Jump to content

religion and science cannot be debated


Recommended Posts

meh.. Id just like to respond to a few statements made here.


My point was this: evolution is still a theory, and cannot be proven. So as far as intelligent design is concerned, it can also be classified as a theory in the scientific realm - it is not provable since no one was around at the time of the 'beginning'.


I dont believe this is correct. We find evidence, try to make sense of it. Find more evidence, try to make sense. We find more evidence, arrive at a theory. We try to prove the theory wrong, but we can't. We then find tons and tons of evidence that support our orginal theory. That is how a theory is born.


ID has no evidence or anything of the such. I don't see how it could be classified as a theory. If this can be considered a theory. We must all agree the flying spaghetti monster is also a theory correct?


When science stepped out of its realm of the observation and conclusion of events is when evolution was born. It was a man speculating on something he could not prove (and I'm talking about macro evolution, not micro evolution).


Why did science step out of its realm? Because it eventually led to a theory that went against popular belief? Don't assume a man was speculating. A man was taking a stab at understanding the little evidence that was known at the time. Since this theory was born, the tons of evidence found afterwards all supports this theory. Keep in mind scientist no longer debate whether evolution is true or not. They debate whether certain types of species lived in what area and what time


Geology plays a keep role in understanding because the age of rock is not a guess. It is a FACT we can tell the age of rock based on radiocarbon dating and rock layering to within a couple 10,000 years or so. So we find all types of fossils in rocks dating certain ages and we study how the fossills have changed. We try to make sense of what we have found, not arrive a conclusion and stop.


take a quick look at http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/species.htm

I don't want answers and scientist aren't giving me answers. They are presenting data to us. And lets you make up your own mind whether each of the creatures randomly appeared each few million years or whether a creatures bone structure changed over millions of years based on its enviroment. Notice how the more primative creatures where found earlier and each species resembles more and more like modern day. Now if this was random, I would assume the order be somewhat skewed.

Edited by NOFX
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a FACT we can tell the age of rock based on radiocarbon dating and rock layering to within a couple 10,000 years or so.


Actually Carbon dating cannot be used on rocks or anything that was not "living" at one time. Also - there is a bit of inconsistency with carbon dating due to the unknown carbon content in the atmosphere at those times, etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites



3. Empirical Theology and the Particular


Equally, in its distinctive forms American religious thought has been primitive, practical, problem-oriented, and, most of all, particular. It begins in a jam -- like James’s depression -- and attains theories only as ex post facto ways of fortifying what began as speculative resolutions of the jam. It begins in a moment of history and seeks to get to the next moment of history. Epistemologies, cosmologies, and tests of truth are merely ways to make this solution to history’s moment seem plausible. Further, this mode of religious thought sees each moment of history as creative of new problems, new solutions, new theories, and even of new realities -- for the new solutions enter the stream of events. It is a struggling history, then, that makes history. Even speculative theories, while they are largely originative, also turn out to be largely derivative from a radically empirical appreciation of a largely opaque history.


It is too simple, consequently, to see empirical theology as simply another theology, basing thought on experiences rather than on schemes or reasons, proposing that generalization proceed by induction rather than by deduction, advancing a pluralism in place of a monism, or a naturalism in place of a transcendentalism. This would miss the genius of empirical theology, which is that thought begins in a particular, problematic situation -- so that it is that situation and its particular resolution, rather than the "general" itself, which is at issue. Again, this would make empirical theology merely a variation on foundational or metaphysical forms of theology, whereas empirical theology begins with despair about foundationalism and its concern with generalities. Empirical theology is stuck with the particular, win or lose, and it is this which distinguishes the way in which empirical theologians get on with things.7



here is a good book I spent a semester reading sentence by sentence with some crazy 80 year old professor but very thought provoking


its called "science serving faith" by Henry Nelson Wieman





Towards the close of his long and brilliant career as the preeminent spokesperson for empirical theology, Henry Nelson Wieman (1884-1975) began writing Science Serving Faith , clearly intending it to be his major statement on Christology. This ambitious work would give the fullest expression to his belief that only when science is put to the service of the Christian religion can the revelation of God in Christ be made intelligible so that people can understand this revelation and commit themselves in faith to divine creativity. Before putting the unfinished manuscript aside, Wieman had relatively complete drafts of chapters one through eight, and a sketch of chapter nine. The editors of this volume have now made available one of Wieman's last and most intriguing theological statements.

Edited by w8t4time
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um.. the topic title pretty much sums it all up. You can not tell someone that what his faith and beleive tells him is true, is in fact wrong. Nor can you tell someone that what he knows to be true though observation, trial and error, and peer review, is incorrect.


