Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Where Science And Religion Should Meet


Recommended Posts

If only we had the perfect ideal system of learning void of political and personal agendas we could progress into greater depths of knowledge. I get so tired of the creation/evolution debates in the name of science versus religion that I am often left to ponder why this is so? If science were to only report on actual observations I think we could meet in the middle in perfect harmony. But it seems that for personal and political motives, mainstream science has treaded out of there area and encorached upon religious grounds to dictate the philosophy of the why, how and what of our existence. And that all void of having any scientific evidence. Mainstream science has an agenda obviously to "have to" explain everything froma  purely naturalistic POV that must not include "God" in any part of it. BUt why must they try to tread on religious grounds to do so? Is that the job of science? NO!

 

  The job of science is to be completely unbiased in their reporting of evidence observed, documented, and tested upon. Is it the job of science to say where man came from? All science can do is find evidences of man's existence. But from whence it came, or why it came may be outside of their ability. When I read the stories in the Book of Mormon and Bible I am left in complete awe by their abilities, technologies and their will to do things. I believe the BoM to be true, same as the Bible for the most part. But then I read about the stories put forth by mainstream science and the two aren't even close, especially about their idea of ancient American cultures. So why does mainstream science try to recapture the ancient cultures abilities and cultures when it just doesn't have enough information to say such scientifically? Because they have personal agendas!  How great it would be if mainstream science left out all of the wild speculation and guessing of their stories and just reported on finding the evidence.

 

Its interesting that we have a near complete written history of the entire human existence in ancient times in the America's and yet not one single museum (not owned by the Church) relates this true story but instead paints a picture far different and distinctly separate and then concludes it as fact. This has been a great hardship on the Church and its members and prospective members. And this all because mainstream science has decided to tread into territory it doesn't belong and make guesses in the name of the holier than though "science says so" to establish it as some kind of substancial supposed fact.

 

 I do embrace observable, testable and documentable science. But much of it has its roots in the philosophy and guessing of man according to his own personal agendas that it has tainted the validity of much of it. I look at the scriptures as historical texts and as such should be embraced by science and history as a means to expalin our historical roots and the how, what and why of our existence. Science is good at finding evidence and testing it. Beyond that its not much use. Religion on the other hand is based on texts, faith and spiritual truths and as such clears up most if not all the mysteries of this planets life. The two can and should meet in the middle. So why not then?

Edited by Rob Osborn
Link to comment

The problem is that there are no facts, only interpretations.

 

Humans interpret data.  We cannot do otherwise.  Just saying a word and making a sentence selects some portion of experience and leaves out other portions.  Language is always selective and cannot describe experiences "as they are".

 

Try to describe "red" and you will see.

 

The problem is language.  Words are not things, they are symbols and symbols require interpretation.

Link to comment

It's kinda complicated, but basically boils down to wanting to know something without having to say something like I know [such and such] is true because God told me so.

Anyone can say that, ya know, and not everyone who says that is actually conveying a message from God.

So it's like someone else is saying what else do you got to show me that [such and such] is really true?

What I hate most though is when someone who claims to have a testimony from God about something acts like they don't have that testimony, as if the testimony doesn't count as any kind of evidence. I know it doesn't count much if any at all to someone who hasn't received that testimony, but those who have should count that as common ground, and as scientific evidence.

Link to comment

My opinion:  If an answer is suggested by quoting scripture or some specific scientific study such as anthropology then it likely would not be an equal evaluation but is instead biased towards the answer.

 

It is a journey.

 

I personally rationalize it; God is simply the top scientist or I should say engineer/Architect (creator).    

 

The scriptures are not complete && the scientific research is not complete.  Therefore there can be no deductive solution.

 

We must choose without complete information.  This is the great challenge.  Shame on anyone who says it’s easy…

Link to comment

Science and religion are one and the same for me.  Sure, they come from different directions and more often than not address different issues, but they are ultimately the two parts of the one great whole, the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything whether the ultimate question is "How many stairs must a man walk down?" or "What shall we have for lunch?" etc.

