Serendip is an independent site partnering with faculty at multiple colleges and universities around the world. Happy exploring!
Religion vs. Science
Biology 103
2002 First Paper
On Serendip
Religion vs. Science
By Student Contributor
I grew up with the impression that science and religion were incompatible. Maybe it was because I went to Catholic school, and my religion teacher thought I was trying to be sarcastic when I asked things like, "If the pope is infallible, why did he say that Galileo was wrong about the sun being the center of the universe?". When she answered, "Because the pope didn't know any better", I said, "Isn't he supposed to know better if he's the pope?", and the teacher told me to stop asking dumb questions and said we'd get into it later (which of course we never did). So out of fear of flunking fifth grade religion AND science, I adopted the policy that what was taught in Science class applied only to science, and ditto for Religion.
Nine years later, I realize that maybe my questions weren't so dumb. Some people spend their lives trying to bring out the similarities between religion and science, while others spend their lives trying to tear the two apart. For my paper, I wanted to explore possible reasons why these two opposing sides have never been able to find common ground enough to unite upon (fade in War: Why Can't We Be Friends?).
One reason religion is unwilling to familiarize itself with science because science offers simple, valid, irrefutable and, above all, logical explanations for some of the "miracles" described in holy books. The Nile, for example, is known to turn red when it is overgrown with bacteria. Sorry, Moses. Carbon dating of fossils tells us that there was life on this planet long before the estimated time of the creation of Adam and Eve. Sorry, God. You can see where the religious leaders might get a little worried that their congregations would begin to fall away from the belief that an invisible man in the sky makes miracles happen, if too many explanations which appeal to their more rational way of thinking were to come up.
There are those, of course, who would argue that the Torah and the Bible are not meant to be taken literally but figuratively; that Adam and Eve are representative of all men and women, that the story of the Creation in seven "days" it meant to be a more figurative term for a longer amount of time (substitute the word "eon" for "day" in the Creation story and you'll get what I mean). That's nice and all, but it begs the question, where does the line between figurative and literal translations end? For example, the story of Esther, which, as opposed to some other stories in the Bible, is very specific when it comes to times, dates, names and places - not only that, but the story is historically supported as it is written. Should we apply the figurative translation to something which is so obviously meant literally? Of course not. So when does the figurative translation end and the literal begin? This is one question which scientists and theologians still have not been able to come up with a satisfactory answer to.
Another difference which I have found between science and religion is the definition of "truth". To the scientist, who is more skeptical, truth is ever-changing - the more one sees of the world, the more observations one makes, the closer one comes to the truth. In laymen's terms, the truth is out there. It is the goal which may not ever be attained, but that certainly won't stop the scientist from coming as close as she can. The scientist does not define "truth" by what it is, but rather by taking away the attributes which truth is not. In this manner, the definition of truth is always changing and never finalized. The theologian, on the other hand, defines truth as that which is printed in the Holy Texts, that which comes from the mouth of God Himself (although personally I believe that if there IS a god, she would have to be a woman, but that's another paper topic). Truth is absolute, definitive, unchanging and final. You can see the truth, touch it, feel it.
Although there are undeniably many differences between the issues encompassed by science and religion, few people ever take the time to realize how similar in nature the two really are. Think about it - both science and religion have their own set of books from whence all their information is drawn, instructors (if the professor will forgive me for comparing him to a pastor), philosophies of life and death, instructions and jargon. It's actually a little creepy to think of how similar these two spheres really are, for science is a religion in and of itself, and religion is a type of science. Both are learned practices; no one is born with an instinctive knowledge of the divine just as no one is born with an automatic knowledge of biochemistry. Perhaps the reason why these two fields can never seem to quite get along is because they are too similar in their nature while being dissimilar in their specific outlooks.
Science and religion are related to each other in ways both strange and familiar - for example, we can imagine that there are people raised in religious backgrounds who find science to be more practical and logical than the Invisible Man in the Sky, but what most people don't realize is that a majority of scientists are religious, not atheists. My former employer was a chemist, and I remember he said once that he and most of the people he worked with found that their faith in religion is strengthened by their work rather than diminished by it, for the detail and intricate design which is found in science and nature led them to believe that there has to be some divine power which holds the world together in the delicate balance in which it exists (Dr. Don Jones, San Bernardino, California).
