Science VS. Faith

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Jesus became man, with all the limitations of man, out of love for us; it does not mean that God had to do this, or that God therefore became the image of man.

Try it the other way around.

No thanks. What I wrote is Catholic doctrine. I’ll stay with that.

God didn’t become the image of Man.

That’s what I said.

God created Man in His own image. An image something that looks like the same thing.

Jesus says God is a spirit, and that a spirit has no body. I think I’ll go with His opinion on this.

The “image” is in our spirit, not our physical body. To argue otherwise is to assume the error of Anthropomorphism.

 

[Equites_Christi]

An image something that looks like the same thing.

What I think “God’s image” is referring to in Genesis is reflections of what God is in humans: mercy, love, etc.

To say God looks like a human is to go against the doctrine that God is a spirit.

 

[wildleafblower]

There has been mention of God, Jesus, and spirit on this topic. His Holiness Benedict XVI may be of help. Please read a snippet from:

APOSTOLIC JOURNEY
OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
TO FRANCE ON THE OCCASION OF THE 150th ANNIVERSARY
OF THE APPARITIONS OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY AT LOURDES
(SEPTEMBER 12 - 15, 2008)

EUCHARISTIC CELEBRATION

HOMILY OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI

Notre-Dame, Esplanade des Invalides, Paris
Saturday, 13 September 2008

[snip]

“Dear brothers and sisters, the question that today’s liturgy places before us finds an answer in the liturgy itself, which we have inherited from our fathers in faith, and notably from Saint Paul himself (cf. 1 Cor 11:23). In his commentary on this text, Saint John Chrysostom observes that Saint Paul severely condemns idolatry, which is a “grave fault”, a “scandal”, a real “plague” (Homily 24 on the First Letter to the Corinthians, 1). He immediately adds that this radical condemnation of idolatry is never a personal condemnation of the idolater. In our judgements, must we never confuse the sin, which is unacceptable, with the sinner, the state of whose conscience we cannot judge and who, in any case, is always capable of conversion and forgiveness. Saint Paul makes an appeal to the reason of his readers, to the reason of every human being – that powerful testimony to the presence of the Creator in the creature: “I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say” (1 Cor 10:15). **Never does God, of whom the Apostle is an authorized witness here, ask man to sacrifice his reason! Reason never enters into real contradiction with faith! The one God – Father, Son and Holy Spirit – created our reason and gives us faith, proposing to our freedom that it be received as a precious gift. **It is the worship of idols which diverts man from this perspective. Let us therefore ask God, who sees us and hears us, to help us purify ourselves from all idols, in order to arrive at the truth of our being, in order to arrive at the truth of his infinite being!”

[snip]
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20080913_parigi-esplanade_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...ben-xvi_hom_20080913_parigi-esplanade_en.html
It’s been an extremely busy time for me of late. Hopefully, I’ll be able to participate and contribute in the science and faith topics. May God bless everyone!

 

[crowonsnow]

Jesus appears like a man because He is a man as well as God.

Appears? In your religion Jesus is a man and a god. Period. The virgin didn’t give birth to an image. The gospels aren’t about an image. So religiously speaking, it is possible to be both a man and a god. This is clearly what the Catholic religion holds. Remember, the topic of the thread is whether science and religious belief can conflict. Saying a human is also a god, or that a god is also a human is a pretty basic conflict with science.

 

[Abbadon]

I guess the main thing to note is that it is Science Vs. Faith and not Vs Religion

I would say naturally that Science and Faith are opposites.

Science forms it’s beliefs in the light of evidence and reason, faith is in spite of it. In science nothing is ever taken on faith, you need good evidence and are peer reviewed. I can’t remember, but it was probably Hitchens who said it. Something like faith is the surrender of the mind, surrender of logic and reason. Faith is what you say when you have no good reason to believe what you believe.

And if by faith you meant particular religious doctrine. Then even more so.

