• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

No conflict between science and religion

Sherman123 said:
If he knows what we will do he has known from the moment of creation, possibly even before the moment of creation. We are just acting out a script in a simulation which he devised. I reject that possibility because I find it grotesque.
Click to expand...

the fact that he knows does not mean he directs us
 
Nilly said:
Some verses in almost all religions conflict with science. Other verses don't.

That's what happens when the books were written all those years ago.

Also, if we're going to base things on interpretations (like 7 levels/7 days) then I'd feel it important to say that some Muslim Pakistani Physics PhD students believe that earthquakes are caused by sinfulness. That's their interpretation and that's completely in contradiction with science, and in contradiction with the truth.
Click to expand...

which verses ????
 
Medusa said:
God should know anything about us!
Click to expand...

But, we don't know everything about God, and it is man who writes the books about god.
 
Medusa said:
it was written by inspiration of GOD
Click to expand...

It could be inspired by God, but, man still makes loads of mistakes. There is this little problem of man's EGO getting in the way of everything, and that includes writing down what is claimed to be inspired by God. Is it God, or is it ego? It seems to me to be very egotistical to say "God says" , or 'God told me'.
 
RAMOSS said:
It could be inspired by God, but, man still makes loads of mistakes. There is this little problem of man's EGO getting in the way of everything, and that includes writing down what is claimed to be inspired by God. Is it God, or is it ego? It seems to me to be very egotistical to say "God says" , or 'God told me'.
Click to expand...

take it as a guide sent for the people of the middle ages .
 
Medusa said:
take it as a guide sent for the people of the middle ages .
Click to expand...

Man's pure ego still gets in the way. So, the question always is.. 'is it God, or is it man's ego'.
 
Medusa said:
take it as a guide sent for the people of the middle ages .
Click to expand...

That sounds like a great idea. If only it was taken as a guide for the people of the middle ages, rather than as a guide for the people of the 21st century.
 
FieldTheorist said:
It's fine if people want to make religion and science mesh, but it's disingenuous and anti-historical to say that there's no inherent conflict between religion and science; it's a just a conflict that's more or less coming to an end and people are moving on from it. In an era where religion openly cedes that science gets the final say about the laws of nature, there's no obstruction and that's a good thing. But historically speaking, that agreement is not obvious from a straightforward reading of religious texts and it is also very modern. Ultimately, it's a very good thing, but cherrypicking quotes from the Bible, Qur'an, etc, is a pretty lame way of justifying that agreement. Oh well, different strokes for different folks.
Click to expand...

It seems your view of history is mistaken. The perceived conflict between science and religion (or at least Christianity) is actually very new. It arises from the movement towards biblical literalism, a movement that is barely 100 years old. This movement, which we now term fundamentalism, arose from a series of tracts called "The Fundamentals" published between 1910 and 1915 in the USA. Prior to this, we don't find any conflicts between science and religion. Instead we find widespread acceptance of scientific findings by Christian theologians throughout history. Everyone from Origen in the third century to C.S. Lewis a mere 70 years ago took non-literal views of Genesis and saw no conflicts with science (in Origen's case many centuries before the Theory of Evolution even surfaced). In fact, in "Mere Christianity", C.S. Lewis, writing some 70 years ago, writes about sanctification as an evolutionary process and seems to assume without batting an eye that all of his readers (primarily English Christians in the 1940s) would have no reason to question the fact of Evolution.

Biblical literalism is a modern invention, barely 100 years old, and only ever took root in parts of the southern USA.

The idea that there was some great conflict between science and religion is a myth.

It seems you've probably been misled by popular contemporary mythologies. There has been no war between science and religion.
 
Last edited:
CrabCake said:
It seems your view of history is mistaken. The perceived conflict between science and religion (or at least Christianity) is actually very new. It arises from the movement towards biblical literalism, a movement that is barely 100 years old. This movement, which we now term fundamentalism, arose from a series of tracts called "The Fundamentals" published between 1910 and 1915 in the USA. Prior to this, we don't find any conflicts between science and religion. Instead we find widespread acceptance of scientific findings by Christian theologians throughout history. Everyone from Origen in the third century to C.S. Lewis a mere 70 years ago took non-literal views of Genesis and saw no conflicts with science (in Origen's case many centuries before the Theory of Evolution even surfaced).