Link to comment

If only we had the perfect ideal system of learning void of political and personal agendas we could progress into greater depths of knowledge. I get so tired of the creation/evolution debates in the name of science versus religion that I am often left to ponder why this is so? If science were to only report on actual observations I think we could meet in the middle in perfect harmony. But it seems that for personal and political motives, mainstream science has treaded out of there area and encorached upon religious grounds to dictate the philosophy of the why, how and what of our existence. And that all void of having any scientific evidence. Mainstream science has an agenda obviously to "have to" explain everything froma  purely naturalistic POV that must not include "God" in any part of it. BUt why must they try to tread on religious grounds to do so? Is that the job of science? NO!

 

  The job of science is to be completely unbiased in their reporting of evidence observed, documented, and tested upon. Is it the job of science to say where man came from? All science can do is find evidences of man's existence. But from whence it came, or why it came may be outside of their ability. When I read the stories in the Book of Mormon and Bible I am left in complete awe by their abilities, technologies and their will to do things. I believe the BoM to be true, same as the Bible for the most part. But then I read about the stories put forth by mainstream science and the two aren't even close, especially about their idea of ancient American cultures. So why does mainstream science try to recapture the ancient cultures abilities and cultures when it just doesn't have enough information to say such scientifically? Because they have personal agendas!  How great it would be if mainstream science left out all of the wild speculation and guessing of their stories and just reported on finding the evidence.

 

Its interesting that we have a near complete written history of the entire human existence in ancient times in the America's and yet not one single museum (not owned by the Church) relates this true story but instead paints a picture far different and distinctly separate and then concludes it as fact. This has been a great hardship on the Church and its members and prospective members. And this all because mainstream science has decided to tread into territory it doesn't belong and make guesses in the name of the holier than though "science says so" to establish it as some kind of substancial supposed fact.

 

 I do embrace observable, testable and documentable science. But much of it has its roots in the philosophy and guessing of man according to his own personal agendas that it has tainted the validity of much of it. I look at the scriptures as historical texts and as such should be embraced by science and history as a means to expalin our historical roots and the how, what and why of our existence. Science is good at finding evidence and testing it. Beyond that its not much use. Religion on the other hand is based on texts, faith and spiritual truths and as such clears up most if not all the mysteries of this planets life. The two can and should meet in the middle. So why not then?

 

Science and religion have lived, if not always happily, together for thousands of years. We developed civilization using using both. There is nothing in my faith that tells me to reject everything from antibiotics to Zinc Oxide Nano-fibers. As well as there is nothing in my science that precludes God. I think it is a mistake to try for middle ground when it comes to science. IE: What is the a middle ground position between a geocentric solar system and a heliocentric one? Equally what is a middle position between a belief in one or more Gods and no Gods at all? Science isn't about just making observations. I observe the sunset every evening that is an observation. Science is about making accurate predictions about those observations. A spinning earth is a better prediction than God causing the sun to revolve around the earth. Science really isn't about why, it is about how. Religion really isn't about how, it is about why? IE; Do the other planets have an effect on our planet? They sure do. Do they have an effect on human behaviors as claimed by astrologists? Not so much. Science can't posit any God, and still be science. IE; How do the planets maintain their orbits around our sun? Is it because of perturbation theory or that God intervenes to keep them there? Sir Isaac Newton thought it was God. It took another 130 years for perturbation theory to be developed. Nothing in my faith teaches that God didn't create the laws governing Celestial Mechanics, only that no belief in God is needed to make them work. That is not an argument for atheism but an argument we don't always know how God does things. So sad experience has shown it is best to leave him out of it until he comes back and tells us for sure.