The only example that needs be taken is life saving, wonderful, glorious, research avenues that are presented by stem cell research. And becuase of the faith of some in their religious belief, this research is privatized and stifled. Thankfully no longer in Australia, viva la revolution.

 

[Abbadon]

When using the definition of faith I looked at

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

Particularly 2 a) 1 belief and trust in and loyalty to God
2 belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion

and especially 2 b) 1 firm belief in something for which there is no proof
2 complete trust

 

[Abbadon]

Try it the other way around. God didn’t become the image of Man. God created Man in His own image. An image something that looks like the same thing.

Chritine… In the bible does it say image of god or likeness of god? I honestly can’t remember the passage

If it is image I completely agree with you. Becuase if god meant likeness he would have said likeness and not image… Don’t people understand that god is capable of articulating what he means…

Why does he need us to reinterpret his word, I am sure it is in his power to say what he means and mean what he says…

 

[crowonsnow]

Abbadon,

Thanks! I got up this morning thinking the same thing and wanted to clarify. You’ve already done that.

Essentially, religious tenets are not testable. Any scientific hypothesis or theory is always open to test. This is the difference, as you have said.

There is no way to test how many angels are in heaven or whether spirits evolve. Some will say that this is because these things are beyond scientific inquiry, that religion is somehow beyond science. But this always struck me as just a fancy way of saying that the two are in conflict and so can never be reconciled. We can suspend reason and logic and jam the two together but they will remain that immiscible amalgam. In the U.S. anyway, this is what the recent Dover case was all about.

 

[wildleafblower]

I guess the main thing to note is that it is Science Vs. Faith and not Vs Religion

I would say naturally that Science and Faith are opposites.

Science forms it’s beliefs in the light of evidence and reason, faith is in spite of it. In science nothing is ever taken on faith, you need good evidence and are peer reviewed. I can’t remember, but it was probably Hitchens who said it. Something like faith is the surrender of the mind, surrender of logic and reason. Faith is what you say when you have no good reason to believe what you believe.

And if by faith you meant particular religious doctrine. Then even more so.

The only example that needs be taken is life saving, wonderful, glorious, research avenues that are presented by stem cell research. And becuase of the faith of some in their religious belief, this research is privatized and stifled. Thankfully no longer in Australia, viva la revolution.

APOSTOLIC JOURNEY
OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
TO FRANCE ON THE OCCASION OF THE 150th ANNIVERSARY
OF THE APPARITIONS OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY AT LOURDES
(SEPTEMBER 12 - 15, 2008)

VISIT AT THE “INSTITUT DE FRANCE”

GREETING OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI

Paris
Saturday, 13 September 2008

Mr Chancellor,
Dear Permanent Secretaries of the five Académies,
Dear Cardinals,
Dear brothers in the episcopate and the priesthood,
Dear friends from the Académies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

[snip]

As Rabelais rightly asserted in his day, “Science without conscience brings only ruin to the soul!” (Pantagruel, 8). It was doubtless in order to contribute to avoiding the risk of such a dichotomy that, at the end of January of last year, and for the first time in three and a half centuries, two Académies of the Institut, two Pontifical Academies and the Institut Catholique in Paris organized a joint Colloquium on the changing identity of the individual. The Colloquium has illustrated the interest generated by broad interdisciplinary studies. This initiative could be taken further, in order to explore together the countless research possibilities in the human and experimental sciences. This wish is accompanied by my prayers to the Lord for you, for your loved ones and for all the members of the Académies, as well as all the staff of the Institut de France. May God bless you!
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2008/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20080913_parigi-institut-de-france_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...pe_20080913_parigi-institut-de-france_en.html

Please read the document in its entirety as all documents that I present. Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter.

