Why the divide between Science and Religion...

[michel]

Actually, none of these was established scientifically. They were all "conventional wisdom" at the time.

Oh, now it's "conventional wisdom" at the time. Okay. I like to hear stuff like that, though (I really do).

Here's a quote about Ptolemy from Tony Rothman, PHD from his book Instant Physics:

THE ARISTOTELIANS WERE UNDETERRED. PTOLMEY OF ALEXANDRIA MANAGED TO EXPLAIN RETROGRADE MOTION IN A GEOCENTRIC UNIVERSE BY PLACING PLANETS ON A SYSTEM OF BIG WHEELS AND LITTLE WHEELS. PTOLMEY TERMED THE LARGE WHEELS "DEFERENTS" AND THE SMALL WHEELS "EPICYCLES".

...

IT WAS A HOPELESS MESS. IN FACT, TO THIS DAY THE PHRASE "ADDING EPICYCLES" REFERS TO A LAST-DITCH ATTEMPT TO PATCH P AN ALREADY FATALLY FLAWED THEORY BY THE ADDITION OF FURTHER IMPROBABILITIES.

...

...THUS MISLEADING EVERYONE FOR 1400 YEARS.

It was Nikolai Copernicus, a priest, who finally set the record straight.

 

[JerryL]

Oh, now it's "conventional wisdom" at the time. Okay. I like to hear stuff like that, though (I really do).

If you would like to argue the corilarry (that it was science) show me the hypotheis, the peer-review, the predictions made by the hypothesis and the test of those predictions (IOW, show me scientific method was applied).

THE ARISTOTELIANS WERE UNDETERRED. PTOLMEY OF ALEXANDRIA MANAGED TO EXPLAIN RETROGRADE MOTION IN A GEOCENTRIC UNIVERSE BY PLACING PLANETS ON A SYSTEM OF BIG WHEELS AND LITTLE WHEELS. PTOLMEY TERMED THE LARGE WHEELS "DEFERENTS" AND THE SMALL WHEELS "EPICYCLES".

Yes he did. The Judeo-Christians believed epicycles over ellipses becaseu of the assumption that the universe was made perfectly (that sounds familiar) and so the planets must move in circles within circles rather than in irregular shapes.

What does this have to do with science and scientific method?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Of course I do. So, for example, you believe

WHERE SCIENCE DISAGREES WITH THE BIBLE --- SCIENCE IS WRONG​

and, therefore, further believe ...

Leviticus 11:20 - Every winged swarming thing that walks on all fours is detestable to you.​

Thanks for sharing.

Deut, unless you withdraw the second part of your post (that perverse you quoted), I'll amend my post to read as follows: No, Deut; you DON'T fully understand what I believe.

Sorry ... forgot about KJV-only. Let's try ...

WHERE SCIENCE DISAGREES WITH THE BIBLE --- SCIENCE IS WRONG​

and, therefore, further believe ...

Leviticus 11:20 - All fowls that creep, going upon [all] four, [shall be] an abomination unto you. (KJV)​

and no doubt also believe ...

Genesis 30:37-398 And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which [was] in the rods. And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink. And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted. (KJV)​

Just be sure, when you preach to your flock, that you warn them about fornicating on those beds with the slatted mahogany headboards, lest they concieve baby fundamentalists with dark brown stripes.

 

[Ryan2065]

Believe me, Ryan, He knows! But quite often God chose to use terminology that the hearer would understand. Jesus many times, when asked a question, did not answer it the way they were expecting. That's because He knew who he was talking to.

The fact that God said CIRCLE and not SPHERE was His choice.

Even today the Earth is called a ball.

God spoke in plain language that even a child could understand, so He often used the simplest of terminology (example: STRETCHEST THE HEAVENS instead of EXPAND THE UNIVERSE).

I'm surprised you haven't notice the errorenous value of Pi given in 1 Kings 7:23.

Bibliophobes are all the same --- they'll hunt and peck at anything.

Sorry, but you just agreed that there was a flaw in the bible, but that god meant there to be a flaw there! To say that refering to the earth as a circle is the same as refering to the earth as a ball is completely wrong. A ball is a 3 dimensional object, a circle is a 2 dimensional object (flat). You said that god used terms that the hear'er would understand? I already addressed this. In that time, there was a word for sphere, but instead the word for circle was used. The hearer would understand the word sphere, but god said circle. So again, god was wrong on this one.