Although this paper is only a small portion of the massive study which ensues on the comparison between religion and science, I hope that I have put a new spin on the comparison, for I would hate to have written anything too hackneyed and be considered unoriginal. I hope perhaps to continue the comparison in a later paper.
|
12/07/2005, from a Reader on the Web In the Bible, God is the Great I AM; meaning, HE/SHE/IT exists whether you (or anyone) believe so or not. (And gender is irrelevant) So, too bad for you, not for God. Also, to answer your long-pondered childhood question, you must first understand that religion and God are not one in the same. Religion is fallible, God is not. Popes are fallible. Religion, like school, is meant as a tool for learning and understanding; this does not mean that the values of a certain religions are the end-all, be-all of truth. Like any establishment, there are inevitable selfish politics and bureaucracy involved. As far as science goes, the Pope was not the only one who believed the world was the center of the universe--it is just the same as the belief that no species alien to our own exists; it is the self-centered nature of humankind that makes us fallible. And the denial of God is just as selfish--we don't want to be responsible for our actions. We all will be, though, like it or not. May God bless you regardless.
|
An argument that people make in the defence of heaven is that "Well what about all the energy that is your soul, it has to go somewhere."
Infact this is true. The sould is a series of Electro-Chemical signals in the brain that define our perosnalities, and when we die they do go somewhere... In the ground, just along with the rest of our bodies. Energy converts in to heat, which is then defused throughout the atmosphere. The human soul is nothing more than a fairy tale ... Michael, 28 March 2006
Well written paper i must say. The guy before me is a bible hugger who obviously has no sense of logic in his body.. why would you just believe something placed before you, without even questioning it?? anything and everything can be proven by logic and reasoning, you're "god".. well haha thats just a joke. I believe everyone should believe in themselves and keep an open mind, dont shut ideas down because they offend you're religion ... Kyle, 15 April 2006
Science vs. Religion is an interesting subject. Everyday something explained in the bible as god's work has found another solution. An interesting thing about evolution is that it is one of the few things in the bible not recorded by man. Not many people realize this. There needs to be a neutral faith between science and religion ... Jake, 24 September 2006
Honestly i think you are on the right way to find the logics of life. GOD ? wtf is that? Indeed a made man convention for unexplained (till then) questions... Believe in science, believe in logics, believe in yourself...Just because we don't have a god ruling us does it mean we are fallible? c'mon... :S ... Rui, 30 September 2006
no matter how much you try to justify that god is the almighty PROTECTOR never the less open your eyes if god is so great then tell me how he can let people die over him. Also answer me this, how every religion says that god loves them the most and that they are the most worthy of his love and that they are gods children then tell me how if god is the one who is trying to restore peace to the then how come there are more wars and more blood shed by religious people who say that they are gods children then any scientist fighting a war over their inventions. God is NOT real or he would never of let his people fight over him in that way ... Franco, 7 December 2006
In response to the Religion vs. Science paper, I would like to point out that religion does not necessarily set forth the irrefutability of the words themselves in a holy book, but of the message that it contains; thus religion, like science, is the search for the truth that is out there. As the writer points out, science and religion are not so separated as many would like to believe.