[...]

Biblical literalism is a modern invention, barely 100 years old, and only ever took root in parts of the southern USA. The idea that there was some great conflict between science and religion is a myth. It seems you've probably been misled by popular contemporary mythologies. There has been no war between science and religion.
Click to expand...

As stated earlier in the thread, I'm not very interested in the continuing the discussion, but this is a pretty ridiculous, revisionist history of Christianity. Is there a modern, Baptist Biblical literalist movement? Yes. Is it only 100 years old? Well, probably somewhere around 100-200 years old, but for the sake of argument, let's agree on 100 years.

You can cherrypick the specific idea of Baptist literalism and trace it back ~100 years, sure. Is that in any way close to representing a complete historical analysis of Christian theology and hermeneutics? Well, are the doctrines that Genesis is to be taken literally, and that in general, verses from the Bible are supposed to be taken at face value (or else interpreted by clerics) only 100 years old? No, and it would be absolutely fraudulent to claim otherwise. A trivial historical counterexample to this is that the Pope said that geocentrism was an official doctrine of the Catholic Church. Why was that? Because the Bible mentions in a verse that the Sun stops moving, which was taken it irrefutable Biblical evidence for geocentrism because the Catholic Church took this verse at face value (Much like for 1,950 years, they took the Genesis narrative at face value). This lead to the first real skirmish with science, and was the doctrine that put Galileo into house arrest for arguing for heliocentrism. Evolution, the Big Bang, and so on led to later skirmishes, and all for the obvious reasons of taking the Bible at face value.


I'm happy that most modern Christians have squared science and religion away in a mutually amicable manner and view them as being compatible. I think that raises separate philosophical questions for religion, but for the sake of non-argument, I'm happy with that and I think the world is a better place for it. But don't re-write history and don't cherry pick examples to fit the modern narrative. It's disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, and counterfactual.
 
Nilly said:
That sounds like a great idea. If only it was taken as a guide for the people of the middle ages, rather than as a guide for the people of the 21st century.
Click to expand...

true ,but some advises and prayers are valid for all times and people
 
Medusa said:
'And the sun runs his course for a period determined for him: that is the decree of (Him), the Exalted in Might, the All-Knowing.'

"Do not the Unbelievers see That the heavens and the earth Were joined together (as one Unit of Creation), before We clove them asunder?" [Al-Quran 21:30]

"It is He Who created The Night and the Day, And the sun and the moon: All (the celestial bodies) Swim along, each in its Rounded course." [Al-Quran 21:33]


"With the power and skill Did We construct The Firmament: For it is We Who create The vastness of Space." [Al-Quran 51:47]

"Man We did create From a quintessence (of clay); Then We placed him As (a drop of) sperm In a place of rest, firmly fixed; Then We made the sperm Into a clot of congealed blood; Then of that clot We made A (foetus) lump; then We Made out of that lump Bones and clothed the bones With flesh; then We developed Out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, The Best to create!" [Al-Quran 23:12-14]

Does man think that We Cannot assemble his bones? Nay, We are able to put Together in perfect order The very tips of his fingers." [Al-Quran 75:3-4]
Click to expand...

these verses contradict with science ?
 
CrabCake said:
It seems your view of history is mistaken. The perceived conflict between science and religion (or at least Christianity) is actually very new. It arises from the movement towards biblical literalism, a movement that is barely 100 years old. .
Click to expand...

Yes, that is why Saint Augustus had to warn people not to take the bible so literal, oh, just recently.. He was talking about the dangers of that thought, oh just 1600 years ago/.
 
Medusa said:
these verses contradict with science ?
Click to expand...