 

[wildleafblower]

Chritine… In the bible does it say image of god or likeness of god? I honestly can’t remember the passage
[snip]
Why does he need us to reinterpret his word, I am sure it is in his power to say what he means and mean what he says…

Abbadon asks us, “Why does he need us to reinterpret his word, I am sure it is in his power to say what he means and mean what he says…” I’m not Chritine, but I do hope this might help with your question:

APOSTOLIC JOURNEY
OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
TO FRANCE ON THE OCCASION OF THE 150th ANNIVERSARY OF THE APPARITIONS OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY AT LOURDES
(SEPTEMBER 12 - 15, 2008)
MEETING WITH REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE WORLD OF CULTURE
ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
Collège des Bernardins, Paris
Friday, 12 September 2008
[snip]

In order to understand to some degree the culture of the word, which developed deep within Western monasticism from the search for God, we need to touch at least briefly on the particular character of the book, or rather books, in which the monks encountered this word. The Bible, considered from a purely historical and literary perspective, is not simply a book, but a collection of literary texts which were redacted over the course of more than a thousand years, and in which the inner unity of the individual books is not immediately apparent. On the contrary, there are visible tensions between them. This is already the case within the Bible of Israel, which we Christians call the Old Testament. It is only rectified when we as Christians link the New Testament writings as, so to speak, a hermeneutical key with the Bible of Israel, and so understand the latter as the journey towards Christ. With good reason, the New Testament generally designates the Bible not as “the Scripture” but as “the Scriptures”, which, when taken together, are naturally then regarded as the one word of God to us. But the use of this plural makes it quite clear that the word of God only comes to us through the human word and through human words, that God only speaks to us through the humanity of human agents, through their words and their history. This means again that the divine element in the word and in the words is not self-evident. To say this in a modern way: the unity of the biblical books and the divine character of their words cannot be grasped by purely historical methods. The historical element is seen in the multiplicity and the humanity. From this perspective one can understand the formulation of a medieval couplet that at first sight appears rather disconcerting: littera gesta docet – quid credas allegoria … (cf. Augustine of Dacia, Rotulus pugillaris, I). The letter indicates the facts; what you have to believe is indicated by allegory, that is to say, by Christological and pneumatological exegesis.

We may put it even more simply: Scripture requires exegesis, and it requires the context of the community in which it came to birth and in which it is lived. This is where its unity is to be found, and here too its unifying meaning is opened up. To put it yet another way: there are dimensions of meaning in the word and in words which only come to light within the living community of this history-generating word. Through the growing realization of the different layers of meaning, the word is not devalued, but in fact appears in its full grandeur and dignity. Therefore the Catechism of the Catholic Church can rightly say that Christianity does not simply represent a religion of the book in the classical sense (cf. par. 108). It perceives in the words the Word, the Logos itself, which spreads its mystery through this multiplicity and the reality of a human history. This particular structure of the Bible issues a constantly new challenge to every generation. It excludes by its nature everything that today is known as fundamentalism. In effect, the word of God can never simply be equated with the letter of the text. To attain to it involves a transcending and a process of understanding, led by the inner movement of the whole and hence it also has to become a process of living. Only within the dynamic unity of the whole are the many books one book. The Word of God and his action in the world are revealed only in the word and history of human beings.

[snip]

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2008/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20080912_parigi-cultura_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...f_ben-xvi_spe_20080912_parigi-cultura_en.html
There is mention of likeness found within one of the documents presented from the Apostolic Journey to France n the occasion of the 150th anniversary, of the apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary at Lourdes, (September 12-15, 2008) . vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/travels/2008/index_francia_en.htm
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/travels/2008/index_francia_en.htm

To have a fuller grasp of the topic being discussed, my final suggestion would be to read through all the documents in their entirety located in the above link. Enjoy the journey as did I, forever young at heart.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Chritine… In the bible does it say image of god or likeness of god? I honestly can’t remember the passage

If it is image I completely agree with you. Becuase if god meant likeness he would have said likeness and not image… Don’t people understand that god is capable of articulating what he means…

Why does he need us to reinterpret his word, I am sure it is in his power to say what he means and mean what he says…

King James Bible
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

American Standard Version
And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Bible in Basic English
And God made man in his image, in the image of God he made him: male and female he made them.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.