In response to the response, I'd like to point out that the assertion that 'He/She/It exists whether you believe or not' is hardly irrefutable, and should be backed up with an argument to support it; additionally, denying the existance of God might mean that we will not be HELD responsible for our actions by a higher being, but does it not also mean that we are intrinsically MORE responsible for our actions, in that there is no creator to blame for 'making us the way we are'? ... Istadan, 24 April 2007
I was raised Catholic and told I must believe or I would go to Hell, by friends, priests and family members. Even as a child I did not believe that was true. I have thought about the Catholic teachings today and I cannot concieve them to be truthful or logical (that doesnt mean they're wrong). I'm now agnostic because I believe it is the most humble belief and the most truthful. Like Darwin said "...the whole subject of God is beyond the scope of mans intellect". All I know for certain is that physics governs the universe, whether or not a higher power had a hand in it is up to your beliefs. I'm trying not to sound pessimistic but every religion I've studied is just writings in books to me, nothing tangible. I respect everybodies beliefs including atheists because as we know it there are no right or wrong anwsers in religion ... Craig Mcauliff, 31 May 2007
Actually, the pope was right. Galileo's theory of the sun being the centre of hte universe is not true and visual gravitational evidence from Hubble proves this. It is the centre of our solar system, but other galaxies such as Andromeda etc do not orbit our sun ... Julia, 24 June 2007
Greetings, My name is Larry Thomas and I am currently writing to you from Wiesbaden, Germany. I am currently looking for someone within the religious and the academic community to review several works that I have put together on a site listed in this email. The total work itself is a combination of several fields such as,Philosophy, Neurology,Theology, Cosmology, Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Engineering, Astronomy, Religion, History, etc... just to name a few in advance. I only ask those who are willing to review this work so that if any are kind enough to offer feedback to some of the theories contained within it then, it would be appreciated. The written work is posted on a free website which has its annoying ADs, so pop-up blockers should be set at max on your web-browser to avoid them. The address of the material is posted at www.ascensionq.20fr.com or it can be Googled under the title "Ascension Q" ... Larry Thomas, 24 November 2007
Remote Ready Biology Learning Activities
Remote Ready Biology Learning Activities has 50 remote-ready activities, which work for either your classroom or remote teaching.
About Student Papers
| This paper reflects the research and thoughts of a student at the time the paper was written for a course at Bryn Mawr College. Like other materials on Serendip, it is not intended to be "authoritative" but rather to help others further develop their own explorations. Web links were active as of the time the paper was posted but are not updated. |
What's New? Subscribe to Serendip Studio
A Random Walk
New Topics
-
4 weeks 23 hours ago
-
4 weeks 3 days ago
-
4 weeks 4 days ago
-
4 weeks 4 days ago
-
4 weeks 4 days ago
Comments
I suggest the same to you if
I suggest the same to you if in fact you get to the pearly gates and find Mohamed, Kwaku Ananse(Giant Spider as believed by millions of Ghanaians), Buddha, Zeus or Jupiter(from the Ancient Greeks or Romans), Ra of the ancient Egyptians, Ganesha Bhairav or any of the other Hindu gods, or maybe Odin the ancient Norse god... or any of the other thousands of gods that exist to various people. All your statement does is question other's beliefs and assumes that you are right and others are wrong(hypocrisy in its most obscene form). More scary would be for you who believe in a god's existence being wrong for worshiping the wrong god. I would see god tell him I lead a good life and plead ignorance. What would you say if god turned out to be a giant spider or woman with multiple arms and an elephants head?
Interpretation
What makes us fundamentally human is the fact that we have a brain developed enough and an iq developed enough to Interpret. interpreting is what made us the most powerful animal on Earth. if we didn't interpret another way of using a stick, tools would never have been discovered. Because of how we are all different we all interpret things differently which is the main cause of our social evollution ie internet, money, buisness, globalisation, cures for diseases...etc. Just because it is written doesn't mean we all read it to mean the same thing - that's impossible. you might aswell tell us to be clones.
really different slant on evolution-creation/I.D. controversy
I am a Darwinian evolutionist but with a really different twist, I re-interpret the writings contained within what is called the Bible.
Here's a sample of the kind of studies I do, which strangely, is being rejected by the religious right but evolution-science is more tolerant of:
(Genesis) Adam/man (Hebrew-synonyms) = ‘ruddy’, rosy, the flush of red blood
"man became a living 'soul’ " (Genesis 2:7):
soul (Hebrew & Greek) = animal principle/breathing creature
- does not suggest a ‘human’ being but rather a ‘ruddy’ creature (as coming from the ‘red’ earth-dust/ground-primordial soup)
Adam/man was not initially a human being as many believe but rather a ‘ruddy creature of earth’, an animal (which must have been a chimpanzee; somewhere along the line human beings caught the chimp as shown by recent human genome DNA mapping).
Religious tendencies are observed strictly in the ‘human’ species. If human beings are in part ‘soul (primate/mammal)’ then why aren’t such tendencies evident in primates? Could it be because we have something primates don’t have?
animal = soul
human being = soul + spirit
soul = mortal (of earth)
spirit = immortal (otherworldly, aura, transcendent, supernatural = God's image)
Prior to being put into the garden, ruddy did not have 'spiritual' ability, he only gained that after he entered the garden; '...and the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had made.' (Gen. 2:8)
It was the gaining of this other element that enabled one primate to change from animal to human,and unless he had gained this other element, he could not have changed - thus the reason we don't see other primates in various stages of change.