It has to do with the concept of what 'a firmament' is Basically, the way it was used back when the bible was written, the firmament was the roof over the bowl that constituted the earth, and was taken from Babylonian cosmology (the seven pillars of the earth hold up the firmament over basically a flat earth)
 
RAMOSS said:
It has to do with the concept of what 'a firmament' is Basically, the way it was used back when the bible was written, the firmament was the roof over the bowl that constituted the earth, and was taken from Babylonian cosmology (the seven pillars of the earth hold up the firmament over basically a flat earth)
Click to expand...

you know a little about quantum ? you dont seem to know.or at least a little logic.who gave this information to babylonians ?
 
Medusa said:
you know a little about quantum ? you dont seem to know.or at least a little logic.who gave this information to babylonians ?
Click to expand...

What about a little quantum?? It has nothign to do with the term firmament. I do know very little quantum..I know the layman's overview of it, but quantum is master's level physics.
 
FieldTheorist said:
As stated earlier in the thread, I'm not very interested in the continuing the discussion, but this is a pretty ridiculous, revisionist history of Christianity.
Click to expand...

No. It's straight forward history supported by all contemporary historians and the weight of writings throughout history. The idea of a historical conflict between science and religion is something you only ever find lay people arguing about. It's a modern myth that the academic community recognizes as a myth.

FieldTheorist said:
You can cherrypick the specific idea of Baptist literalism and trace it back ~100 years, sure. Is that in any way close to representing a complete historical analysis of Christian theology and hermeneutics?
Click to expand...

I never claimed to be providing the details. Just the important facts.

FieldTheorist said:
Well, are the doctrines that Genesis is to be taken literally, and that in general, verses from the Bible are supposed to be taken at face value (or else interpreted by clerics) only 100 years old?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is.

Again...see Origen and the early church fathers who wrote some 1600+ years ago. Medieval theology also stressed symbolic readings as does Judaism (read the Talmud for example), and virtually every theologian of note (Aquinas, Augustine, Calvin, Wesley, etc.)

FieldTheorist said:
A trivial historical counterexample to this is that the Pope said that geocentrism was an official doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...

This is one of those contemporary myths people who don't know any better fall for. Here's a challenge: name the pope and quote him.

You won't be able to because this is another of those myths. In fact if you dig deep enough to find out what the popes actually said on this topic you will find the exact opposite of what you currently think you will find. You will find statements from Pope Leo XIII reaching back to St. Augustine and affirming that there can be no conflict between science and religion and that when we are able to scientifically prove something as true, we must re-examine our theology to incorporate this new knowledge.

FieldTheorist said:
Why was that? Because the Bible mentions in a verse that the Sun stops moving, which was taken it irrefutable Biblical evidence for geocentrism because the Catholic Church took this verse at face value (Much like for 1,950 years, they took the Genesis narrative at face value).
Click to expand...

Both of these statements are incorrect and misinformed. Literal readings of Genesis are about 100 years old.

FieldTheorist said:
This lead to the first real skirmish with science, and was the doctrine that put Galileo into house arrest for arguing for heliocentrism.
Click to expand...

Again, another myth you seem to have fallen for, hook, line, and sinker.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-misunderstood-historical-event

FieldTheorist said:
Evolution, the Big Bang, and so on led to later skirmishes, and all for the obvious reasons of taking the Bible at face value.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. These have only been problematic to Fundamentalist Christians, a sect that exists primarily in the southern USA and only in the last 100 years or so. Like previously mentioned, CS Lewis was able to talk about evolution in his incredibly popular work Mere Christianity with the clear assumption that talking about evolution as a fact was non-controversial. Why? Because even though he was writing in the 1940s, he was writing to an English audience and Fundamentalism is a regional (Southern USA) institution.


FieldTheorist said:
I'm happy that most modern Christians have squared science and religion away in a mutually amicable manner and view them as being compatible. I think that raises separate philosophical questions for religion, but for the sake of non-argument, I'm happy with that and I think the world is a better place for it. But don't re-write history and don't cherry pick examples to fit the modern narrative. It's disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, and counterfactual.
Click to expand...

You are the one attempting to re-write history.