 

The job of science is to make observations, and make accurate predictions about those observations. No scientist is totally free from bias. But it is highly unlikely that his bias is exactly the same as another scientist's bias. So they tend to cancel each other out, that is why one person doesn't get to decide what is science. I am in awe of what science has shown to a fantastically wonderfully complex world and universe we live on, in, are a part of.  We have yet to observe man from more than about 250,000 years ago. Maybe we aren't looking in the right places, maybe God is hiding them, and maybe they're not there because man didn't exist on this planet before that time. Which do you think is the more likely? I'm open to new discoveries confirming I'm wrong, are you open to the same thing for yourself?

For better or worse there just isn't enough archaeological evidence so far presented to confirm the Lehites in the America's. I eagerly await that day. Everyone has personal agendas. But it is highly unlikely that my personal agenda is the same as your personal agenda. The best any of us can do is present the best evidence we have and try to defend that evidence against demanding tests and retests until what is claimed is actually supported by the evidence. Again science is not about just making observations. Bruno is a cautionary tale about making predictions based on religion. Galileo made observations and made accurate predictions about those observations. It wasn't the observations that got him into trouble with religion, but his predictions sure did. We don't have anywhere near a complete history of the America's. At best the Book of Mormon we currently have is about a relatively small group of people and a few of their interactions with their immediate neighbors, and their God. I think there is enough evidence to show plausibility, but not confirmation. I eagerly await more. I knows of no museum owned by the Church that claims the Lehites as established fact. Even if such existed that would be going far beyond what the Church actually claims.

 

Again science is more than just what is observable, testable, and has documentation for. Without accurate predictive capacity we're no better off than living in caves being afraid of things that go bump in the night.

 

ALL human ideas have their roots in personal agendas. It is unavoidable. What we have learned by sad experience ideas bereft of independent questioning quickly leads to group think and restrictions on what is acceptable beliefs/actions, nearly always of a religious nature. IE; God told me this idea is wrong so you must be punished for not believing me.

Link to comment

It's kinda complicated, but basically boils down to wanting to know something without having to say something like I know [such and such] is true because God told me so.

Anyone can say that, ya know, and not everyone who says that is actually conveying a message from God.

So it's like someone else is saying what else do you got to show me that [such and such] is really true?

What I hate most though is when someone who claims to have a testimony from God about something acts like they don't have that testimony, as if the testimony doesn't count as any kind of evidence. I know it doesn't count much if any at all to someone who hasn't received that testimony, but those who have should count that as common ground, and as scientific evidence.

 

Testimonies are fine. But have very limited to no usefulness in science. IE; I see the sunset every evening. I have a firm testimony that tomorrow it will also set. That in no way is evidence that the sun is actually going behind the earth, but that the earth revolves on its axis every 24 hours,

Link to comment

Science and religion are one and the same for me.  Sure, they come from different directions and more often than not address different issues, but they are ultimately the two parts of the one great whole, the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything whether the ultimate question is "How many stairs must a man walk down?" or "What shall we have for lunch?" etc.

 

I agree with this, although I think gospel truth tells us more about science and the way the universe works than I think science tells us about gospel truth and the way the universe works.

 

I prefer to err on the side of scripture over science when a disagreement appears.  But when the two line up it is definitely a thing of beauty.

Link to comment

Testimonies are fine. But have very limited to no usefulness in science. IE; I see the sunset every evening. I have a firm testimony that tomorrow it will also set. That in no way is evidence that the sun is actually going behind the earth, but that the earth revolves on its axis every 24 hours,

When I talk about having a testimony I'm talking about having knowledge of something that God has told me, so for me to have a testimony from God telling me the sun is going to set tomorrow (as we think of as a sunset) would mean for me to know that because that is what God told me.

Otherwise it would only be a guess based on past experiences when it did set.

Link to comment

I'm not sure what Rob's stance is, but I think I agree science should stay out of the realm of religion. I used to consider myseld a creationist and even supported Answes in Genesis for a time, but I didn't like the approach they were taking trying to merge their specific flavor of Christianity with science, even going so far as to selling ad space to these churches in their journals.