If Mr. Darwin merely studied God's creation (nature) and told us what he saw there, wouldn't that make him God's advocate rather than God's enemy?
Religion and the Bible are 'not' the same things, if they were then the religious right wouldn'd disagree so vehemently with evolution.
Science vs Religion.. Not Sciecne vs God
Thanks Polyphemus08x, you have summed up how I think on this subject. Also I believe life is not a mere coincidence AKA big bang. For granted things like gravity, magnetism that as far as i know science has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt leave room for a creator. I believe religion is CONTROL with fear. I was raised christian and on the Bible, which in my opinion is a scary bedtime story used to control people. To sum up my opinion i believe in "Creation" and science to explain MOST things but not all, and not religion.
In the beginning.................
My own thought goes to the beginning of everything. If we are made of elements stated in the periodic table, how did the first element come about? Let's all agree that there was a "big bang" (explosion of gases), where did these gases come from? How about the energy that was supplied to power the explosion?
A friend of mine was joking around and he told this story;
One day a group of scientists told God that they have discovered the secret of how we humans were created and that as a matter of fact they are going to start creating humans from that day forward.
God told them to go ahead. The first scientist then reached down to the earth with a plastic bowl to scoop up some dirt which of course is an essential ingredient that God used to make the first man as recorded in the Bible. Instantly God smacked him hard at the back of his hands and said, "GO CREATE YOUR OWN DIRT FIRST".
In my own opinion, the greatest scientist ever is God himself. Over time he decides on what he wants to reveal to us. Then we say we have made a discovery or better still we come up with an invention. For example all the components that make up this laptop have been in existence as far back as 1950 and beyond. However at God's own time, which is very recent, the knowledge to make one was made available to humans and now a laptop is nothing more than a piece of equipment that we use on a daily basis without much thought about how complex it is.
There is no doubt in my mind that God (the ultimate scientist) is very proud of us his children when we demonstrate exceptional abilities by being creative and show forth our intelligence. Sometime in the nearest future, science and religion will come to see "eye to eye".
To answer your question...
For the greater part of my life, I have made logic and reasoning the basis to which I live my life. I also made it my business to think first before I open mouth and to do basic reading or research if I am really curious of the answers. By doing this I have found that I am less inclined to ask questions and it positively resulted in increasing and broadening my knowledge.
Your question of where, when, why and how of "big gang" gases can easily be answered by doing a few simple and not so simple things (depending upon availability of time). The fact that you managed to reply on the topic of Science vs Religion put me under the assumption that you have in your capacity the ability to google the answers for your questions. From my experience with many rational and educated people questioning is never enough and they would often search around until it satisfy their curiousity or provide resolution to their nagging query. If you really want to know then you sould go to your local library, use the internet, read scientific papers, buy magazines on science and technology, talk to scientist (Chemist, Physicist, Mathematicians, Lecturers, etc), going to conferences with topics on sciences, go to university to get degree on science (any will do), increase you brain power by taking courses on logic, programming and reasoning, join a science club that focuses or touches on theoretical physics, astro physics or particle physics, astro chemistry or cluster chemistry, go to museums, even just talking to astute people who have interest in the above subject.
But in short to get close to the answers you have to arm your self with education either from a formal form of learing (universities) or informal education such as attending events that focuses on science (museum events, science days, etc.) or reading columns on scientific journals. That means there are available information out there and finding out is your responsibility. In short it up to YOU!
I hope this helps.
P.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang
Science and Religion are saying the same story
The Wisdom of Truth
There is no doubt in my mind that intelligence in microorganisms (The God of Higher Being) creating an environment that could sustain life for all its creations of Living beings that live now and the ones that lived in history.
The interpretation of its meaning that began with spiritual beliefs in all religions is the children’s story version in a general overview of how life was created for our species to understand it. It is also the voice of wisdom from experience that gives instructions on encouraging healthy Human behavior that serve to protect us from ourselves and all others that we share this planet. Our emotions and our self awareness of them are still in its infancy stage of learning that self discipline and cooperation with our environment is important for our survival.