Well, to be fair, it's not really you who are attempting to re-write it, but rather you fell for an already re-written account of history that is filled with myths. Yes, it's disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, and counterfactual to re-write history in that way. Therefore, I encourage you to brush up on your history. Any introductory book to Church History should do; or any good book on the Enlightenment.
 
Medusa said:
'And the sun runs his course for a period determined for him: that is the decree of (Him), the Exalted in Might, the All-Knowing.'

"Do not the Unbelievers see That the heavens and the earth Were joined together (as one Unit of Creation), before We clove them asunder?" [Al-Quran 21:30]

"It is He Who created The Night and the Day, And the sun and the moon: All (the celestial bodies) Swim along, each in its Rounded course." [Al-Quran 21:33]


"With the power and skill Did We construct The Firmament: For it is We Who create The vastness of Space." [Al-Quran 51:47]

"Man We did create From a quintessence (of clay); Then We placed him As (a drop of) sperm In a place of rest, firmly fixed; Then We made the sperm Into a clot of congealed blood; Then of that clot We made A (foetus) lump; then We Made out of that lump Bones and clothed the bones With flesh; then We developed Out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, The Best to create!" [Al-Quran 23:12-14]

Does man think that We Cannot assemble his bones? Nay, We are able to put Together in perfect order The very tips of his fingers." [Al-Quran 75:3-4]
Click to expand...

I find it a little irritating that people believe that having religious faith means that you cannot do science.

I think that fundamentalists have tried to use it as a wedge.

You CAN hold a theistic position of faith and still do science, as long as you are doing science that is all that matters; Science is not synonymous with atheism.
 
William Rea said:
I find it a little irritating that people believe that having religious faith means that you cannot do science.

I think that fundamentalists have tried to use it as a wedge.

You CAN hold a theistic position of faith and still do science, as long as you are doing science that is all that matters; Science is not synonymous with atheism.
Click to expand...
people keep ignoring these verses but all believers should agree with it,instead they just hate islam and show it in the other forums.
Qoran points out the evolution of sun in the 7th century whereas the catholic inquisitiors sentenced Galilei to life imprisonment for claiming similar things in the 17th century''.Surely both bible and Quran contain many believeable expressions about the existence of universe and the nature but as the last one and the most logical one Qoran has the most .


tell me which smart person can ignore this kind of verses?

Al-Anbiya-33: And He it is Who created the night and the day and the sun and the moon. They all swim in their orbit

what a pity ,Galilei was called ' crazy' for telling the same thing.

'It is not allowable for the sun to reach the moon, nor does the night overtake the day, but each, in an orbit, is swimming.'

Catholic europe was in the darkness of bigotry and ignorance ,the church even banned people from having bath,they didnt even know how to use toilet and they had to invent ' eau de toilette '. maybe that is why Koran underlines the importance of personal hygiene

ask me why the muslim world has been drowning in their mud.they are not too different from the mediaeval Europe.they do the same thing and ignore the real message of God ; 'use your mind'
 
CrabCake said:
No. It's straight forward history supported by all contemporary historians and the weight of writings throughout history. The idea of a historical conflict between science and religion is something you only ever find lay people arguing about. It's a modern myth that the academic community recognizes as a myth.
Click to expand...

I've had this discussion with far too many revisionist Christians to be even remotely interested in wasting more of my time on this, so let's just trot through a handful of the particularly odious things:

1.) Despite wanting to sound academic and wanting to sound very informed, you don't offer a single article to a scholarly source, there's just a lot of bloviation and tirades about how there was once a Christian scholar who said X. Let's even agree that said scholars existed. Was that the majority view amongst Christian theologians? Was that the commonly agreed upon belief of your average Christian? Also, what was the quality of their disagreement, what part of the creation myth did they believe was wrong? Where there were disagreements, you should take note that it was to compensate the Catholic church's commitment to Platonism.

2.) There's extremely trivial counter examples to what you're saying, for instance the Ussher chronology which is many hundreds of years old. It's a testament to the very basic, very obvious fact that unless there's a good reason not to, you generally take the Bible at face value. So your statements about Protestant literalism only being 100 years old is, again, woefully short of historical accuracy.


