Rule for Deniers #5, post #272.
Kalamata: "You cannot be serious.
That page is not helpful. "
Not helpful to science-deniers like Kalamata.
And that is very serious.
Kalamata quoting Rupke 1983: "These Scottish writers argued that geology and the Bible ought to be kept apart; that physical inquiry came under the aegis of science, and that only the moral destiny of man was the proper subject of the Bible; that therefore the biblical deluge was a subject of inquiry, not for geology, but for theology and ancient history.
This argument for the separation of science and the Bible was facilitated by the Edinburgh University system in which science had, for a considerable time, enjoyed an academic status independent of the humanities.
The separation was not inspired by lack of faith, but was backed by serious, exegetical arguments..."
The time period for this quote is apparently early 1800s, which is still within influence by Age of Enlightenment thinkers.
Note specifically the reason for separation of science & scripture is not lack of faith.
Kalamata: "Make note of the part that explains the foolish "Separation of Science and the Bible" sham was still in the developmental stage in the late 1700's and early 1800's.
It is a Johnny-Come-Lately sham that has corrupted rather than advanced science."
I disagree with your words of disparagement, but agree that this is perhaps a critical point at which natural-science and religion parted ways.
But it was very far from the first or only time -- see Galileo in 1633.
Indeed, the ancient Church Fathers themselves well understood that there are limits to which the Bible can be applied scientifically.
Here is St. Augustine of Hippo, circa 400 AD in words sounding like they were written just yesterday:
- "Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.
Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.
The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men....
Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books.
For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. (pp. 42-43)"
They were, according to your own quote, not "atheists" and theologians never claimed to be "real scientists".
In fact scientists then were like our Enlightenment Era Founding Fathers -- Christian believers, some leaning towards deism, but none were atheists.
Kalamata: "It is your atheistic religion of evolutionism that is destroying western civilization.
In the meantime, it has led to the holocaust, eugenics, abortion, virulent racism, and 4 of the most blood-thirsty dictators in the history of the world."
"Destroying" Western Civilization since the time of our Founding Fathers?
And you wish to return us to which pre-Enlightenment era?
As for blood-thirsty tyrants, there've been plenty throughout history, and no scientific theory was ever needed to push them into evil.
Kalamata: "Why did you say that I claimed God was "merely 'natural'"?
What's the matter with you?
Don't you know how to tell the truth?"
So now you're going to lie your way out of your lies by telling more lies?
How does that even work?
You claimed God is natural, I called you on it and now you wish to lie your way out of it.
God, by traditional Western definition is supernatural -- He created the natural, but it is not Him.
I think the analogy of a house-as-nature is perfectly acceptable: God designed & built the house, God lives in the house but He is not the house.
The house has heat & A/C which comes on automatically but God can override those controls when it suits Him.
Indeed, if or when the time comes God can modify or destroy the old house and build Himself another.
Science studies the house and it's controls but knows nothing of Him who built & lives here.
Kalamata: "The so-called "Age of Enlightenment" turned out to be more of a darkening."
We are children of the Enlightenment.
Our Founding Fathers were the Enlightenment Era's leading political figures, the jewel it its crown, our Declaration and Constitution are two of the era's greatest documents.
We on Free Republic are the conservatives here to preserve, as best we can, their ideals, their visions, their Constitution and their Christian faith.
We think those are important as both the origin of our nation and the only possible hope to preserve it United.
If we fail, the nation fails and if the United States fails then the human race will have lost something vital to our existence, imho.
So don't trash the Enlightenment because it is who we are, always were and hopefully always will be.