This is centered in the subconscious mind
Our emotional being
“The Child”
Science in all fields of research is the adult’s story version in the complexity of details of how life was created. The information is enormous in data for human comprehension.
This is centered in the conscious mind
Our Self Awareness
“The Adult”
Religions since early human civilization have warned us that by not living by the behavior guidelines that we are taught to us as sin, immoral acts from our spiritual faith will have severe consequences.
These work as a destructive mechanism to the health of the planet.
Science is also telling the same story that what we are doing in destructive behavior on a global scale to the planet will also produce severe consequences.
Our spiritual belief that tells us the rules for moral human behavior and scientific facts tells us why they should have been obeyed.
Religion and Science is the Truth of Creation of Life
Why can’t we all agree and save our planet’s future?
I am a Catholic, I went to a
I am a Catholic, I went to a Catholic School and was taught the Bible. Now Im older I am finding it hard to believe due to science. I really want to, but its getting harder.
The main thing that it making me think this is the story of Adam and Eve.
They started the Human race? No, the Human race evolved from apes.
Eve ate the Apple because a talking (Talking!!) snake told her to, and as a result made childbirth painfull for all Women?
How could it not hurt a Women by pushing a child's head through thier vaginal canal?, That's a huge change in the body in a relatively short period of time.
There is more, and unfortunatly it all makes me wonder.......
Just because apes looks
Just because apes looks almost like human. having feature like nose eyes and etc. why not say we're of the dinosaurs ? animals are animals. humans are humans. tell me have u seen an ape being the exact replica of humans? going to work drive cook get married and be civilised? excuse me. if you really think apes are the one that spread the human, tell me exactly how we change from an ape to human over time and then stop? why not change again? from human to aliens? and then say it all started with apes. but giving birth part is true though.
who says we won't change!,
who says we won't change!, are we not evolving all the time? - who knows what we will look like in 1 million years from now!
your are wrong in so many
your are wrong in so many places. don't be fooled by people like them. God is truth. there is no other way.
and yes there was a talking snake. it was satan. he could do more things than you imagine. he can still take any form he wants just to make you do something wrong.
don't be decieved.
Your being super foolish...
Your being super foolish... Who is to say that your Christian God is right as opposed to the Jewish God Yahweh? Or how about the Roman Gods? Or Egyptian Gods? Or any "Gods" for that matter. Just because some people wrote in a book that some guy named Jesus was a miracle worker, died on the cross for our "sins" (assuming we have sins to begin with... St. Augustine (if I'm right) worked out the doctrine of Original Sin in order to MAKE Jesus necessary in our lives... Take a history of christian thought class...), etc etc. Who is to say that you are right over Buddhists? Over Taoists? And don't say "just because God is truth and He exists". If you've taken any psychological courses, or raised children, you should know that four year old children use "because that is how it is" logic like you are.
If you really want to be like Jesus, just be a good person. You don't have to believe in God in order to be a nice person. I know quite a few atheists who are really nice people. Not all atheists are jerks like Bill Maher...
one prime difference
"..won't stop the scientist from coming as close as she can." -i like how you use she defying the stereotype of a male scientist.
you start of brilliantly by showing the differences (although your definition of 'religion' seems to entail only Christianity/Judaism. There are other religions in this world that wouldn't fit any of your arguments. Hinduism, Buddhism for instance). the problem with the literal and allegoric interpretation of religious texts was a brilliant point to make. but i feel that the arguments that you make about the similarities is pretty weak. but maybe you didn't want to make a strong point and keep it open for discussion.
Some of my views:
at the end, science and religion boils down to one question: where did the first thing to ever exist (dust/ sun /star for the scientists...god for the religious people) come from.
the most convincing argument i ve ever heard an atheist give is that since every matter has an antimatter.. they can combine to form nothing..hence if the reverse is true..nothing can give matter and antimatter. thus, you didn't need anything to form the world..except for a random chain of events ( whose probability equals nil.)
well all hope is not lost for the believer (in god) yet..they've counter argued by saying that the thing that the atheists label as 'nothing' is what they call God. So, at the end it boils down to one simple difference..how do you want to name the thing that started the 'creation'.
give me proof...