Us "Bibliophobes" are not hunting at pecking at anything. Here god was right out wrong. Go into any astronomy class and ask them if the earth is a circle or a sphere, they will laugh and say a sphere because everyone knows the earth isnt flat.

 

[michel]

*grabs a nearby colander, uses it as a helmet, and hides under the closet table*

Have you got another colander? - is there room for two under the table ?

 

[jonny]

As long as people reference the bible as being an authority on any science there will be a divide between science and religion because the scientists will be laughing at us! The bible was not written to teach us about atoms and nature. It was written to show us how we can return to God. When there is overwhelming evidence for a scientific theory it is probably right.

Do scientific theories change when new evidence appears? Of course they do. The bible has changed also.

Religion = beliefs based on faith
Science = beliefs based on evidence

 

[Feathers in Hair]

What is 'religious fiction'? As I understand it, religion encompasses all beliefs. As long as a person believes it and acts on it, that's their religion.

I would say 'religious fiction' is when an author doesn't necessarily believe in what is being put forth, but has a respect for it, or the people involved. Speaking of Neil Gaiman, he and Terry Pratchett's "Good Omens" is a spectacular example of the genre. Terry Pratchett's Discworld series also contains the work "Small Gods", which is a beautiful tale of what happens when a person believes in something, but wind up improving that belief system by bringing a human element to it.

*pulls Michel under the table with her and hands him a colander and whispers "Not only does it protect the head, but you can use it to drain stuff afterward!"*

 

[Sunstone]

As long as people reference the bible as being an authority on any science there will be a divide between science and religion...

Referencing the Bible as an authority on any science seems to me to be intellectual suicide.

 

[jonny]

Perhaps the divide between religion and science depends on the religion. This article seems to indicate that many LDS scientists don't have a problem reconciling their religious beliefs with science: http://www.meridianmagazine.com/sci_rel/020314lds3.html

For those who don't want to read the whole article, here is some info.

Examples of LDS Apostles who were scientists:
James Talmage - Geologist (Lehigh and John Hopkins Unv.)
Joseph Merrill - Physicist (John Hopkins Unv.)
John Widsoe - Biochemistry (Harvard Unv. and Gottingen)
Russell Nelson - Heart Surgeon (Univ. of Utah)
Richard Scott - Nuclear Engineer

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]When asked if they believed that Joseph Smith was inspired by God in the formation of the Mormon Church, the proportion of believers was 94 percent (86 percent strong or very strong, 6 percent fair) - no decline, but even higher than in the previous studies.(32) Virtually the same percentage believed that "Jesus of Nazareth is a divine person of the Godhead." Of the Utah spawned LDS scientists, 88 percent are active in the Church - more by 6 percent than were active when they were 18-25 years of age.

[/font]Utah is the top state in per capita scientist production and has been for over 60 years
“Utah leads all of the states of the union in number of scientific men born there in proportion to population, it is revealed by an analysis of American Men of Science, 1938”, (Science News Letter, August 31, 1940) based on research done by Dr. Edward L. Thorndike of Columbia University for the Carnegie Foundation. The lead was forty-four percent over the second place state, Colorado. Thorndike reported his study as per capita white population, and the other studies reported here have followed this method.

Maybe a reason that there is a divide between religion and science is because many of the religions are led by people who have little knowledge on the subject.

Here is another link related to the subject: http://www.meridianmagazine.com/sci_rel/021211war.html

 

[Cynic]

Deut, let's simplify this:

WHERE SCIENCE DISAGREES WITH THE BIBLE --- SCIENCE IS WRONG

And if a scientists publishes ANYTHING that is directly contrary to the Word of God, it's not worth the paper it was published on. How does that sound?

It sounds like someone has a very limited understanding of science.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... many LDS scientists don't have a problem reconciling their religious beliefs with science:

It's called cognitive dissonance.

 

[Cynic]

True science does not conflict with the Bible at all.

Could you please explain this field of science to me, I've never heard of it.

 

[jonny]

It's called cognitive dissonance.

What's your point?