So I now take more of an ID stance. I believe the universe is billions of years old and I now believe we are not the first civilization to live on this planet, hence the old age of our planet. I think Mormonism is compatible with this view, since our planet was organized from existing matter, and Adam was told to "replenish." I still believe in the scriptures and the global flood though.

I don't think science has any business trying to disprove religion. I took a Physical Anthropology class at my local junior college and my instructor was a very bitter athiest who claimed once that vestigal organs prove there is no God. I thought the unit on dna showed the complexity of our bodies and in my mind confirmed a desigmer. As far as the fossil evidence units went, the evidence was there, but had to be pieced together as a puzzle, so I still had doubts about it. Also, there are overlaps and gaps in the record. Nothing I learned in the class proved to me that we descended from these animals, but seemed to be speculation based on the piecing together of the evidence, to form one big puzzle.

I think people should also look at the personal views of these scientists. For example, Darwin's book on natural selection has something about "favored races" in the title and many early evolutionists were bitter at religion and some were racists. I know this is one of AIG's main arguments and has been beat to death already as a dead horse, but I think we need to be careful about which scientists we listen to in our day and time.

In the same way Ken Ham is showing bias toward evolutionary scientists and other denominations of Christianity, Richard Dawkins is bitter at religion and has interviewed Creationists, not creation scientists, in showing "ignorance" in Creationism. Are there any independent third parties who can weigh the evidence and not let religious or personal views get in the way of science?

I think we need to pay attention carefully to the warnings our scriptures give us about the last days. I am a high school teacher and honestly, I've heard 2 students use evolution as an excuse for behavior. One said the universe evolved apples and we eat them, so then we should be able to smoke marijuana since it was evolved by the universe. To this I added that the universe evolved strychnine, should we eat that too? To justify sexual behavior to another student I overheard a kid say that we're all only animals anyway.

So, I believe in the advancements of science, but I think we should be very careful to keep religion and science separate. When used for good science can help humankind, but like anything else it can be used for bad.

Edited by bjw
Link to comment

I agree with this, although I think gospel truth tells us more about science and the way the universe works than I think science tells us about gospel truth and the way the universe works.

 

I prefer to err on the side of scripture over science when a disagreement appears.  But when the two line up it is definitely a thing of beauty.

 

Bring on the Cockatrices.

Link to comment

When I talk about having a testimony I'm talking about having knowledge of something that God has told me, so for me to have a testimony from God telling me the sun is going to set tomorrow (as we think of as a sunset) would mean for me to know that because that is what God told me.

Otherwise it would only be a guess based on past experiences when it did set.

 

Guesses are not part of science.

Link to comment

Religionists/believers inject ID and creationism into the study of human origins, deny the evidence that supports and proves the mechanisms of evolution, argue for a "young earth" perspective for which there is no objective evidence, and yet science is overstepping it's boundaries?

 

Science is concerned with observing the natural world, plain and simple.

 

Religionists should concern themselves with observing the supernatural world, instead of trying to shoehorn world history through the confines of biblical stories, and using.

Link to comment

Bring on the Cockatrices.

 

 

Oh hardly.  Just because a couple of prophetic visions choose to name something they saw as a cockatrice doesn't mean anything.

An airplane seen by an old testament prophet would have been called a great flying beast.  A submarine might be called a leviathan.

 

It's hardly "non-scientific", just the best description.  But if they saw something then I believe something existed, whatever name they gave it.

Link to comment

Religionists/believers inject ID and creationism into the study of human origins, deny the evidence that supports and proves the mechanisms of evolution, argue for a "young earth" perspective for which there is no objective evidence, and yet science is overstepping it's boundaries?

 

Science is concerned with observing the natural world, plain and simple.

 

Religionists should concern themselves with observing the supernatural world, instead of trying to shoehorn world history through the confines of biblical stories, and using.

