Science and God

"Dan Wood" <danwood34 RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Yk3Mg.41900$y7.39119@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Anthony Buckland" <bucklandnospam RemoveThis @direct.ca> wrote in message
> news:Id6dnYwY7rkGK53YnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> ...I thoroughly agree with you, except for your last sentence.
>> The fact that I base my own religion on an understanding of
>> the world gained through science should show that mutual
>> exclusivity is not necessary.
>
>>
> What I meant by that statement is that one should not look to science
> for support of religion, nor to religion in determining the validity of a
> scientific hypothesis. Religion and science are mutually exclusive
> in this sense.
> ...

By "support for religion" I take it that what is meant is using science
to validate or invalidate an assertion of some religion. If a finding
of science contradicted a claim of a religion, I would at least
suspend belief in the truth of that claim. Further, I try as much as
possible to use the scientific method, in a general sense, in
developing my religion; that is, a claim about reality should
be checked against reality. Just as reality is "all of a piece",
so is my philosophy all of a piece, using the same epistemology
throughout. No part of it exists in mutual exclusion with any
other part.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

For details, go to anthonybuckland.com/thequest
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 05:37:02 UTC, bob young <alaspectrum.DeleteThis@netvigator.com>
wrote:

> "To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim
> that Jesus was not born of a virgin."
> Cardinal Bellarmine,
> [1615, during the trial of Galileo]

No it wasn't; Galileo wasn't tried until 1633 when Bellarmine had been
dead for years. 1615 was a discussion, followed in 1616 by a laying down
of the law (concerning which, people who read the evidence disagree with
people who don't, but that's OT) but no accusations or verdicts, as
Bellarmine made absolutely clear in the cordial letter he wrote to Galileo
when false rumors had started to circulate.

Just wanted the record clear here, since we all are fallible (easy, there,
I'm sure the Pope doesn't read this newsgoup) and naturally want to get
things right when we can.


--
Dan Drake
dd.DeleteThis@dandrake.com
http://www.dandrake.com/
porlockjr.blogspot.com
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

Dan Drake wrote:

> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 05:37:02 UTC, bob young <alaspectrum RemoveThis @netvigator.com>
> wrote:
>
> > "To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim
> > that Jesus was not born of a virgin."
> > Cardinal Bellarmine,
> > [1615, during the trial of Galileo]
>
> No it wasn't; Galileo wasn't tried until 1633 when Bellarmine had been
> dead for years. 1615 was a discussion, followed in 1616 by a laying down
> of the law (concerning which, people who read the evidence disagree with
> people who don't, but that's OT) but no accusations or verdicts, as
> Bellarmine made absolutely clear in the cordial letter he wrote to Galileo
> when false rumors had started to circulate.
>
> Just wanted the record clear here, since we all are fallible (easy, there,
> I'm sure the Pope doesn't read this newsgoup) and naturally want to get
> things right when we can.

Which newsgroups does he read?
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

You have to understsand one basic thing. Science and religion differ
not simply in facts, but in metodology. Science goes from facts and
derives hypothesen which explain these facts, it bfurther makes
predictions based on theoies, and tests them, then asserts or rejects
thm based on results. Religion goes from basic axiomatic beliefas and
explains everything based on them. If evidence would speak for 1000000
Yrs old Earth, science would accept it , but the overwhelming bulk of
evidence suggests ~ 4.5 billions of Years. Religion has 6000 years as
qaxiom, any contrary evidence is seen as devil's work to spoli
humans...

> I've said this before here, but again, I see nothing in science which would
> peclude belief in God.

Belief in God, no. Belief to a concret church, very possible.


>At what imaginary line do you place the boundary between
>what you call "microevolution" and "macroevolution"? Speciation?
Actually , biology books differ "aromorphosis" - deep, crucial
mutations - and "idioadaptation" - small outside mutations.