P.S. I don't need the definition of cognitive dissonance - I'm just curious about what premises you are basing your conclusion on and what I'm supposed to infere from your comment. If you're saying that it is impossible to be Christian and accept science without some having some internal struggle with your beliefs, I'd like some specifics.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

From Wikipedia

The most controversial of these studies was published in late 2002 by anthropologist Thomas W. Murphy, who remains a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It should be noted that Murphy did not conduct the genetic research, but rather summarized the already published research results from scores of geneticists that had been published in peer-reviewed journals. In addition, another researcher, Simon Southerton, a senior research scientist with CSIRO in Canberra Australia has written an extensive book on the topic entitled "Losing a lost tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church" in which he demonstrates the consensus of the field, and illustrates how the Mormon apologists have yet to publish or cite any rebutting evidence for their position. Information concerning DNA and the Book of Mormon, including a lack of modern Israelite influence in the Americas can be found here, and information about MDNA migration may be found here. Mormon researchers have shown similarities of mitochondrial DNA between Native Americans and Palestinians and Non-Mormon researchers have demonstrated apparent evidence of a "most recent common ancestor" living as recently as less than 1,000 years ago [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], though these purported results and the Mormons' interpretations have failed to convince the vast majority of the Anthropological Genetics field. While the subject of Amerind origins is currently under extensive discussion within academic circles, the interest is almost exclusively regarding the specific Asiatic sources and timings of migration; there remains little interest however by most experts to rehash the semitic origins hypothesis, which now is almost universally considered a dead-end question (outside of the Mormon community) given the continuing proponderence of genetic evidence. Also see Lamanites, DNA, and Biology.

Studies are ongoing in this area, and conclusions, though tentative, are becoming much more certain with each successive replication. Within academic circles, there is near universal agreement that there is no pattern of migration of mitochondrial DNA corresponding to the migration of peoples as claimed by the Book of Mormon.​

 

[jonny]

I find this to be interesting research that has not yet concluded. Obviously most of the Native Americans immigrated from Asia - they look like Asians.

"The question of precisely where the events chronicled in the Book of Mormon took place arises naturally since to date neither the record itself nor the Lord through his prophets has revealed its New World setting in terms that permit conclusive linkages to modern-day locales. Speculation on the subject has spawned two principal theories: the hemispheric model (with Book of Mormon lands comprising North, Central, and South America) and the limited geography model (a restricted New World setting on the order of hundreds rather than thousands of miles). Although the hemispheric view was popular among early Latter-day Saints, it simply is not clear whether it was the result of prophetic revelation or merely the outgrowth of the personal ideas and assumptions of the Prophet Joseph Smith and other brethren. Historical research indicates that Joseph Smith never claimed revelation on the subject and that the thinking of early church leaders regarding Book of Mormon geography was subject to modification as new information came to light. Indeed, the diversity of nineteenth-century opinion is striking, attesting that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had no authoritative stance on what was—and continues to be—an open issue. Today many Latter-day Saint scholars and other serious students of the Book of Mormon favor the limited geography theory, with Mesoamerica (extending from southern Mexico to Guatemala) as the Book of Mormon homeland. This interpretation, with antecedents apparent in the 1840s, seems to best match the complex requirements of the scriptural text itself while remaining tenable after years of rigorous examination in light of the archaeological and cultural record of ancient Mesoamerica."

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/dna.php?selection=dna&cat=dna

 

[jonny]

Back to the topic of the thread. There is a divide between science and religion. Deut. 32.8 - Do you think that it is possible for someone to be a believing Christian and a scientist?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There is a divide between science and religion. Deut. 32.8 - Do you think that it is possible for someone to be a believing Christian and a scientist?

Of course - so long as they don't apply the protocols of science to the claims of Christianity. I was quite serious when I spoke of cognitive disconnect.

 

[michel]

Could you please explain this field of science to me, I've never heard of it.

Sure, better yet, I'll have YOU show ME.

Which statement below is an example of true science:

• maggots come from dead meat
• heat is a fluid called phlogiston
• force is mass times acceleration
• at 30 m.p.h. your chest cavity will be crushed

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Which statement below is an example of true science:

• maggots come from dead meat
• heat is a fluid called phlogiston
• force is mass times acceleration
• at 30 m.p.h. your chest cavity will be crushed

The protocols of good science overcome the errors of the past, while the ossified dogma of the KJV-only inerrantist clings to its maggot infested backwardness while it salivates at every error encountered by science. Those are the options: the pervasively successful methodological naturalism or the pathetically ignorant God-of-the-Gloat.

 

[JerryL]

maggots come from dead meat
heat is a fluid called phlogiston
force is mass times acceleration
at 30 m.p.h. your chest cavity will be crushed

• Was a commonly held belief, but never scientifically established.
• Was hypothesis which was disproven by science
• Did this law change when I wasn't looking
• Can't comment without knowing what you are referring to.