• 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


I already said I have no interest in taking this up with you, CrabCake. We're done here. If you want to continue to believe that the foundations of Biblical literalism are only 100 years old and if you want to continue to believe that the Catholic church didn't fight against scientific beliefs because they viewed them as contrary to Catholic doctrine, then by all means please proceed. You're laughably wrong, however.
 
Last edited:
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.



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



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.)



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.



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



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

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



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.




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.

they dislike bible somehow,ok.now I show them Qoran and they are still the same........
 
this is about Qoran,non believers shouldnt give examples of bible because they use it as a proof for their claims.but I have shown them Quranic verses.
 
I already said I have no interest in taking this up with you, CrabCake. We're done here. If you want to continue to believe that the foundations of Biblical literalism are only 100 years old and if you want to continue to believe that the Catholic church didn't fight against scientific beliefs because they viewed them as contrary to Catholic doctrine, then by all means please proceed. You're laughably wrong, however.

In your own link; the one you went through the trouble of looking for and linking us to, your entire claim was debunked. Your own link proved that the Church did not have a hardline literalist view but rather had been having lively and peaceful discussions about matters such as the age of the Earth for centuries. You successfully proved this by linking us to that information.

Somehow now people are supposed to come to the conclusion that despite the fact that: I've shown that the leading theologians throughout history have looked at Genesis as allegorical, you have provided evidence showing that discussions on the age of the Earth were common and non-threatening to the church, and we can directly trace biblical literalism to documents written 100 years ago, and can prove it was (and remains) a regional movement....we should still somehow accept your view of the church being threatened by science. That's even without touching on the fact that your view of history directly contradicts the teachings of all contemporary historians.

The church was never threatened by scientific findings. As you proved yourself by linking us to the information; the church had already been engaged in debates about such matters. The build up of evidence in favor of an Old Earth was not threatening to the church, it simply made them lean towards accepting the views of the theologians who, for centuries, had already been supporting such a view and suggested that those who had taken a young Earth view were probably mistaken. The same goes with every other scientific finding. Heliocentrism was supported by the Jesuits and many other Christian scholars and the mounting evidence that this was the correct view merely led the church to accept those scholar's position over the position of the geocentrics. There was nothing threatening about it. As you already pointed out, all of these matters were widely, openly, and peacefully debated within the Church.

You've failed to bring up a shred of evidence that says otherwise. Instead, you gifted us with a link that disproves your view.
 
Last edited:
'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]

Not quite sure what the quotes have to do with the point. That said, science isn't about disproving or even proving the existence of a deity or deities. It is about showing how things work in the world and a method of discovering such. For theists (except the fundamentalist screwballs), all science does is show us the mechanics the Creator made for the everyday running of the universe.
 
In your own link; the one you went through the trouble of looking for and linking us to, your entire claim was debunked. Your own link proved that the Church did not have a hardline literalist view but rather had been having lively and peaceful discussions about matters such as the age of the Earth for centuries. You successfully proved this by linking us to that information.

Somehow now people are supposed to come to the conclusion that despite the fact that: I've shown that the leading theologians throughout history have looked at Genesis as allegorical, you have provided evidence showing that discussions on the age of the Earth were common and non-threatening to the church, and we can directly trace biblical literalism to documents written 100 years ago, and can prove it was (and remains) a regional movement....we should still somehow accept your view of the church being threatened by science. That's even without touching on the fact that your view of history directly contradicts the teachings of all contemporary historians.

The church was never threatened by scientific findings. As you proved yourself by linking us to the information; the church had already been engaged in debates about such matters. The build up of evidence in favor of an Old Earth was not threatening to the church, it simply made them lean towards accepting the views of the theologians who, for centuries, had already been supporting such a view and suggested that those who had taken a young Earth view were probably mistaken. The same goes with every other scientific finding. Heliocentrism was supported by the Jesuits and many other Christian scholars and the mounting evidence that this was the correct view merely led the church to accept those scholar's position over the position of the geocentrics. There was nothing threatening about it. As you already pointed out, all of these matters were widely, openly, and peacefully debated within the Church.

You've failed to bring up a shred of evidence that says otherwise. Instead, you gifted us with a link that disproves your view.

SOME theologians look at it as allegorical. But there is no shortage of young earth creationists among them either. Martin Luther and John Calvin were openly critical of heliocentrism. THen of course the Galileo and Pope Urbann VIII issue we all know.
Even after Kepler and Newton Pope Alexander VII condemned helocentrism. It wasn't for 110 years after Galileo that some francisan monks wrote about it in a confirmative way and it was still another 80 years after that before Pope Pius VII allowed it to be formally accepted.
 