English Revised Version
And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

 

[wildleafblower]

Catechism of the Catholic Church
Paragraph 6. **Man **
[snip]
IN BRIEF

380 “Father,. . . you formed man in your own likeness and set him over the whole world to serve you, his creator, and to rule over all creatures” (Roman Missal, EP IV, 118).

381 Man is predestined to reproduce the image of God’s Son made man, the “image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15), so that Christ shall be the first-born of a multitude of brothers and sisters (cf. Eph 1:3-6; Rom 8:29).

382 “Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity” (GS 14 § 1). The doctrine of the faith affirms that the spiritual and immortal soul is created immediately by God.

383 “God did not create man a solitary being. From the beginning, “male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27). This partnership of man and woman constitutes the first form of communion between persons” (GS 12 § 4).

384 Revelation makes known to us the state of original holiness and justice of man and woman before sin: from their friendship with God flowed the happiness of their existence in paradise.

[snip]

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p6.htm
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p6.htm

Man within Biblical text represents people such as (Adam and Eve) that were called to be holy, with a voice of conscience, etc.

MAN’S CAPACITY FOR GOD
I. The Desire for God

27 The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will he find the truth and happiness he never stops searching for:

The dignity of man rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God. This invitation to converse with God is addressed to man as soon as he comes into being. For if man exists it is because God has created him through love, and through love continues to hold him in existence. He cannot live fully according to truth unless he freely acknowledges that love and entrusts himself to his creator.1

28 In many ways, throughout history down to the present day, men have given expression to their quest for God in their religious beliefs and behaviour: in their prayers, sacrifices, rituals, meditations, and so forth. These forms of religious expression, despite the ambiguities they often bring with them, are so universal that one may well call man a religious being:

From one ancestor (God) made all nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live, so that they would search for God and perhaps grope for him and find him - though indeed he is not far from each one of us. For "in him we live and move and have our being."2
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P9.HTM#1O
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P9.HTM#1O

Catechism of the Catholic Church
IntraText - Concordances
man [please review]
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/1B.HTM
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/1B.HTM

The THE NEW AMERICAN BIBLE (1) is not denying evolution of species, but speaks only of Adam and Eve (man and woman [male and female]) called to holiness with the capability of communing with God -Father, Son [Jesus], and Holy Spirit because their ‘spiritual and immortal soul was created immediately by God’. Adam and Eve are symbolic of people like you and me that ‘inhabit the whole earth’ and speak in many languages our love for God.

I’m in the process of writing a longer essay about all that I’ve presented here and elsewhere from the Vatican:Holy See archives. This is my 4th message to this topic and last. Peace be with you.

1. vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM
   http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Jesus appears like a man because He is a man as well as God.

Appears?

Yes, that is what “image” means. We appear as humans because we are men, too.

In your religion Jesus is a man and a god. Period.

That’s what I told you.
(Barbarian repeats)
He is a man as well as God. (note the period)

The virgin didn’t give birth to an image. The gospels aren’t about an image. So religiously speaking, it is possible to be both a man and a god.

That’s what I told you.

This is clearly what the Catholic religion holds. Remember, the topic of the thread is whether science and religious belief can conflict.

How do you think that conflicts?

Saying a human is also a god, or that a god is also a human is a pretty basic conflict with science.

Don’t see how. You aren’t a scientist, are you?

 

[RobbyS]

Pope John Paul II encyclical letter “Fides et Ratio” Faith and Reason would explain why the two cannot exist without the other.

Evolution cannot be proven. No solid evidence just jumps to conclusions based on missing data.

Here’s a thing on the UFO / Aliens thing:

By The Associated Press
.

