Thursday
Jan292009
Science vs Religion
The conflict between science and religion doesn’t feel as zero sums as both sides claim. For instance, the notion that the Bible is true and therefore science is not is complimentary to the scientists own argument that since science explains so much that once was Gods domain we should abandon our mythological ways and embrace their world view. Both sides are idiotic for at least the following reasons.
The Bible was never intended to be authoritative about the natural world. It does a great job teaching moral lessons and explaining the whys of humanity it doesn’t explain anything in terms of how. It doesn’t say “God whipped out two sticks and created the land through the forces of friction.” It merely says (according to the English Standard Version) “And God said, Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters…” That the Bible should be used exclusively as a source of knowledge came into vogue in the 16th century, with the Copernican Revolution. Before the church allowed the Ptolemaic system with was grounded in science and laden with all the presumptions of science. Only when a model didn’t agree with the Church about a particular instance does this contempt and hostility arise. Science and its conclusions are not dangerous to religion. It may be a threat to certain dogmas, but given how much the Christian faith has changed in the last two millennia there’s no defensive way to claim the faith must remain absolutely static. Science itself also has a few foibles presenting themselves.
The scientific revolution expanded our understanding of the world view in ways we’d never achieved before. This series of discoveries leaves the scientist confident that his method of discovery and investigation will be able to explain everything. Even Steven Hawking explains the limit of our knowledge is explicitly defined by the observable. There are many unobservable things, even remotely unobservable that science quite literally cannot explain or understand. They’ve taken the hostile approach that anything beyond that is not even capable of description or discussion. That’s the realm of the theologian, and there’s room for both.
The Bible was never intended to be authoritative about the natural world. It does a great job teaching moral lessons and explaining the whys of humanity it doesn’t explain anything in terms of how. It doesn’t say “God whipped out two sticks and created the land through the forces of friction.” It merely says (according to the English Standard Version) “And God said, Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters…” That the Bible should be used exclusively as a source of knowledge came into vogue in the 16th century, with the Copernican Revolution. Before the church allowed the Ptolemaic system with was grounded in science and laden with all the presumptions of science. Only when a model didn’t agree with the Church about a particular instance does this contempt and hostility arise. Science and its conclusions are not dangerous to religion. It may be a threat to certain dogmas, but given how much the Christian faith has changed in the last two millennia there’s no defensive way to claim the faith must remain absolutely static. Science itself also has a few foibles presenting themselves.
The scientific revolution expanded our understanding of the world view in ways we’d never achieved before. This series of discoveries leaves the scientist confident that his method of discovery and investigation will be able to explain everything. Even Steven Hawking explains the limit of our knowledge is explicitly defined by the observable. There are many unobservable things, even remotely unobservable that science quite literally cannot explain or understand. They’ve taken the hostile approach that anything beyond that is not even capable of description or discussion. That’s the realm of the theologian, and there’s room for both.
by 
Chris
Chris 
Reader Comments