Sorry, I don't understand.

[Fatihah]

Religion and science are compatible. Naturally, those who do not believe so are atheist because their reasons for the existence of the universe is scientifically, without the interference of God, thus making them believe that religion and science is not compatible.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In the long run, there are no separate competing denominations of scientists as there are of Christians.

Really?

 

[slave2six]

Science and religion are compatible, as long as people realize that science is used to answer questions which are answerable, and religion is used to provide answers for questions which are unanswerable.

Brilliant!

 

[slave2six]

Religion and science are compatible. Naturally, those who do not believe so are atheist because their reasons for the existence of the universe is scientifically, without the interference of God, thus making them believe that religion and science is not compatible.

Sorry but magic and physics are incompatible.

 

[S-word]

I was raised in a very fundamentalist Christian home that believed that the Bible and everything in it was inspired by God. We were also taught that Creationism was the "truth" because God told Moses directly that this was how the universe was formed.

So, for me, the conflict is simply that the physical universe does not support the literal interpretation of the Creation story or even allegorically. It simply does not jive.

I think that you have to admit that a literal interpretation was held to be true by the Early Church Fathers. Otherwise, how does one explain the Church's reaction to scientific discovery? If the Church did not take it literally that the Earth was the center of the universe then there would be no reason for them to put Galileo under house arrest or to burn Bruno at the stake for asserting that there are likely to be other planets in the universe that support biological life.

Nowadays fewer and fewer people hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible. But even a hundred years ago evolution was considered heretical by most Christians.

One of the greatest loses ever suffered by mankind occurred about 390 A.D., when Theophilos, the Bishop of Alexandria an anti-science fanatic, ordered the destruction of one of the seven wonders of the then known world. The great library in which one of the most comprehensive collections of the accumulated knowledge of man had been gathered, with departments of Astronomy, Astrology, History, Mathematics, Medicine, Poetry and all the arts etc, etc.

This most evil action, which was an attempt to stop the truth of God from being known, who manifests himself in the visible universe and all that can be known about his invisible qualities, both his eternal power and his divine nature, are found in the study of the creation itself, and the burning of that library was the introduction of one of the darkest ages of man.

All were afraid of the terrible persecution by the universal church against any and all who would indulge in that most despicable of all Pagan practices, which was that of the study into the workings of the universe, which results of that unholy act of heresy challenged the authority of the church and brought into disrepute their infallible sacred teachings, such as the fact that their flat earth was the centre around which the entire universe revolved, which universal body was created only some thousands of years earlier and was created in six literal 24 hour days, etc.

It was due to fear of this terrible persecution, that it was only on his death bed that Nicolaus Copernicus dared to publish his sun-centred model of the universe, and Galileo Galilai, who was constantly in conflict with the church, for skilfully arguing with the church authorities for Copernicus views, finally died under house arrest as a prisoner of the inquisition.

Science has flourished in Christian society, not because of those ignorant teachers, but in spite of them, and slowly but surely, science is dragging them, albeit kicking and screaming, into the world of enlightenment.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

It seems the problem is merely philosophical.

Now we're talking!

 

[Guitar's Cry]

People hold all sorts of inherently incompatable ideas in their heads, all the time. In another thread, a Muslim is telling us he just luvs science while at the same time arguing against evolutionary biology.

Just because person X is able to believe something, that doesn't mean X is valid. Thinking it is takes us close to post-modernism.

Of course it's post-modernistic. It's inescapable due to our modern culture.

I wouldn't necessarily say that two opposing ideas are necessarily incompatible. My reality consists of beliefs and assumptions based on both scientific models and spiritual concepts.

For instance, I cannot deny that evolutionary biology is a useful model and appears to accurately describe the processes of adaptation and diversity of life we observe. However, I also believe in a creative spirit bringing rise to life beyond the scientific models. Both have become compatible due to the influence that the models have on my sense of reality. They were born of both scientific education and a religious upbringing.

And, arguing against evolutionary biology does not assume a denial of science.

 

[Fatihah]

Sorry but magic and physics are incompatible.

Response: Then you should stop believing in magic.

