Posted on 01/02/2007 8:27:12 PM PST by Mr. Silverback
The late Stephen Jay Gould at Harvard used to describe religion and science as occupying “non-overlapping magisterial authority,” or what he called NOMA. That is, science and religion occupied different “domains,” or areas of life, in which each held “the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution.”
There were many problems with Gould’s approach, but at least a lack of respect for religion and religious people wasn’t one of them. Not so with some of today’s scientists.
The New York Times reported on a conference recently held in Costa Mesa, California, that turned into the secular materialist equivalent of a revival meeting.
Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg told attendees that “the world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief.” According to Weinberg, “anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization.”
Another Nobel laureate, chemist Sir Harold Kroto, suggested that the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion be given to Richard Dawkins for his new book The God Delusion.
Continuing the theme, Carolyn Porco of the Space Science Institute called for teaching “our children from a very young age about the story of the universe and its incredible richness and beauty.”
In case you were in doubt about which worldview would inform this “catechesis,” she then added: “It is already so much more glorious and awesome—and even comforting—than anything offered by any scripture or God concept I know.”
Attempts at a Gould-like détente between religion and science didn’t sit well with this crowd. A presentation by Stanford biologist Joan Roughgarden on how to make evolution more acceptable to Christians was disrupted by Dawkins himself who called it “bad poetry.”
After a while, the rancor and stridency got to be too much for some of the attendees. One scientist called it a “den of vipers” where the only debate is “should we bash religion with a crowbar or only with a baseball bat?”
Another, physicist Lawrence Krauss, chided them, saying “science does not make it impossible to believe in God . . . [and] we should recognize that fact . . . and stop being so pompous about it.”
Fat chance. What’s behind all of this animosity? It is a worldview known as “scientism,” the belief that there is no supernatural, only a material world. And it will not countenance any rivals. It is a “jealous god.”
As Weinberg’s comments illustrate, it regards any other belief system other than scientism as irrational and the enemy of progress. Given the chance, as in the former Soviet Union, it wants to eliminate its rivals. It is no respecter of pluralism.
But this really exposes the difference between the worldviews of these scientists and Christians. We welcome science; it’s the healthy exploration of God’s world. The greatest scientists in history have been Christians who believe science was possible only in a world that was orderly and created by God. We don’t rule out any natural phenomenon.
The naturalists, on the other hand, rule out even science that tends to show intelligence, because that might lead to a God. Now, who is narrow-minded?
Good!
I read it a lot before real UNDERSTANDING started to take hold.
NIV Acts 8:30
Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked.
NIV Matthew 13:13-14
13. This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
14. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: "`You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
NIV Matthew 13:19
When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is the seed sown along the path.
NIV Matthew 15:10
Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand.
NIV Matthew 16:9
Do you still not understand? Don't you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
NIV Matthew 16:11
How is it you don't understand that I was not talking to you about bread?
NIV Mark 4:33-34
33. With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they could understand.
34. He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything.
NIV Mark 8:21
He said to them, "Do you still not understand?"
NIV 1 Corinthians 2:12
We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us.
That has to be the most convoluted reply that I have ever read.
So then what parts of the bible aren't literal then? And how do you decide which is literal, which is allegorical and which is just wrong?
Two outta three ain't bad, but if you've been paying attention: I report - YOU decide.
Elsie, are you a Jew?
No?
The Torah is The Law.
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy - it's ALL "The Law", according to Jews of every generation, including Jesus', and including Jesus himself.
In the Jewish Bible, The Law (Torah = The Law) is distinguised from books such as Isaiah and Ezekiel, et al, which are not"The Law", but are called "The Prophets".
When Jesus, the Jew, speaks to an audience of Jews and says "The law and the prophets", he is referring to two corpuses of Biblical texts to which Jews gave (and give) great authority. No Jew has ever pretended that every word in the (Hebrew) Bible has the same authority as every other word. What is written in the histories such as Judges or Joshua ias all informative and interesting, but it does not have the same authority at all as that which was handed down by God to the prophets, and is recorded in the prophetic books. And those books pale in authority to The Law, the 5 books (Pentateuch) of the Torah.