Published: Tue, May 13, 2008 - 4:12 pm
(AP) – Believing that the universe may contain alien life does not contradict a faith in God, the Vatican’s chief astronomer said in an interview published Tuesday.

The Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, was quoted as saying the vastness of the universe means it is possible there could be other forms of life outside Earth, even intelligent ones.

“How can we rule out that life may have developed elsewhere?” Funes said. “Just as we consider earthly creatures as ‘a brother,’ and ‘sister,’ why should we not talk about an ‘extraterrestrial brother’? It would still be part of creation.”

In the interview by the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, Funes said that such a notion “doesn’t contradict our faith” because aliens would still be God’s creatures. Ruling out the existence of aliens would be like “putting limits” on God’s creative freedom, he said.

Paul

Many years ago, I was listening to a science fiction program on radio. I think it may have have been based on a story by H.G. Wells, of all people. As the story went, a stranger landed on a distant planet to investigate a report that a mysterious person had appeared on that planted, had taught a highly ethical message that angered the authorites, and led to his execution. Afterwards, there were reports that he had been seen alive, and then had disappeared, leving behind a band of followers tp spread his message. The stranger found a person who verfied what the stranger had heard. The stranger then shared with the person his mission. He had heard of similar stories on many plantes scatterd throughout the universe,all with the same ending. The mode of executioin differed, On one planet his followed wore small wheels because He had been broken on a wheel. Then the stranger said that he had just heard of the appearce of a teacher on aplanet in the nearest plaletary system. He made quick plans to depart, hoping that he would be able to see the “man” whom he had been seeking across the universe.

 

[Abbadon]

Don’t see how. You aren’t a scientist, are you?

Well we have yet to identify what is a god. So for us to even begin to consider the question of was Jesus both god and man at the same time.

I mean look this is just silly, it’s like asking people to figure out how many angles can dance on the pin of a needle. Of course these questions are scientifically impossible. Because there is no evidence and because there is no data.

Silly fictitious questions don’t need answers, because there just made up, so just make up an answer.

How can we be monothiestic if we have 3 major god heads (Jesus, God, Holy Spirit) a feminine god head (Mary), and thousands and thousands of lesser gods/dieties and entities to whom we pray (angles and saints)? - Oh I don’t know just make up an answer, becuase you sure aren’t going to be looking for evidence to back up your statement.

And that is the difference between Science and Faith.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Well we have yet to identify what is a god. So for us to even begin to consider the question of was Jesus both god and man at the same time.

I mean look this is just silly, it’s like asking people to figure out how many angles can dance on the pin of a needle. Of course these questions are scientifically impossible. Because there is no evidence and because there is no data.

Silly fictitious questions don’t need answers, because there just made up, so just make up an answer.

How can we be monothiestic if we have 3 major god heads (Jesus, God, Holy Spirit) a feminine god head (Mary), and thousands and thousands of lesser gods/dieties and entities to whom we pray (angles and saints)? - Oh I don’t know just make up an answer, becuase you sure aren’t going to be looking for evidence to back up your statement.

And that is the difference between Science and Faith.

Angles are measurements. Angels dance on pins.

 

[crowonsnow]

How do you think that conflicts?

How do I think what conflicts? Do you mean that in science there aren’t gods and gods that are also people? Is that what you mean?

Other cultures have other kinds of gods, gods that are mountains and volcanoes and wind and just about anything. Science makes observations and testable hypotheses. Do you think a god, whatever the kind, or whatever it is, is a testable hypothesis? That’s a pretty basic conflict with science. And we’re not even talking about things like grace and angels and souls and hells and devils and fortune-telling and lots of religious notions that are at odds with the scientific method.

I know you understand that but I don’t understand why you’re reluctant to give an explanation.

Instead of just asserting that religion and science do not conflict, why not just save us a lot of time and say how they do not conflict. Okay? I say they conflict because in religion there are untestable constructs. If your position is that they don’t conflict, certainly you can explain your position. Maybe you can even mention something about the Dover case, and how there was no conflict between religion and science in the Dover case.