3.) Now, you can argue that there were people who argued for allegorical interpretations of Genesis --I never said otherwise. But was that the absolute accepted view commonly held amongst Christians? There weren't public opinion polls, so who knows. Does this combat, in any way, the Church's commitment to other issues, such as geocentrism and other fights against science? Well, you didn't even bother to combat that claim, which is telling in and of itself, about the role geocentrism played in early Christian doctrine. You just point out a very incomplete, missing some pretty crucial details blog post about how the situation was more complex than that. So let's fill in the details --the church did have an ideological commitment Biblical accounts for geocentrism, also Platonism, and so forth. The church did jail Galileo for being both a dick to the Pope and for supporting heliocentrism. Those are all true statements.


Anyways, I'm done here, I really don't have that much interest in this topic. You're cherrypicking the parts of Christian history you like and ignoring the parts you dislike.
 
FieldTheorist said:
1.) Despite wanting to sound academic and wanting to sound very informed, you don't offer a single article to a scholarly source, there's just a lot of bloviation and tirades about how there was once a Christian scholar who said X.
Click to expand...

If you are pushing a particular niche opinion or point of view, then pointing to specific scholars who agree with you is quite important. But when talking about something for which there is absolute consensus within the academic community, then merely pointing out this fact and asking the person to take a second look is more reasonable. It really doesn't matter which source you choose; any book on Church History or the Enlightenment will do. This isn't an area in which there is any kind of controversy; the opinions are the same no matter which book you choose to pick up (assuming it's a reputable one).

FieldTheorist said:
Let's even agree that said scholars existed.
Click to expand...

Wow!

Let's list the names I mentioned one more time for those who might be jumping into this discussion without having read the previous ones:
Origen of Alexandria,
St. Augustine of Hippo,
Thomas Aquinas,
John Calvin,
John Wesley,
C.S. Lewis

Anyone who knows anything at all about theology or Church history immediately recognizes those names. Furthermore, they immediately recognize the reason why those names are the ones I chose to mention. That is, because (except for C.S. Lewis) these are the luminaries of theology; the most powerful and enduring voices in the field. They are also tied to specific time periods. Origen and Augustine are tied to the patristic period (the earliest period of the Church). Aquinas is tied to the Middle Ages and the scholasticism movement. John Calvin is tied to the Protestant Reformation, and John Wesley to the Enlightenment. The people I mentioned are the key Church figures of their time; the most prominent theologians of each time period.

Saying "let's even agree that said scholars even existed" when presented with this list would be akin to saying "let's even agree that said statesmen even existed" when presented with a list containing the names: "George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Alexander Hamilton, and FDR".

Anyone who knows anything about this topic recognizes the names and why I chose them. Pointing out the teachings of these specific scholars, being that they are the dominant voices of their time, shows that non-literal readings have been dominant throughout history, at least during the time periods I pointed to (patristic, medieval, reformation, and enlightenment). C.S. Lewis was thrown in to show the regional nature of biblical literalism (Mere Christianity is often mentioned as one of the 5 most influential theology books; the fact that within its pages, evolution is taken for granted shows the regional nature of literal readings of Genesis).

FieldTheorist said:
Was that the majority view amongst Christian theologians?
Click to expand...

Yes. We've already covered this. It was.

FieldTheorist said:
Was that the commonly agreed upon belief of your average Christian?
Click to expand...

That's harder to say because "your average Christian" doesn't write books on the topic.

FieldTheorist said:
Also, what was the quality of their disagreement, what part of the creation myth did they believe was wrong?
Click to expand...

You are misunderstanding what it means to read something in a non-literal way.

Imagine an article about a sporting event is written which contains the words "the crowd was electrified!". Imagine that for thousands of years, people have understood that phrase in the way it was intended. It is a metaphor that helps us visualize just how loud and exuberant the crowd was. Then, imagine that a group of people appeared who read that in a literal way and promote that the only legitimate way to read that passage is to believe that an electrical current shot out, went through the crowd, and killed most people in attendance.