I have been looking for the truth for a long time...if what you say is true...could you give me the name and location of where the fossils were found. And could that lake really turn bloody when infested with bacteria??. And you said you were a biologist right? well can you help me out with this: How come universe just happened to happen( the big boom, or something like that)..and how did atoms come to exists?...they just appered with the explosion and just started to work? and...they haven't stopped since. And how did gravity, time and energy just decided to mix together?. Scientist say we know it all...and yet I don't know anybody smart enough to create a single hair of the millians we have on our heads. In fact we have tried to imitate the human body, which we did not create, stuff like computers( human brain), cameras(human eye and brain), etc. And quite frankly my body does not seem like something that would just happen...there are just so many things that make it extremely complex, just think it took years to make the first human heart. I just want to know why we are here...because so far everething in this world has a purpose...how come you guys say we dont?...maybe God really exist...creation has created so many questions but has answered each and everyone of them...evolution only creates question after question, many of whom are still not answered.......help please!
Good thread...
Well written Paper Laura, and great posts everyone. A lot of different viewpoints written out by some articulate and perceptive people. It's funny how everyone's views differ slightly no matter how closely they resemble each other. In the last few hundred years religious people and their respective denominations of churches have become a bit more level headed and open minded; talk like this used to get people burned as heretics. We exist now in a time of science, where people know the world is "round" not because it's common opinion touted by the well-educated, but because there's multi-million dollar satellites in earth's orbit capable of taking HD photos of individual blades of grass. As such Religion has had to grow up and change in the face of emerging theories.
In my honest opinion, having either a strictly religious or a purely scientistic view of reality is a basically flawed position. There are unanswered and extremely important questions on both sides of the fence, and anyone who claims to have an truly informed opinion on the empirical veracity of either one is ignoring some pretty major inconsistencies. Both come down to a simple choice: can you relinquish your mind's need to substantiate facts with hard evidence, or do you believe only in what is finite, measurably and fills some volume in what's referred to as time-space. Put more simply, can you have faith or do you need proof?
In my experience religious people take much more on faith. Many are quite content to let things rest by stating (perhaps wisely) that God has a plan and that He is primarily and immeasurably Good and Just. Anything else is wasted thought, why question what you hold through faith to be true? Conversely, people basing their "faith" on science neglect the questions which science has not found(and I believe cannot find) the answers to: for example, what is rational thought and self-awareness, what is morality and why are we affected (or plagued) by it, or on a bigger scale, where did all matter in the universe originate. Of course thought and emotion are measurable phenomena and it's true that our brains carry out these instructions. But where does the feeling originate? It's true that everything we've found in the universe shares the same composite materials, but where did it all COME from?
A Christian might say that it was all created by God. But what is God? Is it a being? Does it reside somewhere in the depths of space? Or is there some alternate reality that exists alongside our own, one in which time doesn't exist and the governing laws of the universe don't apply? And if so, what is the meaning of our reality, of our very existence? Add to this the search for life in the rest of the universe. Am I to believe that in a universe that's quite possibly infinite there is nothing else but floating rocks? No life exists anywhere else? And if it does, why doesn't the Bible make any mention of it? And then there's the historical angle. If the world was created with human beings already fully "evolved", then were they alive during the time of the dinosaurs? Why do we dig up fossils of giant reptilian beasts from the Cretaceous Period but no humans? And more to the point why, if carnivorous instincts weren't originally built into the animals in the Garden of Eden (as evidenced in the Bible a few times) did a Tyrannosaurus have jaw musculature perfectly suited for ripping flesh from bone, and why were its teeth naturally serrated to more efficiently cut through meat?
An atheistic scientist on the other hand would have to concede, I imagine, that the universe (by which I mean all the matter in the universe) has always been and will always be. To cope with the immediate feeling of helplessness and infinitesimal worth in the scheme of fourteen billion years of continued existence he/she would adopt perhaps and existentialist outlook, or an agnostic/realist one. To cope with the inconsistencies of the evolutionary theory and the meager evidence of the big bang theory (of which I am a believer) he/she would have to make allowances in the area that science is as yet imperfect and the answers to these questions are logically answerable in some way or another. And in the face of the essential meaninglessness of life as a whole, it becomes the responsibility of each person to craft a meaning for their own place in the world.