You have broken Deuteronomy as "the law" in contradistinction to the rest of The Law (Torah). There is no basis to do this. Jews have never done that. They didn't in Ezra's day. They don't in our day. And Jesus certainly didn't do that. When Jesus said that The Law wasn't to change a jot nor a tittle until all was fulfilled, and then pointed to part of The Law - the Torah - and said it was wrong, a human tradition introduced by Moses as an allowance "for the harndess of your hearts" - but that divorce was not there in the law of God at the beginning - he was doing something very violent and alarming to the Jews' conceptions who were hearing them. He was pointing at the most holy books of Jewish Scripture, The Law of Moses itself, The Torah, and sayingng that there was an error in it, and pointing out the REAL rule from God.
You say, referring to Deuteronomy, "Anything else is not the law". But honestly this is just you speaking out of school. It's not true. The Law IS The Torah. That's what Torah means. No Jew ever thought differently. Then or now.
Jesus meant the Torah, not just Deuteronomy.
Like it used to be in this country before the Scopes Trial and other court cases brought by the ACLU and other liberal, America-hating groups when this country was something to be proud of? It's been with the decline of religious expression in this country and the eroding of laws that are supported by the Christian in this country that society has seen it's moral and ethical deterioration.
These cases came to the courts because fundamentalists evolutionists attempted to use have used the power of government to spread their religious evolutionist beliefs.
Like the Scopes trials.
I also believe that if fundamentalists of a like belief were more numerous in government, or more powerful politically, that they would be trying even harder, and perhaps would be more successful in promoting their religious belief through the power of the state.
Not hard data.
You question my distrust of religious fundamentalists, and my belief that they would establish a theocracy if they could?
Yup, I question it, too, because you still have not provided any examples to answer the questions that were asked of you.
The closest thing I've seen to a *theocracy* in this country by any group of people is the Amish and their decision not to avail themselves of technology for every day life is a choice. OK, now tell us how oppressive living a peaceful, loving, forgiving lifestyle would be and how bad it would be for this country.
I also have a live and let live attitude about people of faith, and for the most part that attitude is reciprocated. However, there's a substantial minority who can't seem to understand that I really don't want to live like they do and don't believe what they believe.
May the peace and love of our Lord Jesus Christ be with each of you.
Yesterday on this thread we had a series of exchanges during which, at one point, I was challenged to produce examples of the contradictions or errors in the Bible to which I alluded.
I demurred from responding until now, but decided that it would be unfair to several of you, who obviously put a great deal of effort into your responses to me (and to others), for me not to do so.
I am very hesitant to enter into that sort of debate, presenting textual problems with the Bible. It isn't because they don't exist and I am caught short, it is that I see a great deal of potential harm in the exercise.
First of all, we're on a thread on which there are folks who are deeply committed to the position that our Christian faith is utter rot and superstitious nonsense, and that any of us who truly adhere to it are theocrats-in-waiting, just looking for the opportunity to spring and cloak the world in darkness and despair.
Of course this is ludicrous, but it is a lurking fear, however illegitimate, of a large number of people who know very little about our religion or the Bible.
For those people, who are legion on this thread, Christianty is a scary negative thing, and Christians are, well ... US, you and me. So, when WE strive too aggressively over the theological points that have tragically divided Catholics and Proestants for some 450 years now, we do not very probably make much headway in convincing each other of our point of view, but we certainly convince those outside, looking in doubtfully, that Christianity is a quarrelsome religion peopled by vitriolic zealots. We also convince them, by the excessive zeal of our arguments with each other over relatively fine and, in many cases, unimportant disagreements over text that our Holy Bible, which we all revere, is a confused and tangled muddle. I found myself making a point that sounded very much like that on this very thread.
And that's a bad thing.
For if Christians cannot find a way to discuss different perspectives carefully, thoughtfully, and generously with each other, what hope is there at all that some suspicious bystander, watching from the outside, will be induced to come inside to ANY of our particular halls of Christian faith?
I DO want to discuss text with you, but we have to figure out a way beforehand to do it in a way that is measured, and respectful of the different Protestant and Catholic way of approaching these things, so that the non-Christians who read us discussing fine points of our faith will be able to say "Wow! That's an interesing point she has!! I hadn't thought of that! And, "Gee, his response was quite good too. They both could be right, depending how I look at it." As opposed to: "Wow! Isn't HE an overbearing jerk! And wasn't her response cutting and insulting! I am SO GLAD I am not inside of THAT nuthouse with THOSE superstitious fanatics."