But the mechanism is considered the same
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

Dear Midwinter,
Science can actually support religious beliefs.
Creation for example.
Far from disproving the account of creation as you assert, science is
supports the creation account in the Bible.

Science has shown Darwin's theory of evolution through random chance is
mathematically impossible.

Science supports the Biblical account of "In the Beginning....". It wasn't
many years ago, the atheists contended there was no beginning. Atheists
taught me our universe had existed forever and was infinitely large.
Atheists and most scientists accepted those ideas without proof.

But, within our lifetime, science has shown there was indeed a beginning -
just as the Bible said thousands of years before science said it.
Scientists call the beginning the Big Bang.

Also, the Bible said there were 6 days of creation thousands of years ago.
Scientists said that was impossible. But then Albert Einstein came along
with his theory of Relativity. This theory says, in part, that our
traditional, historical scientific concept of time was wrong.
Interestingly, if you take Einstein's theory into account and choose the
logical frame of reference, the 14 billion years we see from our frame of
reference equates to 6 days from the frame of reference of an observer who
is outside our 4 dimensional space-time.

Interesting!

Seems like the more science learns, the more the Bible makes sense. Spooky,
huh?

Bob



" Midwinter" <midwinter_m.TakeThisOut@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns986182D44F324CYPMNDEXHBCJOIU@216.196.109.145...
> "SS13" <sagron.TakeThisOut@freenet.de> wrote:

> Science CAN, however, disprove specific religious beliefs - such as
> Creationism, for example. Of course, those who reject science out of hand
> BECAUSE it opposes beliefs they cling to above and beyond mere ideas of
> 'divinity' will not recognise this.
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 06:51:13 -0500, " Midwinter" <midwinter_m.DeleteThis@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

>Science CAN, however, disprove specific religious beliefs - such as
>Creationism, for example. Of course, those who reject science out of hand
>BECAUSE it opposes beliefs they cling to above and beyond mere ideas of
>'divinity' will not recognise this

Oh, bull. Until the creationists are allowed to research, theorize and
publish, we are by fiat hearing only one side of the story, and nothing is
condemned on the testimony of only one witness. And, scientists have
disproved *nothing* - not about creation itself, or any of the subsequent
events in the Genesis account. That you can say with a straight face it has
is prima facie evidence of *your* delusion ..
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

Please note, that when I in the following text use the word
"creationist", I refer to those claiming that the Bible's account of
creation should be considered a scientific text and that science
should try to prove this account.

There is a wider sense of "creationist", i.e. someone who believes God
created it all, but doesn't make too many claims about how exactly God
did this. I am myself that kind of creationist. I used to be the other
kind, but wisened up. However, in lack of another word, I am using
"creationist" in the first sense...



"rjbjr" <rjburnsjr DeleteThis @comcast.net> writes:

> Science has shown Darwin's theory of evolution through random chance is
> mathematically impossible.

Not true. This is one of creationism's great myths - typically
connected to a silly story about an explosion in a plane factory
making a 747 appear by chance.

creationists - and I used to be one and I used to spread those same
claims - often confuse the advent of life with the theory of
evolution. Evolution is the little-by-little modification by chance of
existing life, where more efficient organisms have more offspring and
over time takes the place of less efficient organisms.

The advent of life - how the first life came to be - is still a
mystery to science, but evolution is one of the best documented
theories in science. And no, "but it's just a theory" doesn't apply. A
"theory" in science means "this is as far as we now know, fact. Should
someone have an adjustment to this, the theory will change to include
these new facts." Such adjustments are microscopic. Evolution is a
fact.

> Science supports the Biblical account of "In the Beginning....". It wasn't
> many years ago, the atheists contended there was no beginning. Atheists
> taught me our universe had existed forever and was infinitely large.
> Atheists and most scientists accepted those ideas without proof.
>
> But, within our lifetime, science has shown there was indeed a beginning -
> just as the Bible said thousands of years before science said it.
> Scientists call the beginning the Big Bang.

