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 Goulds approach, but at least a lack of respect for religion and religious people wasnt one of them. Not so with some of todays 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 awesomeand even comfortingthan anything offered by any scripture or God concept I know.
Attempts at a Gould-like détente between religion and science didnt 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. Whats 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 Weinbergs 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; its the healthy exploration of Gods 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 dont 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?
Whole point of my post on possible redefinition of words went right over your head didn't it dear? Figures...
Because God created matter out of nothing, what would the age of a freshly created piece of matter be? What physics is involved with creating matter from nothing? I am not talking about the borrowing of energy within our system to create matter, we are talking creating the energy and the matter that wasn't there before.
Then the "scientists" will say, "Why would God try to fool us"? I would say, limiting your thinking to strictly naturalistic understandings of reality creates the biggest blind spot in the advancement of human knowledge. God's only fooling the fool.
If you program a universe on a computer, are you trapped by the physics you use to make it cohesive. Time within your program has no relation to your reality. A refusal to acknowledge this has made Academia impotent in it's truth seeking apparatus.
A fisherman from two thousand years ago could have schooled these fools at this conference. A search for the truth cannot have intentional blind spots:
2 Pet 3:3-9
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Don't worry, I imagine there's still some lot around that remember the belief we can change lead into gold and drilling holes in your head to let out the bad spirits is a good thing. They'll come back to power someday....
Yet, the article is talking about people who've wandered outside of their own realm, using proof derived from science to enter into the philosophical battle. We're not talking religion (the Church, a church) attempting to quash scientific query, quite the contrary.
When science loses objectivity, it's no longer science. The positions taken by these scientists should disturb you as much as any other form of faith based beliefs trying to masquerade themselves as science. I doubt it bothers you in the least, as you seem to be suffering from the same blindness.
Quite a strawman you built. Seems to me that we have reached the present day situation from a government that allowed prayers in schools up to around 50 years ago. It wasn't a theocracy then and allowing the free exercise of religion won't make it one.
Thank you for proving my point. One day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day. To limit God by some genealogical superficial listing is ridiculous.
Then the "scientists" will say, "Why would God try to fool us"? I would say, limiting your thinking to strictly naturalistic understandings of reality creates the biggest blind spot in the advancement of human knowledge. God's only fooling the fool.
But if all things come from God, as the Scripture says, then science came from God. God gave us science to understand His creation. Why then would God allow all of something He created for our good to be disproven by reading something else He provided? Science supports the Scripture and Scripture supports the science. But I see nothing gained for God's glory by limiting what was done to six days. But it leaves open a lot of holes that cannot fit into your supposition.
I'm out. I said I wasn't going to get involved with this and I'm not. Post your posts, make your claims. What I believe in no way belittles God or Christianity.
Can't be said enough.
I used to search every time for the Colson columns before I posted them, and never found one posted even though I searched every day for weeks. Eventually I decided the occasional double post was worth avoiding the wasted time.
Philosophy is a science, too. the domain of religion is not philosophy but theology, with applied disciplines like liturgy, homiletics etc.
Three things.
1. We do not know enough truth to discern the totality of our reality. This is why scientific conclusions are continually changing.
2. Most modern scientists disregard the supernatural, so their conclusions are incorrect.
3. Science is entertaining and sometimes helpful, but is not something you want to affect your worldview.
Please realize that many of these folks are investing their entire hope in the findings of science. Their value from life is derived from the knowledge they pass on to the next generation. Based on this ill-founded investment, fellowship with our Creator becomes a myth and the abundant life we were created to enjoy gets robbed from them by the lie.
Yes, that's what called new discoveries. Scientific conclusions from 1000 years ago thought the body was made of up of the four elements. Gee, don't you miss those old days? Should we go back to that? Okay, I'm 14% fire, 63% water, 12% air, and 11% earth. Woo-hoo!! That is so much simpler than trying to understand those nasty old vessels and arteries. Go anti-science!!
And yet new scientific conclusions show the complexities of our bodies, the world around us. And this is where faith comes in for me. I realize where science ends, faith begins. But my faith doesn't blind me to what science has shown me to get to that point.
3. Science is entertaining and sometimes helpful, but is not something you want to affect your worldview.
Oh goody, now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to float away. I may just float to London for a day. I'm not letting the discovery of gravity affect my worldview.....And I'll send my next missive to you by stone tablet if that's okay as well. Don't want science, or the advancement thereof, to affect your worldview
Please realize that many of these folks are investing their entire hope in the findings of science.
And please realize there are just as many folks that view the world solely through the Bible. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but God gave us eyes, ears, minds, etc. to learn more about His creation. Not to suspend all rational thought just to fit the entire world into what someone imagines they believe are the physics of the Bible.
Based on this ill-founded investment, fellowship with our Creator becomes a myth and the abundant life we were created to enjoy gets robbed from them by the lie
Not at all. It helps me appreciate God even more. It allows me to understand what love was put into all of creation. The time it took, the relationships, the changes, all of it. To get to this point in history that science is just beginning to grasp a more indepth understanding of the world around us and what we have been given
Science is entertaining and sometimes helpful, but not something you want to base your worldview.
Perspective!
Psst... Elsie's a guy..... No need to be so condescending.
billbears:Yes, that's what called new discoveries. Scientific conclusions from 1000 years ago thought the body was made of up of the four elements. Gee, don't you miss those old days? Should we go back to that? Okay, I'm 14% fire, 63% water, 12% air, and 11% earth. Woo-hoo!! That is so much simpler than trying to understand those nasty old vessels and arteries. Go anti-science!!
Boy, that's quite a stretch. How'd you get all that from bondserv's two statements? Or are you under the delusion that we know everything already?
Andrew, by now you must have noticed that most of what coyote posts consists of strawmen, misdirection and denial.
He has an especially difficult time with the fact that the fossils are evidence of the Genesis judgement, and nothing else. Total worldwide death is what they speak to, and he just can't handle it.
You have to admit, that's a scary thought!
Are you deliberately attempting to misdirect?
The judgement is commonly known as "the flood," but it was much more; it was a total upheaval of the planet. The mountain ranges didn't exist before it happened.
This evidence is from one narrow field of study-- archaeology, and one small area--the western US. There is a lot more evidence from archaeology in other areas, and there are a lot more fields of study.
They all fail to support a global flood at about 2300 BC.
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.