I think creationists/id acknowledge the evidence, they just interpret it differently. I agree there may be similarities in primate genetics/dna but I think that means a common designer, not ancestor. However, both are only opinions and cannot be considered science. Science deals only with observable, falsifiable phenomenon.
Link to comment

Religionists/believers inject ID and creationism into the study of human origins, deny the evidence that supports and proves the mechanisms of evolution, argue for a "young earth" perspective for which there is no objective evidence, and yet science is overstepping it's boundaries?

 

Science is concerned with observing the natural world, plain and simple.

 

Religionists should concern themselves with observing the supernatural world, instead of trying to shoehorn world history through the confines of biblical stories, and using.

No, believers go on faith in believing the word of God to explain our origins. There is no evidence that supports the theory of the evolution of man from a common descent. There is a lot of conjecture and assumptions built around an idea of origins but no real substantial real scientific proof. If science were to correctly report the evidence it would be only this- different species of animals share characteristics of similarities. Thats all, nothing more.

Link to comment

I say at the Starbucks on the corner of 12 west and 31 north.

Science could have a large latte with soy with a chocolate Danish and religion can have a hot chocolate and a blueberry muffin (or a bacon muffin if it's winter).

Edited by Bikeemikey
Link to comment

Rob, I have no interest in another 40 page thread where I continually tell you how wrong your understanding of science is so I am just going to say you are wrong and bow out quickly.

Let me second that - another thread where we punch up a fictitious idea of science just doesn't sound fun.

Good luck.

Link to comment

Science and religion have lived, if not always happily, together for thousands of years. We developed civilization using using both. There is nothing in my faith that tells me to reject everything from antibiotics to Zinc Oxide Nano-fibers. As well as there is nothing in my science that precludes God. I think it is a mistake to try for middle ground when it comes to science. IE: What is the a middle ground position between a geocentric solar system and a heliocentric one? Equally what is a middle position between a belief in one or more Gods and no Gods at all? Science isn't about just making observations. I observe the sunset every evening that is an observation. Science is about making accurate predictions about those observations. A spinning earth is a better prediction than God causing the sun to revolve around the earth. Science really isn't about why, it is about how. Religion really isn't about how, it is about why? IE; Do the other planets have an effect on our planet? They sure do. Do they have an effect on human behaviors as claimed by astrologists? Not so much. Science can't posit any God, and still be science. IE; How do the planets maintain their orbits around our sun? Is it because of perturbation theory or that God intervenes to keep them there? Sir Isaac Newton thought it was God. It took another 130 years for perturbation theory to be developed. Nothing in my faith teaches that God didn't create the laws governing Celestial Mechanics, only that no belief in God is needed to make them work. That is not an argument for atheism but an argument we don't always know how God does things. So sad experience has shown it is best to leave him out of it until he comes back and tells us for sure.

 

The job of science is to make observations, and make accurate predictions about those observations. No scientist is totally free from bias. But it is highly unlikely that his bias is exactly the same as another scientist's bias. So they tend to cancel each other out, that is why one person doesn't get to decide what is science. I am in awe of what science has shown to a fantastically wonderfully complex world and universe we live on, in, are a part of.  We have yet to observe man from more than about 250,000 years ago. Maybe we aren't looking in the right places, maybe God is hiding them, and maybe they're not there because man didn't exist on this planet before that time. Which do you think is the more likely? I'm open to new discoveries confirming I'm wrong, are you open to the same thing for yourself?