Within our lifetime is a bit of a stretch - LeMaitre's paper on this
was published in 1927. But yes, a beginning to this universe is almost
universally acknowledged today, and wasn't before.

The last great Steady-state "evangelist" was probably Fred Hoyle. He
died august 20th 2001. Thus 1927-2001 can probably be considered a
transitional phase

> Also, the Bible said there were 6 days of creation thousands of years ago.
> Scientists said that was impossible. But then Albert Einstein came along
> with his theory of Relativity. This theory says, in part, that our
> traditional, historical scientific concept of time was wrong.

That is a horrible misuse of relativity. The Earth is an almost
stationary object. The measureable effects on time happens at speeds
approaching the speed of light.

"A day" is the time it takes the Earth to revolve around itself
once. "A year" is the time it takes the Earth to move around the sun
once. Those are local timeframes. The fact that a vessel moving at
almost 300000 km/s would have a local measurement of time differing
from that happening back on Earth has nothing to do with this.

Unless you are claiming that the Earth actually turned incredible much
more slowly around its own axis - we are talking one revolution per
several million years - your claim makes no sense at all.

> Interestingly, if you take Einstein's theory into account and choose the
> logical frame of reference, the 14 billion years we see from our frame of
> reference equates to 6 days from the frame of reference of an observer who
> is outside our 4 dimensional space-time.
>

A source for this incredible claim would be appreciated. It sounds to
me like another creationist myth.

> Seems like the more science learns, the more the Bible makes sense. Spooky,
> huh?

the Bible makes a lot of sense. But please try to see what sense it
makes instead of making up your own and claiming it to be the sense
that God intended.

Christianity isn't about how creation happened. It's about why. It's
about the fall. It's about the redemption. That is the sense that
matters.

--
Peter B. Juul, o.-.o "Well," said Aslan, "I suppose we could try lasers."
The RockBear. ((^))
I speak only 0}._.{0
for myself. O/ \O
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 14:04:56 -0500, " Midwinter" <midwinter_m.RemoveThis@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

>The fallacy here is in your false premise that there are two sides to this
>story at all. Genesis Creationism is not science, and has never been
>science.

You can say <echo>THE BIG LIE</echo> from now till doomsday, but it never
stops being a lie .. Science is what we make of it; Newton himself was a
creationist, and conducted research on specific biblical topics. Kepler
said explicitly, "O God, I'm thinking Thy thoughts after Thee!" and that is
a far more accurate heuristic framework under which to begin research than
the secularist manifesto that in its intransigence insists "anything but
God"
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

" Midwinter" <midwinter_m.TakeThisOut@hotmail.co.uk> writes:

> True enough. So, what you're suggesting is that six days of Genesis
> creation is actually an accurate Biblical account of the Big Bang, in
> metaphorical form? If so, and if you still insist on preaching literal
> Creationism, you belong with Boatwright. This is 'weak' Creationism: the
> tacit and grudging acceptance that science is making progress in
> discovery, but an inability to bring yourself to admit that literal
> Creationism just doesn't work in light of it. Solution? Change the
> definition of literal Creationism so that it fits more comfortably with
> science, then trumpet to the world that science is only re-discovering
> what YOU knew already.

I think it only fair to point out that St. Augustine - 5th century
bishop - made it clear that the creation account should be read
allegorically. This is not an idea that sprung up in the last few
centuries to fend off science.

The literal creationists (great expression, thanks), however, rarely
looks into church history. They seem mostly to be a part of the
"everything in the Bible should be read literally" movement, which
started for real in the 1920s US protestant churches.

Thus, literal creationism isn't "what the church has always believed"
as some would probably claim. Far from it.

--
Peter B. Juul, o.-.o "Yes," said Winnie-the-Pooh.
The RockBear. ((^)) "I see now," said Winnie-the-Pooh.
I speak only 0}._.{0 "I have been Foolish and Deluded," said he,
for myself. O/ \O "and I am a Bear of no Brain at All."
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God