-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do We Really Have To Choose?
- Thread starter Storm
- Start date
No, but there are certainly many philosophies of science that attempt to do so.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
I'm just playing. I don't think science and God have anything to do with each other...unless you're talking about the "God of the gaps", in which case science does help disprove it.
None.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Aw, pooh.
Yeah, but I don't know anyone who actually believes in the God of the Gaps.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
I know, which is why I put it in as an aside. Although, I think a lot more people believe in the God of the gaps than we think. There are plenty of people who use the argument "God must exist because something had to start the universe". I would consider that a Gotg argument.
No, but I can think of a few that exclude certain specific religious beliefs.
Off the top of my head, there's the caveat that the Catholic Church puts on evolution: they're okay with whatever science comes up with, so long as at some point in the history of life, there was an original lone pair of humans from which our entire species descended.
I see why they say this (since their concept of Original Sin doesn't work unless there was a literal Adam and a literal Eve at some point), but speciation just doesn't happen like that. It occurs in groups, not in lone pairs.
I have a feeling that some other outlyer religious beliefs are excluded by science. Much of what I've heard of Scientology probably would be, but I can't say for sure, since I don't have a lot of trustworthy information on that religion.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
I wasn't aware of that. Thank you.
I could argue that, but it would be off-topic. I might start a thread on it, though. Thanks again.
Runlikethewind
Monk in Training
Science, by its nature, cannot exclude God since science is necessarily limited to the sensible world and God transcends that.
Although its slightly off topic I feel the need to respond to this.....
You are right that Catholic teaching on original sin is tightly linked to there being a real Adam and Eve. However, the Church has made no dogmatic definition as to how original sin was transmitted to the rest of humanity only that it was passed on to the rest of humanity. In the past it was certainly assumed, implied, and probably even taught that original sin was passed on because all humans were born of Adam and Eve, but that does not make it dogma. We must reexamine many of our ideas of the past, brought about by ignorance, in light of the new knowledge of science. It would not conflict with Catholic Dogma nor the science of genetics and evolution to say that Adam and Eve were real historical people and that they somehow tainted human nature on a spiritual/metaphysical level through disobedience to God and that this "sin" was transmitted to the rest of humanity, but not passed on by means of physical relation or bloodline. Of course we would then have to describe how original sin is transmitted but that shouldn't be too difficult.
In the end the Church may have taught that all humans descended from the lone pair of Adam and Eve but it never defined that as Dogma and so it can be reexamined and dropped if it no longer works. Another example of this is how the Church taught for years that unbaptized babies who died went to limbo. That too was never defined as dogma and has since been dropped.
Although its slightly off topic I feel the need to respond to this.....
You are right that Catholic teaching on original sin is tightly linked to there being a real Adam and Eve. However, the Church has made no dogmatic definition as to how original sin was transmitted to the rest of humanity only that it was passed on to the rest of humanity. In the past it was certainly assumed, implied, and probably even taught that original sin was passed on because all humans were born of Adam and Eve, but that does not make it dogma. We must reexamine many of our ideas of the past, brought about by ignorance, in light of the new knowledge of science. It would not conflict with Catholic Dogma nor the science of genetics and evolution to say that Adam and Eve were real historical people and that they somehow tainted human nature on a spiritual/metaphysical level through disobedience to God and that this "sin" was transmitted to the rest of humanity, but not passed on by means of physical relation or bloodline. Of course we would then have to describe how original sin is transmitted but that shouldn't be too difficult.
In the end the Church may have taught that all humans descended from the lone pair of Adam and Eve but it never defined that as Dogma and so it can be reexamined and dropped if it no longer works. Another example of this is how the Church taught for years that unbaptized babies who died went to limbo. That too was never defined as dogma and has since been dropped.
Yes, it absolutely must exclude "God"
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Why? And how?
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
... then science cannot exclude Him, anymore than it can confirm.
Perhaps we're miscommunicating. When I ask if there's anything that excludes God, I mean "rules out the possibility of God." Is that what you took me to mean?
No, I don't think so.
But I'm just wondering how God can be measured, and that we know that whatever happened was God's doing.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
So,with that cleared up, do you still maintain that science excludes God?
We can't. I didn't mean to argue otherwise.