For better or worse there just isn't enough archaeological evidence so far presented to confirm the Lehites in the America's. I eagerly await that day. Everyone has personal agendas. But it is highly unlikely that my personal agenda is the same as your personal agenda. The best any of us can do is present the best evidence we have and try to defend that evidence against demanding tests and retests until what is claimed is actually supported by the evidence. Again science is not about just making observations. Bruno is a cautionary tale about making predictions based on religion. Galileo made observations and made accurate predictions about those observations. It wasn't the observations that got him into trouble with religion, but his predictions sure did. We don't have anywhere near a complete history of the America's. At best the Book of Mormon we currently have is about a relatively small group of people and a few of their interactions with their immediate neighbors, and their God. I think there is enough evidence to show plausibility, but not confirmation. I eagerly await more. I knows of no museum owned by the Church that claims the Lehites as established fact. Even if such existed that would be going far beyond what the Church actually claims.

 

Again science is more than just what is observable, testable, and has documentation for. Without accurate predictive capacity we're no better off than living in caves being afraid of things that go bump in the night.

 

ALL human ideas have their roots in personal agendas. It is unavoidable. What we have learned by sad experience ideas bereft of independent questioning quickly leads to group think and restrictions on what is acceptable beliefs/actions, nearly always of a religious nature. IE; God told me this idea is wrong so you must be punished for not believing me.

Science tries to tell us there were a bunch of migrating hoards who came over on a land bridge to the America's. Our scriptures tell a far drastically different story of people in boats who were guided by God to the promised land who then built up mighty nations, became highly civilized and then annihilated each other. Is there a middle ground here? Yes. Science doesn't really have any business trying to guess how man got to America. If there is evidence then there is evidence, but in this case no evidence exists as to how man got here. So, on the one side we can take archaeology digs and dig up evidence and on the other we have religion that states such and such happened. Now as to what "really" happened doesn't really matter until futher evidence comes to light. But both can bring evidence to the table and support each other and leave a middle ground of ideas and not call it "science".

Link to comment

The problem is that there are no facts, only interpretations.

 

Humans interpret data.  We cannot do otherwise.  Just saying a word and making a sentence selects some portion of experience and leaves out other portions.  Language is always selective and cannot describe experiences "as they are".

 

Try to describe "red" and you will see.

 

 

A three letter word that begins with an "r" and ends with a "d" with an "e" strategically placed between the "r" and the "d". This is red. simple enough :)  

Link to comment

A three letter word that begins with an "r" and ends with a "d" with an "e" strategically placed between the "r" and the "d". This is red. simple enough :)  

I love it! Shows perfectly that there are many ways to interpret anything!

Link to comment

Science tries to tell us there were a bunch of migrating hoards who came over on a land bridge to the America's. Our scriptures tell a far drastically different story of people in boats who were guided by God to the promised land who then built up mighty nations, became highly civilized and then annihilated each other. Is there a middle ground here? Yes. Science doesn't really have any business trying to guess how man got to America. If there is evidence then there is evidence, but in this case no evidence exists as to how man got here. So, on the one side we can take archaeology digs and dig up evidence and on the other we have religion that states such and such happened. Now as to what "really" happened doesn't really matter until futher evidence comes to light. But both can bring evidence to the table and support each other and leave a middle ground of ideas and not call it "science".

You started wrong and ended wrong.

Instead of saying (and thinking) "Science tries to tells us" blah blah blah say and think it is only some who try to tell us those things.

To automatically accept what those people tell us is "science" is not what science is all about, and I wouldn't call something science just because some people say that's what it is.

You have to learn for yourself what science really is instead of just accepting what some people call science.

Link to comment

Oh hardly.  Just because a couple of prophetic visions choose to name something they saw as a cockatrice doesn't mean anything.

An airplane seen by an old testament prophet would have been called a great flying beast.  A submarine might be called a leviathan.

 

It's hardly "non-scientific", just the best description.  But if they saw something then I believe something existed, whatever name they gave it.

 

Sure; You can call a Hippopotamus a River Horse, but horses don't like rivers and their not horses. That's what the Greeks called them and the name stuck.

BTW It is biological impossibility for a male chicken to lay an egg that produces as lizard.

 

Science as we know it was invented during the Age of Enlightenment. Long after the Greek civilization that gave the River Horse its name.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...