There have been thousands of different religions in our history. Each one trully believes that they know the Truth. Over time each one has stumbled and been replaced. Christianity is no different. Right now there are hundreds of different flavors, each of them with the Truth. Not to mention the other major religions of the world, with each of them having sole custody of God and the Truth.


At least when a scientist has an idea, he has to prove it. And then present it to the world and let other scientists try and tear it down. This proccess usually resolves itself without much bloodshed.


Religion on the other hand, does not handle that process very well. Religion is a much more powerful and personal thing than science. Religion defines people. That is why the history of religion is one of nearly endless fighting and bloodshed. To question someones religion is to question their place in the world. And well, history tells us that people don't like that much.


So how do you reconcile these two things, science and religion? I don't think you can. But I am a realist. how can I beleive that the Christians have it right? They are no different in their whole hearted beleive in thier God than any other religion was before them. Why are the Hindus wrong? Why isn't Vishnu real? You can't disprove him, just like you can't disprove God. Does that mean they are both real? How would that be possible?


Shrug. Like I said, I agree with the topic title.






Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I find sad is that the truth will be known eventually, and it's gonna shock people. Do I think my theology is totally correct? Absolutely not; my mind is finite. But truth, when it is finally revealed completely, will render all of the seemingly wise arguements (mine included) as rubbish compared to its own absoluteness.


May I never boast about anything, except that I know God, and God is good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Truh is something that doesn't exist. And even if it did, we would not be able to understand it. We can not comprehend infinity. We live in an Universe with out boundrys, it has billions of trillions of stars in it. The Truth would be too vast a concept for us to grasp. That is why religion is based of faith. We could not hope to define or understand an infinite being that was omniscient and omnipotent. That is also why religion fails. It trys to define God. God likes this, God demands this, God wants this. We can not possibly understand the desires and needs of an infinite being. For instance, many bible scholars would claim that unless you accept Jesus Christ as your savior, you will go to hell. Sounds like a rather harsh punishment for the Dahli Lama, or Gahndi, or any number of people of differant faiths that work tirelessly for the poor and disadvataged of this world. But if you do not make your religion THE RELIGION, why should people believe?



Every religion in the world today boils down to two words, "be nice". And yet, with even just that simple message, we fail. If there is a God, how can anyone claim to be worthy to sit at his side for eternity, when we can not follow such a simple request?





Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said it yourself, accept Christ. The point makes Christianity different is that it says we cannot make it to God. Nothing we do can earn us the right to sit with God. God had to earn us that right Himself. That's Christ's purpose on the cross, was to reconcile humanity back to God.


Eternal damnation makes perfect sense if you change the sentancing rules. Sin (imho) is not measured by how "bad" it is, but rather who you've sinned against. You said yourself that God is infinite - the price is infinite.


You're right, God is FAR different than us, and anything that we can imagine. Thank God He's revealed Himself to us, so that we dont have to guess what He's like. Chirsitianity is believing that God exists, and that He is good. If you believe these two things, then the conclusion is to trust Him and what He says.


Right now, as you have said, we dont see everything clearly. Right now it's like looking through a dim and dirty pane of glass. When the truth is revealed is when we will see Him face to face. I'm excited for that day.


edit: God created to for Himself to bring Himself glory. He does not need us, yet He chooses to include us in His will. This blows my mind!

Edited by DarkArchon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your last post quite clearly defines why there can be no debate. Everything is such a circular argument.


I could say that man is fallible. The stories and letters in the bible were writen by man. Man later decided which books and letters to include in the bible, excluding those that they deemed inappropriate. The bible is transcribed and copied by man. The bible is translated by man. Christians look at the bible as Gods word. Man is fallible. The bible can not be taken as the litteral word of God.


Now what a Christian would say is that yes, man is fallible, but that God through man wrote the bible. And since God is infallible, the bible is Gods word.


My reply would be that you have nothing to support that view other than what you have been told by man. Man is fallible.


A Christian would then tell me about how they know God exists because the bible says....


Circular argument. That is why you can not debate a Christian.








As a side point, how self centered is God, that he would send good people to Hell simply because they did not do those good deeds in his name?





Edit > After reading this again I may have come across as a bit harsh. Not my intention. Just getting my juices going, I to debate heh :)

Edited by shaftiel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is one small point missing in that circular logic though: I met God. God has met me personally, and changed me. It was not a booming voice from Heaven, nor was it a literal slap accross the face, but it was real indeed. I would say perhaps more real than anything else I've experienced in life.