 

[Copernicus]

Really?

Really.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Really.

Ever seen a physicist and a biologist go at it?

 

[AlsoAnima]

Ever seen a physicist and a biologist go at it?

Quite a show, that. Don't even get my started on schools of psychology.

 

[slave2six]

Response: Then you should stop believing in magic.

I don't. There is no way that some entity magically made man out of the dust of the earth and breathed life into him and then created his partner out of his rib.

Always makes me wonder how you guys get past Adam and Eve too. If they were the first two then the next generation was 100% incestual. How does that work exactly, what with incest being listed in the big "Naughty" list in Leviticus?

 

[slave2six]

Ever seen a physicist and a biologist go at it?

Or a paleontologist and a microbiologist?

 

[AlsoAnima]

If they were the first two then the next generation was 100% incestual. How does that work exactly?

When a brother and a sister love each other very much...

 

[Copernicus]

Ever seen a physicist and a biologist go at it?

Yes, but they still accept the same basic principles of science. Biology and Physics do not represent a schism of science in the same sense that Judaism and Christianity represent a religious schism, or Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy, or Catholics and Protestants, or Protestants and Quakers and Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons and...well, you get the picture.

 

[AlsoAnima]

Yes, but they still accept the same basic principles of science. Biology and Physics do not represent a schism of science in the same sense that Judaism and Christianity represent a religious schism, or Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy, or Catholics and Protestants, or Protestants and Quakers and Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons and...well, you get the picture.

Equivalents:
Science is not equivalent to Religion; Religion covers a much broader base.
Let equivocate(equivolate?) Science to Christianity, both rather large bases.
Physical Science can be Catholicism, and Social Science can be other denominations, since Catholicism is the largest. (I think...)
Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses would be the Sociology of the Christian world, the least universally accepted, but still keeping to the base ideology.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Yes, but they still accept the same basic principles of science. Biology and Physics do not represent a schism of science in the same sense that Judaism and Christianity represent a religious schism, or Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy, or Catholics and Protestants, or Protestants and Quakers and Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons and...well, you get the picture.

Hm...I'm not so sure of that, especially when it comes to psychology (and yes, I do accept that as a science ) and the views of psychoanalysts, humanists, and behaviorists.

But I argue that it's still the same. While a Quaker and a Catholic may appear different, are their methods dissimilar in the same way a physicist's and a biologist's methods, terminology, and models are? I think it could be argued they are.

 

[Jose Fly]

Of course it's post-modernistic. It's inescapable due to our modern culture.

I disagree. According to post-modernism all ideas are equally valid, and I'm not the least bit inclined to go that direction.

I wouldn't necessarily say that two opposing ideas are necessarily incompatible

Not in every case, but there are plenty of examples where they are. The idea that the earth is flat is incompatable with the idea that it's spherical.

For instance, I cannot deny that evolutionary biology is a useful model and appears to accurately describe the processes of adaptation and diversity of life we observe. However, I also believe in a creative spirit bringing rise to life beyond the scientific models. Both have become compatible due to the influence that the models have on my sense of reality. They were born of both scientific education and a religious upbringing.

But what happens if science figures out how life first arose without having to invoke any sort of "creative spirit"? Continue to tack on the needless "creative spirit", change your beliefs, or deny the science?

And, arguing against evolutionary biology does not assume a denial of science

The way it's being done in that thread most certainly does.

 

[Jose Fly]

While a Quaker and a Catholic may appear different, are their methods dissimilar in the same way a physicist's and a biologist's methods, terminology, and models are? I think it could be argued they are.

All you're doing so far is asserting that they are.

 

[Fatihah]

[QUOTE:slave2six]I don't. There is no way that some entity magically made man out of the dust of the earth and breathed life into him and then created his partner out of his rib. (End quote)

Response: And why is that?

Quote: Slave2six/
Always makes me wonder how you guys get past Adam and Eve too. If they were the first two then the next generation was 100% incestual. How does that work exactly, what with incest being listed in the big "Naughty" list in Leviticus?(End quote)

Response: Leviticus didn't exists then.