I believe that the entire root of existence is the perception of time, and that the universe by humanity's very existence is subject to its laws. The "Garden of Eden" was a verbal rendering of the state of the earth, before self-realization was introduced and with it time and guilt, which is a byproduct of retrospect. Before original sin, there was no sin in my own estimation. The fruit eaten by "Eve" and then "Adam" was an "apple" picked from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. "We" (I don't think I was there) rebelled against God by giving ourselves the ability to differentiate between right and wrong, thereby creating Good and Evil. And this is my biggest gripe with religion at the moment; that if we had no concept of right and wrong before the fall, how are we guilty of original sin? My other main gripe is that the God that I read about in the Old Testament doesn't seem like an all-knowing benevolent and loving savior, but more like an overzealous, overbearing, tyrannical and brutal egocentrist.
The answers to the overriding questions of existence are as plentiful as they are subjective, and holding to one and ignoring all others is the very definition of narrow-minded. If it turns out that my unwillingness to subscribe fully to a world view that I don't completely understand condemns me in God's eyes, then I guess I'm just a fool to the core. But in my opinion no view can ever be fully understood by a single person, and as Mr. Mcauliff quoted Darwin to have said, "...the whole subject of God is beyond the scope of man's intellect." It's my view that no matter if someone believes basically in Science or in Religion as the sole explanation of creation, many things will have to be taken on faith. Science is no closer to discovering the meaning of existence than the Bible is to painting a suitably concise picture of human history and the advancement and evolution of its various cultures. No physical evidence exists to prove Heaven or Hell exist in the same way that no irrefutable evidence exists to prove man evolved from microbacteria in the still-forming earth's new-formed oceans. At some level, everything must be taken on faith.
Sorry for the long-winded post, it's 4am and I'm wide awake... cheers.
assaulting is a very strong
assaulting is a very strong word wouldnt you think?? more of a debate no one will come to the conclusion of whats righ and whats wrong. priorites are leading in the worng place right now. should people on this earth not think about peace and stop wars before figuring out whats right between science and religion. because of religion we have wars and will have wars just because greedy people think there superior. do you know how many religions there are? im guessing not. do you belive that your religion is supirior to another? science is just science religion is more then just one religion. so whos assaulting who? i think religion should get with the times here gods not going to save any one when some one presses a button to end man kind. it is words like that wich triggers conflict so your no better then any scientist that tried to proove evolution over creation.
Facts
The agreed-upon age of the universe and the earth itself has changed within the scientific community within the last twenty years (fact); nobody who wants to make sense within the religious world is claiming that we are built of anything other than the same elements that the stars are made of (fact); theories about the evolution of man are based largely off of tenuous evidence that is often taken for granted once its put onto a chart that shows a hairy man becoming more and more upright (fact); the Bible does not give a comprehensive timeline of human events and does not claim to (fact); and we are taking on "faith" most of the facts stated in the prior post (fact).
The thing most interesting to me to find out is how many people are going to assume that I'm a religious nut taking everything that fundamentalist Christian preachers thump out to be true. It may be important to note that I think that much of what has been said here is absolutely true. But while science is wonderful, the sort of thinking that it can lead to is just as dangerous and based on exclusiveness as religion; it's the same condition of humanity manifesting itself in two divergent places. After reading both Silvius' essay and the posts here, I think that both sides of this endless debate have forgotten that the central tenets of their beliefs has nothing to do with disregarding reason in favor of noise. Both science and religion are filled with breakdowns in thinking -- can anyone here think of an error that was ever made in their own field? For the Christians here, show some of that famous tolerance for all men; for the scientists, at least have a passing understanding of the thing you are assaulting.
The universe is 9-14 Billion
The universe is 9-14 Billion years old (fact), The earth is 4.6 Billion years old (fact), all life on earth is made of star dust (periodic table of elements)brought here by asteroids and comets (fact), life has been on earth for 3.8 billion years and there is no more "missing link" (fact). humans are 130,000 years old (fact; homo-erectus to homo-sapien). the bible approximates 10,000 years. Humans will keep evolving into something else (if they make it that long (fact)). And to think all this is here just for us is the definition of egocentric and selfish.
