Creation or detonation?
How one uses something does make a difference.
Why is religion vastly more important than science?

 

[StrawberryJam]

I agree with you. There is a big difference between science and the wisdom found in religion.

Science is filled with half-truths and is filled with corruption. Technology does not flow from science like is so commonly believed in our society. Technology is amazing, science is not.

Explain how Technology flows.