Why? Because it transcends what I can see, hear, touch, to something that changes the core of who I am. I dont want to serve myself, put myself up to appear as something great. I want all that I say, all that I do, to be for God. Why? Because He's the only one that deserves my full attention. I certainly dont deserve it - I am fallible.


:) dont worry about coming off as harsh, though thanks for the explanation :) I hope I'm not coming off that way...


As for the side point. God is the only one who is perfect. God is the only one who can, with every right, be 100% self-centred. What did He do though? He sent His Son - the absolute best thing (person) in all of Heaven/Earth to die. And He did this (yes to save me too while I hated Him) to show His nature: He cares for others.


This is the only way we can be reconciled to God, yet we say, "Why cant I be reconciled my own way?", as if the gift of God's own life was not good enough for our standards. Salvation has been earned, the hard part is done, we just have to come back to Him.


One last point (sorry these are so long!):

If people are "good", then why do we alwasy fight the urge to do what is wrong? Shouldnt we be fighting the urge to do what's good every once in a while, and then do wrong? Take a good look at yourself (who ever reads this) and if you're anything like me, the easiest thing to do is step on others for your own glory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that you truly believe in your God. No question, happy you have something you can believe in. However my main argument was that, yes, christians believe in God. They know he exists, and that he his wholly good. Problem is, every single religion that there has ever been, now, in the past, in the future, all of them, had equally fervent followers.


My question to you is, why are Christians right. Simple question. Unfortunatly there is no answer to that. The only answer you could give is that you are right because God is real. And thats no answer at all.


Your answer to how God could damn people of other faiths to Hell, regardless of thier good works, simply because they did not do it in His name seems weak. God is allowed to be self centered? Its just fine for a 'Loving' and 'Caring' God to send undeserving people to eternal torture? Please, when was the last time you went to confesion? Perhaps the Catholics are right. In which case you yourself might end up in Hell, or purgatory. If your a Calvinist then only a set number of people will be allowed in to Heavan. No matter what you do, those 'Elect' have already been predestined. So if they are right you very probably would end up in Hell.


Its all very well and good to simply say, "I know God. God knows me.", but do you? Is your particular schism in possession of the Truth, and all the other Christian schisms are wrong, or in error?


Religion is a tricky and difficult thing. There are no answers. You could be wrong. The Buddist could be right. Funny thing is, that the Jews, Muslims, and Christians all worship the same God. And yet there is such animosity that you would think they didn't. Religion, in all its forms and incarnations, has been one of the most divisive and destructive forces in our world. And yet, as I stated previously, every religion basically says, "Be Nice." Funny that.





Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just finished a great book, "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, that discusses some of these topics from the viewpoint of an atheist. It's a good read, but you have to approach it with an open mind, particularly if you're religious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont want to write a SUPER long one, but the fact that Jesus fulfilled all of the prophecies, etc makes me believe Him alone. Muslims do NOT worship the same God as evangelical Christians, though they claim to. The Bible never takes an old teaching and overrules it, because the scripture is a reflection of God's heart. That's what the Jews missed out on when Jesus, their Messiah came.


We have no other historical books that have so much evidence for its validity (from a scholarly point of view) than the Bible. I've never been to confession, and it is most certainly not from God. It's from a few verses taken out of context, and mis-translations. Jesus Christ is my high priest.


"Schism of Christianity" is an interesting topic for sure. I would define Christian as someone who is a Disciple of Christ. John 14-18 are some of Jesus last words on earth, where He promises to send the Holy Spirit. If you do not possess the Holy Spirit (that is, the very essence of God) than you are not a Christian. The Holy Spirit is the only one who can reveal truth (that is, eternal, spiritual truths, God's Word, etc - illumination). Without the Spirit, spiritual truths cannot be understood. No matter how hard I try to understand God, it's only God Himself who can teach me about Him. This is why spiritual truths seem so rediculous to those who do not have the Spirit.


I feel sorry for Atheists. They simply are not honest with themselves. Anyone who takes a good look at his/her own heart admits that there is at least something beyond us.


Our definition of love/hate/justice is so skewed. An eternal God who is perfect must also be perfectly just. To quote CS Lewis, "All life long people keep saying to God, 'Leave me alone, leave me alone!'. Hell is simply God's way of finally giving them what they've always wanted."


My last point: yes, religions have been absolutely destructive. It's a terrible and horrific shame. Funny though, that Jesus promised that people would come claiming to be from/of Him, yet when judgment comes He'll say, "I never knew you."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...