The difference between science and religion is science searches for evidence to prove its theories, and religion uses blind faith because there is no way to prove its theories (dont hold your breath waiting for rapture).
Lets say there is a heaven, it would be filled with extortionists, child abusers, dictators, murderers, son and so on (im sure they asked for forgivness at some point). Ill take my chances with oblivion.
The Bible never tried to
The Bible never tried to prove science wrong, But science has been trying to prove the BIble wrong and still cant prove it. Science contadicts science, The Bible dosent because it dosent have to prove anything, it teaches the Truth,and the truth is, That Our Almighty God is the Creator of all things. Amen.
Sooo, then tell me how
Sooo, then tell me how everything came to be? the Big BAng? Where did that start or how? Was it magic... Where did the stars and universe come to be? Can science prove that? I think not. The Bible can though. Look it up (:
Relgigion doesn't explain the
Relgigion doesn't explain the creation of the universe definitely; there is no evidence that a book written by people is true; did you also believe Frankenstein or The War of The Worlds? Science is not complete; humans as we understand them can't know anything as fact, so of course we can't explain the beginning of the universe, but religion doesn't need evidence because it comforts the ignorant, right? You can't handle the fact you don't know anything definitely along with everyone else so you put your faith in story book - which has quite a good plot actually.
I think it's a great read - but I preferred 1984.
Religion vs science
Science contradicts itself, The BIBLE dosent.
Actually, the bible does
Actually, the bible does contradict itself. Look up "biblical criticism".
Also, I don't think that the bible is trustworthy for four reasons:
1) The bible was written by people. EX: St. Paul was a person.
2) The bible was translated by people. EX: The bible was not originally written in english.
3)The books included in the bible were chosen by people. EX: Look at the different compositions included/excluded in the Catholic bible compared to the Protestant bible.
4) People are fallible regardless if they are "inspired" by God or not. Think about how slim the probability that everyone who WROTE books for the bible, everyone who TRANSLATED the bible, and everyone who CHOSE what books to include in the bible, were full of faith.
I'm mostly criticizing Christianity. There are other religions out there that are less close to the truth than Christianity. But, there are also religions that are probably closer to the truth than Christianity. As of now, I don't know where I sit.
ALSO, I want to see evidence of why science contradicts itself. When telling me what it is, consider the following: the goal of science is to MODEL the real world. Any good scientist will understand this...
Okay then..so your well read
Okay then..so your well read in science right? How about the philosophy of Science? Ever read into Popper,Hume or Kuhn??? All are scientists and philosophers of Science and all have provided theories that are infamous to all scientists to date (apart from your wonderful self obviously)...Science can carry on searching for evidence all that it likes, but nothing can ever be proven true or "fact"...ever.
Science can only prove if a theory is false or whether it can be falsified. You cannot see into the future to find out if results to an experiment will be the same tomorrow, next week or 10 million years from now. Therefore, the "fact" as you call it is not true, just not proven wrong yet. e.g, all objects denser than oxygen fall to the ground today, will they tomorrow? who knows. At this point I will remind you that Newton's theory was thought fact, until Einstein replaced this theory after proving him wrong. All scrince is, is a bunch of stuff we have proven incorrect.
So, Blind faith? the definition of scientists like yourselves who assume all facts will be exactly the same tomorrow and the rest of time. Also, very selfish.
As for heaven, don't even bother commenting, you obviosly haven't read the Bible, along with all the necessary documents for science. I think your middle names are "Blind faith" and "Ignorance" as you comment on issues you have absolutley no background in.
ummm
well, im a 15 year old girl who has no idea what life is or what i'm here for, but obviously im here for a reason. I do believe in god,(why else would i have life and be here) I mean think about it, what makes science work? yeah its there but what gives object mass and gravity and size? how were things ever created at all? i believe this answer is god, but there are some things that i don't believe.... i think religion is a form of selfishness, it's for teh betterment of ourselves isnt it? to make us get to heaven by being good to others? I think thats being good for the wrong reasons. My religion is a little bit hypocritical, i believe. Well look at how religions were created and seperated and all teh wars, its all to believe in the same basic thing, common morals, but different reasons for thesse morals. Maybe im disillusioned about everything, but im still young and inexperienced, i have a life to live cause do i really know what comes next?