But only mention Dover if you feel like it. I’m mainly curious to hear your explanation of how religious and scientific methods do not conflict.

 

[Abbadon]

Angles are measurements. Angels dance on pins.

Pixies, Faeries and Tooth Fairies are measurements. They dance on pins.

 

[The_Barbarian]

The Barbarian,regarding the idea that science and faith are contradictory:
Don’t see how. You aren’t a scientist, are you?

Well we have yet to identify what is a god. So for us to even begin to consider the question of was Jesus both god and man at the same time.

Science doesn’t concern itself with that. Can’t. So there is no conflict.

I mean look this is just silly, it’s like asking people to figure out how many angles can dance on the pin of a needle. Of course these questions are scientifically impossible. Because there is no evidence and because there is no data.

Right. Science is methodologically naturalistic, so it can’t comment on such things, or even say whether or not they exist.
No conflict.

You seem really hacked off at believers for some reason. It’s unnecessary. I don’t hate you or even dislike you, or even think you are necessarily going to hell.

But no, there is no conflict between faith and science. Perhaps if a fellow-nonbeliever explained it, you might find it more acceptable. Here’s professed agnostic Stephen Gould on the question:

Religion is too important to too many people for any dismissal or denigration of the comfort still sought by many folks from theology. I may, for example, privately suspect that papal insistence on divine infusion of the soul represents a sop to our fears, a device for maintaining a belief in human superiority within an evolutionary world offering no privileged position to any creature. But I also know that souls represent a subject outside the magisterium of science. My world cannot prove or disprove such a notion, and the concept of souls cannot threaten or impact my domain. Moreover, while I cannot personally accept the Catholic view of souls, I surely honor the metaphorical value of such a concept both for grounding moral discussion and for expressing what we most value about human potentiality: our decency, care, and all the ethical and intellectual struggles that the evolution of consciousness imposed upon us.
stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html

Go read it; there is much more. Much that you desperately need to read and understand. While I think Gould is wrong about souls, he is quite right that science and faith do not conflict and cannot, so long as science knows its place.

 

[crowonsnow]

Science doesn’t concern itself with that. Can’t. So there is no conflict. … Science is methodologically naturalistic, so it can’t comment on such things, or even say whether or not they exist.
No conflict.

The reason science doesn’t concern itself with that is because there is a conflict. It’s not that science just doesn’t. It doesn’t because there is a conflict. That’s as simple as it can be stated. A person’s religiosity does eventually come around, generally speaking, in the case of incontrovertible evidence that refutes religious teachings, the Galileo case being perhaps the classic modern example. But there have been others.

The conflict is obviously the result of religion making unscientific, untestable, unverifiable statements, or in the Galileo case, of making statements and holding beliefs that conflict with observed behavior. Even though modern germ theory is unquestioned in its ability to control disease, religion still maintains that disease is the result of evil spirits, that the germs are really nice little beasties that are somehow just being influenced.

So science does definitely comment on such things by saying that such things are unscientific, and by demonstrating same when sufficient evidence exists to dispel long held religious beliefs and practices.

I don’t think religion will ever completely disappear because religion is an example of the human ability to imagine. Our ability to imagine must have great survival value or else it wouldn’t have been selected for. And religion is also a source of comfort for many people who do not possess sufficient knowledge to understand and appreciate scientific principles, but who’s lives are greatly affected by scientific knowledge nonetheless. And by that I simply mean that practicing science is a very natural thing to do. When our children are sick we take them to doctors because we’ve learned that this is more likely to aid their survival that performing a religious ritual. In times past we would simply have performed the religious ritual or agreed that the sick child was simply the will of the gods. So we’re changing.

I didn’t mean to get all blabby and pedantic, but just wished to share some thoughts.