We should all remember that the net overall effect of the Wars of the Reformation in Europe was not a victory for Catholicism OR Protestantism, but was, instead, a general weakening of faith on both sides of the line in favor of secularism. Catholics and Protestants of that era both had their theological points, but they were both dead wrong to allow their disagreements to get so far out of hand that they allowed themselves to, between them, kill some 8 million people in raging Christian-on-Christian violence, violence which persuaded NOBODY of the truth of Jesus Christ, but which persuaded PLENTY of people that they didn't believe any of it anymore.
If we are going to tear at each other, Christian-on-Christian, in public before the non-Christians who would be better served by getting themselves EITHER into a Catholic Mass or a Sunday morning Baptist chapel service, then we let Jesus down and start sounding like the striving apostles, but without their authority.
So let's not do that.
Let's promise, before we go back to discussing the Bible, that we are not going to tear down each other AT ALL for being EVIL or simply stupid, simply because we read text and interpret it differently. Let's not get so carried away - as I did - making an intra-mural Christian point about authority that we appear to be tearing down either the authority of the Bible OR the respectability of the Bible-believing Protestant or Catholic Churches. (I am afraid I cannot go so far as to promise not to pick on those Protestant Churches who have frankly walked out on the Bible and started to bless gay marriages and the like. Like all Catholics, I don't think that the original Lutheran move from the Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church to Sola Scriptura was the best move, but I certainly recognize a strong, intense and real Christian faith in Bible-believing Protestants such as each of you is. What I can't fathom at all, and can't respect, is the second step of modern "mainstream" churches who go from Sola Scriptura to not feeling they have to even follow the Bible. The Catholic Church is bound by the authority of ancient tradition which includes the Bible, and which Catholics feel they have no authority to change. The Sola Scripturalist Bible-believing Protestant, too, has an immutable source of authority: the fixed text of the Bible. Perhaps there is disagreement as to the precise meaning of specific passages, but nobody can honestly read the Bible, either Testament, and pretend that God is in favor of blessing homosexual "marriage". Sola Scriptura, because it does rely on the authentic Bible tradition, the inspired word of God, can't just ignore the Bible and do what it wants. Baptists and Catholics disagree on authority, but they don't disagree on morality.
But the new school of non-Sola Scripturalist Protestant churches simply do whatever they feel. They're not bound by ANY authority other than what their leaders want to do. It comes as no surprise, I would suspect, to either a Sola Scripturalist Protesatnt or a Catholic that "what their leaders want to do" is almost invariably in the direction of sexual license and moral libertinism. For indeed, that is what refusing the authority of sacred tradition, be it Scripture or the ancient canons of the Catholic Church handed down since the First Century MEANS. It means getting away from all of that "Thou shalt not" business and "Just saying yes" to whatever the individual inclinations want. And we all know what our individual inclinations want, left to their own devices. And it ain't good.
But there is no such "mainstreamer" here. You are (or seem to be) ardent Sola Scripturalists. I respect that. I am a Catholic. I think we can talk, and learn from each other, and edify even our critics and enemies who look on - IF we are careful and respectful with each other, and remember that neither of us wants to serve the Devil, but that he wants to pull us all into rage and division with each other so as to cause some of us to fall away, and to discourage anyone looking on from even CONSIDERING the faith we all believe in.
So, why don't we try to have the discussion after all, but with Christian care for each other. I think it would be a good thing for anti-Christian evolutionists to see Christians who disagree capable of carrying on a lengthy, detailed and calm discussion of their theological differences. I think the Christians would come out looking more calm, rational and logical than scientists who lose their head and proclaim jihad against religion.
I am willing to give it a go.
Are you in?
I will start with the first parts of Genesis, in my next post here. Please let me know if you want to have this discussion with me.
Now let us go in peace to love and serve the Lord.
I tip my hat to you! While I disagree with alot of Catholic doctrines, I don't disagree with your premise for more civil discourse.
It takes courage and humility to post what you did, and that reflects well on you and on Christ.
I look forward to discussing issues with you in the future. Hopefully, my responses will be a useful tool for those lurkers who are seeking answers to their questions, and not some notch on my "gotcha" belt.
Sincerely
I'm game. I never was big on name calling or atttacking others for their beliefs. Thank you.
Cryptic, and annoying, as usual, yet very consistant !
I rarely post on these threads because the debate Evolution/Creation is a false debate. There is inherently no conflict between real Science and Religion.
Americans have been brainwashed about Evolution by the MSM in general, and in particular by the play and film, "Inherit the Wind" based on the 1925 Scopes trial. Evolition became a fad, giving rise to dances,and songs, like Abba Dabba honeymoon, as well as become an intellectual fad.