Now, ask the same question you just asked about the original readers. "Which portion of the story of the game did they believe was wrong?". They didn't believe any of it was wrong. They read the story of the game in the way it was intended and never imagined that some day someone would come along claiming their reading is wrong and one must read it in a literal way.
 
Last edited:
FieldTheorist said:
2.) There's extremely trivial counter examples to what you're saying, for instance the Ussher chronology which is many hundreds of years old. It's a testament to the very basic, very obvious fact that unless there's a good reason not to, you generally take the Bible at face value. So your statements about Protestant literalism only being 100 years old is, again, woefully short of historical accuracy.
Click to expand...

The very link you provided here disproves a lot of your claims! In fact it disproves what you just called a "very basic, very obvious fact". Go ahead and read your own link. Your link describes how theologians have always had spirited debates about things such as the age of the Earth. This is the opposite of your claim! Your claim relied on a myth that the church had some longstanding literalist view that put it in opposition to science. Instead here we have from a link you provided yourself, evidence that there was furtive debate about things such as how old the Earth was. It shows us that the church did not have some longstanding position on this that put it at odds with science. Furthermore, it proves that the idea that the Earth was old was not something that shocked the Church at all but rather an old discussion the church had been having for centuries and that Ussher had made a contribution to. Read your own link and the myth of a church deeply invested in a literalist view is completely blown away!

Biblical literalism is only about 100 years old. Ussher did not believe in literalism. Biblical literalism does not just posit that the correct reading of Genesis is a literal reading, rather it posits that the only legitimate readings of scripture are literal readings. James Ussher would not have agreed with that statement.

The idea that we should read Genesis literally is not brand new, of course. It's never been the dominant theory, but it is not unheard of. What is brand new is the idea that this is the only legitimate way to read scripture. In other words, when we read what someone like Ussher wrote, we don't find him defending his claim that the Earth is young based on a claim that the bible must be read literally. We find him defending it based on the fact that all of the evidence he had seemed to point to this.

A biblical literalist, faced with contradictory evidence, will choose to stick with the bible because they believe it is the only legitimate way to read a passage. Someone who is not a biblical literalist sees the evidence and thinks "hmm...it seems Origen, Aquinas, etc. may be right about this." The Church has never been literalist thus why it never felt threatened by science.
FieldTheorist;10656573003. said:
Now, you can argue that there were people who argued for allegorical interpretations of Genesis --I never said otherwise. But was that the absolute accepted view commonly held amongst Christians?
Click to expand...

It has been the dominant view throughout history. It continues to be the dominant view today, except among fundamentalists.

But even if it hadn't been, that isn't the point. The point is that for your mythologized re-telling of history to be true it CAN NOT be the case that the most prominent theologians throughout history have promoted allegorical readings of Genesis. Your mythologized version of world history requires that the Church has always believed it in a literal way and was threatened by science when science showed otherwise. Even if it turns out that allegorical readings were not dominant, the very fact that we can show they have clearly existed among the Church's most prominent biblical scholars disproves your mythologized re-telling of history which aims to pit it against science.

FieldTheorist;10656573003. said:
the Church's commitment to other issues, such as geocentrism and other fights against science? Well, you didn't even bother to combat that claim, which is telling in and of itself, about the role geocentrism played in early Christian doctrine.
Click to expand...

It didn't play any role. The Church had no commitment to geocentrism. Galileo was one of many Christian scholars who was promoting a helioentric view. The vast majority of them worked in Christian institutions. In fact, the Jesuit monks were one such group that was hard at work trying to prove heliocentrism. The idea that the church was somehow committed to a geocentric view is a myth.
 
Last edited:
Medusa said:
tell me which smart person can ignore this kind of verses?

Al-Anbiya-33: And He it is Who created the night and the day and the sun and the moon. They all swim in their orbit

what a pity ,Galilei was called ' crazy' for telling the same thing.

'It is not allowable for the sun to reach the moon, nor does the night overtake the day, but each, in an orbit, is swimming.'
Click to expand...

One day the sun will reach the moon, as the sun becomes a red giant.

And stuff from the sun (light, basically) reaches the moon now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom