Should Science Speak to Faith?

[Sand]

Again, though, Sand you are focusing narrowly on Christianity.

 

It is the religion I have the most experience with and it is the most dominant religion in the region I live in.

[metadigital]

Yes, but it's not all just about you, is it?

[Cantousent]

A lot of good Christians have fought long and hard to ensure the secular nature of our government. If someone wanted to institutionally deny you access to office based on atheism or agnosticism, then you could count on our help. Make sure you return the favor.

Yes Christians benefit from the secular government just like atheists do. But do you really think that the a majority Christian population would have an atheists back when getting in office anytime soon?

 

Ah, the same old arguments never change. Why should a Christian back an atheist? I think of plenty of policy reasons why a Christian should back a candidate and plenty of reasons why a candidate's religion should not matter. It usually does though. That's how it works.

 

The thing is, saying that Christians won't back a candidate is not the same thing as saying that an atheist is institutionally denied access to office.

 

Now we have folks citing not just outside articles, but other message boards as evidence to prove a point here? I don't look down on a single person here based on any proclaimed atheism. I get the impression, however, that some of you are more than willing to hate someone for being a proclaimed Christian, and that's just sad.

 

As far as the secular government goes, yes it does help Christians. However, it's only helped one Roman Catholic into the Oval Office. That's fair though. Giving someone the access to seek office in the United States is not the same as ensuring that they reach it. Nor should it. For good or ill, you live in a representative democracy. Most folks vote their conscience. All things being equal, would you not choose the candidate who denounced religion in favor of a secular humanism?

[Hurlshort]

Representative democracy was a key term in Cant's post for me. If you are unhappy with the fact our leadership is predominantly Christian, then you have to change who is electing them into office. Politicians are just representatives, they act in the best interest of those who elected them, so that they continue to get elected.

 

Take gay marriage: **** Cheney seems to have a close relationship with his lesbian daughter. Personally, she has supported him in his career. But both of them know that coming out in support of gay marriage would be political suicide. They are clearly prioritizing what issues they are willing to take a stand on. That's politics.

[Gorth]

I get the impression, however, that some of you are more than willing to hate someone for being a proclaimed Christian, and that's just sad.

Yeah, you guys be nice to the poor monotheists, they only have that one God!

 

As for the whole discussion of education, politics and religion getting mixed up, I profess mild curiosity and a complete lack of understanding. Having grown up in a very much secular country where religion is less important than football, it is completely surreal hearing that there are people in the world wanting religion as part of their science classes, part of their govermental doctrines (didn't the Taleban just get ousted because being ruled by Sharia law wasn't politcally correct?!?) and so on

 

I guess it's one of them great cultural divides where we are different

 

But then, I also think that the concept of "nations" is an oldfashioned, outdated and hypocritical concept that should be abolished altogether. Go figure.

[Laozi]

I don't believe that science should speak to faith. I think they should blow it up with some sort of death ray or sonic device or something. You know, scientific like.

[Cantousent]

...it is completely surreal hearing that there are people in the world wanting religion as part of their science classes, part of their govermental doctrines (didn't the Taleban just get ousted because being ruled by Sharia law wasn't politcally correct?!?) and so on

 

I don't think religion should be part of any science class. Morals themselves should not be part of any science class.

 

science is completely amoral. It does not care in the least about morals and does not recognize their existence. Science is science. The very idea of empirical morality is laughable. Science doesn't have any vested interest in policy. At best, it can predict what will happen and record the happenings after the fact. All policy is moral and none of it is based on science. Science argues after the fact in a policy discussion, not before hand.

[Blank]

I have a hard time reconciling "killing" people in war as opposed to offering them truth and love that I believe would save them. In that regard, I dispute Bush's perception of the Christian tenets.

You need to read the the Bible more then. There have been quite a number of instances in reach killing people was considered a "good thing" and ordained by God. Hell, you can use the Bible to justify slavery and bigotry. Its all open to interpretation, but then again the Old and New Testament have been translated, retranslated, interpreted and reinterpreted for over 2000 years so there is no way to accurately to know what the original meaning of the scriptures meant.

Christians should emulate Jesus, not use the old testament as justification for killing people.

[Sand]

I have a hard time reconciling "killing" people in war as opposed to offering them truth and love that I believe would save them. In that regard, I dispute Bush's perception of the Christian tenets.

You need to read the the Bible more then. There have been quite a number of instances in reach killing people was considered a "good thing" and ordained by God. Hell, you can use the Bible to justify slavery and bigotry. Its all open to interpretation, but then again the Old and New Testament have been translated, retranslated, interpreted and reinterpreted for over 2000 years so there is no way to accurately to know what the original meaning of the scriptures meant.

Christians should emulate Jesus, not use the old testament as justification for killing people.

Christianity is both Old and New Testament, and then some depending on which faction you are with. There is more to Christianity than just emulating Jesus, Blank. Sad, but true.

[Blank]

I have a hard time reconciling "killing" people in war as opposed to offering them truth and love that I believe would save them. In that regard, I dispute Bush's perception of the Christian tenets.

You need to read the the Bible more then. There have been quite a number of instances in reach killing people was considered a "good thing" and ordained by God. Hell, you can use the Bible to justify slavery and bigotry. Its all open to interpretation, but then again the Old and New Testament have been translated, retranslated, interpreted and reinterpreted for over 2000 years so there is no way to accurately to know what the original meaning of the scriptures meant.

Christians should emulate Jesus, not use the old testament as justification for killing people.

Christianity is both Old and New Testament, and then some depending on which faction you are with. There is more to Christianity than just emulating Jesus, Blank. Sad, but true.

Christianity shouldn't be more than emulating Christ. Perhaps you need to read the Bible more too (I agree I need to read the bible more), as He is the fulfillment of the Old Testament, prophesies and laws*1. Jesus loved others and showed Christians how to love by dying for them. In the Old Testament, God had King David go to war with neighboring nations, but that doesn't mean God is telling all Christians that it's good for everyone to go to war.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love the Old Testament part of the Bible. I really enjoy Job, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Malachi. There's so much one can learn about the character of God by reading the OT. God is serious when He says he hates sin.

 

When asked what the most greatest commandment was, Jesus said, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."*2

 

Moreover, I see in 1 Peter, where Peter, a very influential apostle who converted many and helped build churches all over after Christ's death, says, "For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in his mouth, and while being reviled, He did not revile in return while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed."*3

 

I see all over the Bible a message to Christians of peace and turning of the cheek, not warring. There are stories in the OT about the wars, and in the NT, David is said to have been faithful in Hebrews 11, so he did what was right for him, but it wouldn't be right for me to go kill neighbors that are sinning.

 

I just cannot see where a Christian would be justified to act like Bush or others who claim to be Christian. Bush as a Christian should've not wanted to send soldiers who would end up having to kill people who want to kill them. I mean, these are all actual people being killed, people who have the potential to be saved. Why would a Christian want that? To protect themselves? What about turning the other cheek and being persecuted?

 

*1- Matthew 5:17-20

*2- Matthew 22:35-40

*3- 1 Peter 2:21-24

[Hurlshort]

I think you are simplifying war a bit too much. It's impossible to predict the outcome of going to war, but there was a real possibility that not sending in troops would lead to more innocent deaths. With this thinking, the US should have just stayed out of World War II (in fact, they actually did.) Whether you believe Hitler would have been stopped without the US forces or not, it doesn't change the fact that it was a decision that saved lives and was the Christian thing to do.

 

It's not some morale black and white canvas. War is a very difficult minefield for everyone with an ounce of humanity, religious or not. Running a government ain't no cakewalk either.

[Walsingham]

I agree with that there hockey player.

[Hiro Protagonist]

Christians should emulate Jesus, not use the old testament as justification for killing people.

 

You're suggesting Jesus was a man of peace?

[Xard]

He was

[Hiro Protagonist]

He was

 

Despite the fact that he contradicts himself by saying he isn't?

 

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." - Matthew 10:34/35

 

"Then said he unto them, . . . he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." - Luke 22:36

 

There's a lot of contradictions in the Bible. Here's just a few of a lot of contradictions. Should we kill? Has anyone seen God? Does God live in light? Is God peaceable? Is God omnipotent? Does God tempt people? Does God change his mind? Should we steal? Should we tell lies? Was Jesus trustworthy? The answer to these questions is both Yes and No. You can find both Yes answers and No answers.

 

Also, is God good or evil? According to the Bible, different parts of the bible says he is evil and other parts say he is good.

[Walsingham]

Wait, how is this related to science? Science quite definitely (in the form of the selfish gene) argues in favour of ruthless competition including murder etc.

[Hiro Protagonist]

Wait, how is this related to science? Science quite definitely (in the form of the selfish gene) argues in favour of ruthless competition including murder etc.

 

I think religion should stay out of science classes. It doesn't belong. Even Genesis has contradictions with the time when trees were created. In Genesis, one part says trees were created first before humans(1:12-31), another part says trees were created after Adam (2:5-9). Science can correct itself with new facts and we have a better understanding of things. Religion can't correct itself with its many contradictions (eg.the bible). Religion was a good tool to keep the masses in line for hundreds of years because most people didn't have the understanding we have now.

 

BTW, I'm not an athiest. I'm just looking at this at all angles. The problem I see with the bible is that when the bible was put together by men, all the stories were taken from different sources (I would say different cults of christianity) and anything that they didn't like, the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Truth, The dialogue of the Saviour, The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles, On the Origin of the World, (there are over 50 texts), they kept out. There doesn't seem to be any checks which is why you have all these contradictions. I actually like these other texts.

[jaguars4ever]

I don't believe that science should speak to faith. I think they should blow it up with some sort of death ray or sonic device or something. You know, scientific like.

RAmen.

[metadigital]

I'd be happy if people were actually cognizant of science.

[Atreides]

He was

 

Despite the fact that he contradicts himself by saying he isn't?

 

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." - Matthew 10:34/35

Seems like J-Sama is adept at getting forum ppl worked up too. VIOLENCE!!!1

[Sand]

Personally, I think we will eventually Science will be able to explain everything in existence. Eventually. Just because we don't know how something works, or why, does not mean it cannot be explained by science later on. Could a person of the 3rd century know how gravity works in relation to stellar bodies or understand molecular biology? Of course not. Ancient people had to invent gods to explain the unexplainable to quell their fear of the unknown. If some occurance happens that defies our understanding of the world we immediately attribute it to the supernatural.

 

We are wired that way.

 

Just remember Clark's Law (paraphrased): Any sufficiently advanced form of technology is indistinguishable to magic.

 

We invented God, Odin, Zeus, and all the rest because at the time we lacked the understanding of how the universe worked all those thousand of years ago.

[Cantousent]

"...Science will be able to explain everything in existence."

 

If science is just how things work, and everything that exists follows universal laws, then science can't explain everything. For folks who have no god but science, science IS everything. It has no more concern for itself than a rock or a pond. It explains nothing. It just is. Using the man made language of science, man might be able to explain everything in existence. I doubt we'll ever put that to the test, but who knows?

 

If we're asking what should be taught as science, then the answer is most definitely science. We just have to come up with a definition and then teach it. For my part, I'm not against a strict interpretation of the term.

[Xard]

Science isn't and will never be omnipotent nor it will give all the answers.

[Sand]

Science isn't and will never be omnipotent nor it will give all the answers.

 

We will eventually, if we don't kill ourselves off or have a mass extinction level accident, be able to learn all the answers through science. Of course that is assuming that we rid ourselves the shackles of religion that is holding us back.

Edited June 18, 2007 by Sand

[Blank]

I think you are simplifying war a bit too much. It's impossible to predict the outcome of going to war, but there was a real possibility that not sending in troops would lead to more innocent deaths. With this thinking, the US should have just stayed out of World War II (in fact, they actually did.) Whether you believe Hitler would have been stopped without the US forces or not, it doesn't change the fact that it was a decision that saved lives and was the Christian thing to do.

 

It's not some morale black and white canvas. War is a very difficult minefield for everyone with an ounce of humanity, religious or not. Running a government ain't no cakewalk either.

I concede to your point. God will judge I suppose. I just would never want to lead a nation, since it comes with those impossible-to-win decisions.