Interesting article here exposing the fraud. http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9702/iannone.html
Come away still knowing that God is Faithful, Jesus is real, and the Bible is true. Maybe not literally true in every detail, but true nevertheless.
I rarely post on these threads because I feel the debate Evolution/Creation is a false debate. There is inherently no conflict between real Science and Christianity.
Americans have been brainwashed about Evolution by the MSM in general, and in particular by the play and film, "Inherit the Wind" based on the 1925 Scopes trial. Evolution became a social craze, giving rise to dances,and songs, like Abba Dabba honeymoon, as well as becoming an intellectual fad.
Interesting article here exposing the fraud.
The Truth About Inherit the Wind
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9702/iannone.html
Come away still knowing that God is Faithful, Jesus is real, and the Bible is true. Maybe not literally true in every detail, but true nevertheless.
There are already many examples where legislation or administration (e.g., school boards) have attempted to get biblical creation taught in science classes.
How the origins of life and man are taught have profound religious consequences for the all the children in the class. How the origins of man is presented to these children effects all the children within in the school, since they are forced to socialize with each other.
There is no way for any school board to dictate an approach to teaching about the origins of man. No matter what it does it will offend the religious sensibilities of someone.
The solution:
Begin the process of privatizing universal K-12 education. Let parents, teachers, and principals decide if the origins of life will be taught in a God-free manner, one that accepts evolution but acknowledges God's role, or ignores evolution entirely. ( There is plenty of science to be learned without having to teach evolution.)
Since then we have had several cases decided by the courts, each affirming that creationism or ID are not science and should not be taught in science classes (Dover and the recent "sticker" decision come to mind).
The courts have never ( to my knowledge) been asked to rule on the religious neutrality and consequences of evolution. They have never been asked whether government should be in the business of forcing children into compulsory schools and they working to undermine their most preciously religious traditions. This not only applies to evolution or ID, but to HUNDREDS of other curriculum and policy issues.
And its here on FR as well. How many times have those who support science been condemned to hell? How many times have scientists been told that we are no better than communists or Nazis?
Anyone who would recommend that government take children from their parents by threat of FORCE, and subjecting them to a government curriculum that destroys their family's most treasured religious beliefs DESERVES to be called a Nazi or a communist.
This is true for the secular-humanist-atheist-evolutionist, or the crevo-ID-religious-freak. It is true for the evolutionist-creationist-ID tug of war over hearts and souls of children, and it is true for HUNDREDS of other unresolvable freedom of conscience issues.
There are already many examples where legislation or administration (e.g., school boards) have attempted to get biblical creation taught in science classes.
How the origins of life and man are taught have profound religious consequences for the all the children in the class. How the origins of man is presented to these children effects all the children within in the school, since they are forced to socialize with each other.
There is no way for any school board to dictate an approach to teaching about the origins of man. No matter what it does it will offend the religious sensibilities of someone.
The solution:
Begin the process of privatizing universal K-12 education. Let parents, teachers, and principals decide if the origins of life will be taught in a God-free manner, one that accepts evolution but acknowledges God's role, or ignores evolution entirely. ( There is plenty of science to be learned without having to teach evolution.)
Since then we have had several cases decided by the courts, each affirming that creationism or ID are not science and should not be taught in science classes (Dover and the recent "sticker" decision come to mind).
The courts have never ( to my knowledge) been asked to rule on the religious neutrality and consequences of evolution. They have never been asked whether government should be in the business of forcing children into compulsory schools and they working to undermine their most preciously religious traditions. This not only applies to evolution or ID, but to HUNDREDS of other curriculum and policy issues.
And its here on FR as well. How many times have those who support science been condemned to hell? How many times have scientists been told that we are no better than communists or Nazis?
Anyone who would recommend that government take children from their parents by threat of FORCE, and subjecting them to a government curriculum that destroys their family's most treasured religious beliefs DESERVES to be called a Nazi or a communist.
This is true for the secular-humanist-atheist-evolutionist, or the crevo-ID-religious-freak. It is true for the evolutionist-creationist-ID tug of war over hearts and souls of children, and it is true for HUNDREDS of other unresolvable freedom of conscience issues.
Of course, the average American knows jack squat about any real science,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Primarily because Americans don't have the math skills to DO real science.
Science without the math, chemistry, and physics that underlie its principles, isn't "real science". It is merely the Nature Channel and doesn't get beyond "Nova".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.