Discussion on God, Jesus, the Bible, theology, and life
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
faith & science
How does a Christian manage in a scientific world? Science is not the anti-religion that some of my elder faith followers have made it out to be. Science has co-existed with faith quite contently in times past. So why such a noticable division now? -tg
Not being able to speak for ALL science, I will posit that the division come lately because of the strict controls that the church leaders had on it back then as opposed to now. Especially when the science was in direct opposition to the teachings of the faith.
Since the age of enlightenment and freedom there has been much more division.
I’m not sure what is meant by 'ALL science,' but I mean only to say in the generic sense - the act of hypothesizing and testing to validate said hypothesis.
My point here mainly was that there is no opposition between science and religion in the basic sense. Religion has always been something hard for most folks to swallow whether if it was the stringent practices imposed by the organized religion or simply the act of faith. Scientific process is merely a tool for us to discover and interact with our environment and is fueled, primarily, by our curiosities. In no way does that oppose any religious teaching of which I’m familiar.
So, it is correct to say that the division occurs when scientific data is viewed as being in opposition of ones knowledge based on faith - and rightfully so. The study of macro evolution and origin of species is certainly the dividing line today. And I’m not necessarily intending this for debate, but simply as my stated opinion - that the science of macro evolution is based on a presumption whereby all data in support of macro evolution only validates the hypothesis on the crutch of that original presumption. One of the most compelling arguments I’ve heard is concerning distant stars. The scientific fact is that light travels a constant speed. So, for a star that is a given distance away, it would take x amount of time for us to see its light from the point of its beginning. Therefore we can assume that a star at a given distance is at least the calculated number of years old. Now I have read that there are stars whose light can be seen that are so far from us that by the math are millions of years old. I can buy that. Now the only creationism counter to that that I’ve heard is that God created the star AND the light from the star all in the same instant (because why would He make a star if not to be seen?). I can buy that too.
To my fellows in the faith... do not be afraid of curiosity, of questions, of doubts, of science. Do not be afraid of any scientific evidence, for what is it but merely man's definition of reality based on the observable world. Lets not be afraid to examine the evidences for ourselves. And any opposition to our faith and to our God, let us put them up as wet wood upon the altar - surely God will prove Himself in the end.
To my evo friends, I implore you not to overlook your curiosity for all that is simply unbelievable.
2 comments:
Not being able to speak for ALL science, I will posit that the division come lately because of the strict controls that the church leaders had on it back then as opposed to now. Especially when the science was in direct opposition to the teachings of the faith.
Since the age of enlightenment and freedom there has been much more division.
I’m not sure what is meant by 'ALL science,' but I mean only to say in the generic sense - the act of hypothesizing and testing to validate said hypothesis.
My point here mainly was that there is no opposition between science and religion in the basic sense. Religion has always been something hard for most folks to swallow whether if it was the stringent practices imposed by the organized religion or simply the act of faith. Scientific process is merely a tool for us to discover and interact with our environment and is fueled, primarily, by our curiosities. In no way does that oppose any religious teaching of which I’m familiar.
So, it is correct to say that the division occurs when scientific data is viewed as being in opposition of ones knowledge based on faith - and rightfully so. The study of macro evolution and origin of species is certainly the dividing line today. And I’m not necessarily intending this for debate, but simply as my stated opinion - that the science of macro evolution is based on a presumption whereby all data in support of macro evolution only validates the hypothesis on the crutch of that original presumption. One of the most compelling arguments I’ve heard is concerning distant stars. The scientific fact is that light travels a constant speed. So, for a star that is a given distance away, it would take x amount of time for us to see its light from the point of its beginning. Therefore we can assume that a star at a given distance is at least the calculated number of years old. Now I have read that there are stars whose light can be seen that are so far from us that by the math are millions of years old. I can buy that. Now the only creationism counter to that that I’ve heard is that God created the star AND the light from the star all in the same instant (because why would He make a star if not to be seen?). I can buy that too.
To my fellows in the faith... do not be afraid of curiosity, of questions, of doubts, of science. Do not be afraid of any scientific evidence, for what is it but merely man's definition of reality based on the observable world. Lets not be afraid to examine the evidences for ourselves. And any opposition to our faith and to our God, let us put them up as wet wood upon the altar - surely God will prove Himself in the end.
To my evo friends, I implore you not to overlook your curiosity for all that is simply unbelievable.
Post a Comment