SOME theologians look at it as allegorical. But there is no shortage of young earth creationists among them either.

The revisionist history that FieldTheorist was selling requires that there not be any major theological movements within the church that promoted allegorical readings of Genesis and other verses of relevance to Natural Theology. The idea that scientific findings threatened the Church depends on the myth that The Church had a strict literalist view of creation all along and was deeply invested in that view. Instead, what has been presented here is the fact that from the very beginning (as far back as the patristic period), powerful voices within the Church had promoted allegorical readings of scripture which had dominated theology for centuries. When we do find theologians who promote a literal reading of certain parts of Genesis or other scriptures relevant to Natural Theology issues, we invariably find them referencing those who don't accept such readings and explaining why they believe that the more literal reading is preferable to the other reading.

None of this sounds like that mythical literalist Church FieldTheorist seems to think existed.
Martin Luther and John Calvin were openly critical of heliocentrism.
THen of course the Galileo and Pope Urbann VIII issue we all know.
Even after Kepler and Newton Pope Alexander VII condemned helocentrism. It wasn't for 110 years after Galileo that some francisan monks wrote about it in a confirmative way and it was still another 80 years after that before Pope Pius VII allowed it to be formally accepted.

That various people throughout history held various things to be true and some of them turned out to be wrong goes without saying. My argument is not that all members of the Church have always been right all along on everything. My argument is that the idea that the church was deeply invested in literalist readings of scripture in its approach to Natural Theology and found itself in conflict with science when science began to prove such readings wrong is simply a myth.

What we find instead is that there was vibrant, lively, and peaceful debate within the Church about various Natural Theology issues for many centuries. We find that from the beginning of the Church, allegorical readings of Genesis have dominated the theological landscape (and continue to dominate it today). We find that the transition from scholasticism to science and from Natural Theology to Natural Philosophy (and eventually, "biology" and the "Earth Sciences") was a fairly smooth transition that never really threatened the church.

There is a myth that is fairly rampant which seeks to rewrite history in such a way that the Church is re-cast as an opponent of science. According to this view of history, the Church had always read the bible in a strictly literal way and taken the Genesis accounts as literal. They had always taught that the Earth was created in 6 days and was only some several thousands years old and that it was at the center of the universe. Then science came along, proved all those things wrong and battled the Church until it gave up and softened its stances.

What I have shown here is that the above myth simply doesn't match the evidence. Instead, the evidence shows that allegorical readings of Genesis have existed since the patristic period and were supported by many of the most prominent and influential theologians throughout history. The evidence shows that those who did support literal readings of certain portions of Genesis always referenced those who read those portions in an allegorical way and attempted to defend why their way of understanding Genesis is more likely to be correct. The evidence shows that there was vibrant, lively, and peaceful debate within the Church about all manner of Natural Theology issues; with many within the church supporting a heliocentric view along with Galileo (in fact, the Jesuits supported him). We find that there has been discussion about whether the Earth is really young or not for centuries. The evidence also shows that biblical literalism arose some 100 years ago in the US and never really spread to any other part of the world (well, not yet anyway....it does seem to be spreading to Latin America and part of Africa today).
 
Last edited:
Not quite sure what the quotes have to do with the point. That said, science isn't about disproving or even proving the existence of a deity or deities. It is about showing how things work in the world and a method of discovering such. For theists (except the fundamentalist screwballs), all science does is show us the mechanics the Creator made for the everyday running of the universe.

tell it to atheists who worship science!!!!!!!!!!! they ignore all these logical verses and claim scientific facts prove there is no god....
 
'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]

I believe that Einstein summed it up succinctly when he said: "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." Is it not conceivable that science and religion are the two legs that support the body of truth?
 
tell it to atheists who worship science!!!!!!!!!!! they ignore all these logical verses and claim scientific facts prove there is no god....

"Logical verses" And 'worship science'?? These sentences are at odds with observed reality.
 

NO. you see, you 'orbit' item in the quran is consistent with the knowledge they had before the Quran is written, so to use that as 'proof' that the QUran is divinely inspired is not logical. Next, when it comes to worship science. That shows total ignorance about what science is. Science is a methodology, a tool, to try to determine what ideas about the natural world. It is a tool. To say someone 'worships science' is like saying someone 'worships' a screwdriver.
 
tell it to atheists who worship science!!!!!!!!!!! they ignore all these logical verses and claim scientific facts prove there is no god....

There are a great number of scientists are also theists of one sort or another. To try to group one type as representing all the others is like trying to use ISIS as representative of all Muslims or abortion clinic bombers as representative of all Christians.
 
Back
Top Bottom