Posted on 05/10/2009 3:38:17 PM PDT by Kevmo
Francis Collins, former head of the National Human Genome Research Institute and seminal player in sequencing the human genome, has launched a foundation that seeks to reconcile Christian faith with science.
The Washington-based foundation, BioLogos, is funded by the John Templeton Foundation and aims to promote "the search for truth in both the natural and spiritual realms, and seeks to harmonize these different perspectives," according to its website. The BioLogos website also lists several questions (eg. "How does the harshness of evolution align with the idea of a loving God?" and "Can scientific and scriptural truth be reconciled?" and "What role could God have in evolution?") that try to guide Christians through the science behind evolution while interweaving science and religious dogma.
Collins, an evangelical Christian, made waves in the scientific community with his 2006 bestselling book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, and the science blog community has already started to weigh in on the geneticist's latest venture. Early reactions from the blogoshpere? Horror. Shock. And veiled disgust.
Now, Collins's name has been bandied about with regard to the upcoming appointment of a new National Institutes of Health director.
My question is this: Does Collins's role in this foundation (and more generally his efforts to marry science and religion) compromise his ability to lead NIH? Would you pick him as the next head of NIH?
Bob Grant--Associate Editor, The Scientist This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at May/06/2009 10:52:03
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2038869/posts
From the Religion Moderator’s home page,
http://www.freerepublic.com/~religionmoderator/
How the threads are sectioned:
Prayer threads are closed to debate of any kind. Devotional threads are closed to debate of any kind.
Caucus threads are closed to any poster who is not a member of the caucus.
For instance, if it says “Catholic Caucus” and you are not Catholic, do not post to the thread. However, if the poster of the caucus invites you, I will not boot you from the thread. The “caucus” article and posts must not compare beliefs or speak in behalf of a belief outside the caucus.
Ecumenic threads are closed to antagonism.
To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others. Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenic” thread can discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.
More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. For example, the term “gross error” in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic. As another example, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical fact and a legitimate subject for an ecumenic discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.
Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are “for” and not what you are “against.” Or ask questions.
Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” basis. When hostility has broken out on an “ecumenic” thread, I’ll be looking for the source.
Therefore “anti” posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an “anti” or “ex” article under the color of the “ecumenic” tag.
Posters who try to tear down other’s beliefs or use subterfuge to accomplish the same goal are the disrupters on ecumenic threads and will be booted from the thread and/or suspended.
Open threads are a town square. Antagonism though not encouraged, should be expected
Posters may argue for or against beliefs of any kind. They may tear down other’s beliefs. They may ridicule. On all threads, but particularly “open” threads, posters must never “make it personal.” Reading minds and attributing motives are forms of “making it personal.” Making a thread “about” another Freeper is “making it personal.”
When in doubt, review your use of the pronoun “you” before hitting “enter.”
Like the Smoky Backroom, the conversation may be offensive to some.
Thin-skinned posters will be booted from “open” threads because in the town square, they are the disrupters.
If you do not specify the type of thread, it will be considered “open.”
Links and FYI
Here’s the first thread where that happened:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2038869/posts
From the Religion Moderator’s home page,
http://www.freerepublic.com/~religionmoderator/
The Scientist.Com Forum Community
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/forums/list.page
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/forums/show/30.page
Evolving Faith Can Mess With The Mind
Sunday, May 10, 2009 2:57:53 PM · by steve-b · 4 replies · 95+ views
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2248181/posts
Chicago Tribune ^ | 5/11/09 | Kathleen Parker
Science AND religion are inextricably linked. Religion tells us why, science tells us how. Both together reveal the nature of God. To look at one and ignore the other is to willfully remain ignorant of half the aspect of God!
I think it is rational to incorporate both philosophies into one’s outlook.
Link to Biologos website:
http://biologos.org/
One of the best books on this subject was written by two of our very own Alpha Freepers, Alamo Girl and Betty Boop.
Don’t Let Science Get You Down, Timothy: A Light-hearted (but Deadly Serious) Dialogue on Science, Faith, and Culture by Jean Drew and Sandi Venable (Paperback - Jan 27, 2007)
http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Science-Down-Timothy-Light-hearted/dp/1430304693/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241996192&sr=1-1
Buy new: $19.9617 Used & new from $19.11
Get it by Tuesday, May 12 if you order in the next 20 hours and choose one-day shipping.
Eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping.
Good to see that site up and running. As a Christian engineer, educated at a conservative Christian university, I have never seen a problem or conflict between Christianity (or Judaism) and science. It is only when some people mis-apply the Bible (claiming it as a completely inerrant and factual history and textbook) that strife arises.
The Bible is a theological and philosophical work; it is NOT a science textbook. It will not tell us about Maxwell’s equations or atomic shells any more than those equations tell us how to live moral lives!
Mixing religion and science is nothing new, Evolutionists have been doing it for long time now.
This is way above my pay grade
bump
bump!
Thank you so very much for remembering our book, dear Kevmo!
You wrote of those who mis-apply the Bible: “claiming it as a completely inerrant and factual history...”
I would ask what is your take on Genesis chapters 1-11. Factual history or not? Note the genealogies and time frames.
I would also ask if you understand the book of Revelation as accurate, particularly when it talks about judgment and eternity. Are these facts...or something else?
Wow, here’s a revival from the past...
I would say that parts of Genesis chapters 1-11 are factual, and a lot is also allegorical or illustrative. For example, who witnessed Creation? Was it revealed inspiration? And if so, which version of the Bible is correct?
Additionally, where did Cain’s wife come from? A literal reading of any version of the Bible is explicit - there are NO births recorded between that of Abel and Seth (Cain’s son). And there are only two recorded births before that - Cain and Abel. So where did Cain’s wife come from?
Revelations is apocrypha; I do not take it literally, but as figurative as how the end of the world will happen. Will there be literally four horsemen riding the earth, and multi-headed dragons? No. But pestilence, death, war, famine will go around the world, and there will be an entity of pure evil (I personally believe it to be Islam, with the multiple-heads representing different countries).
My point in asking the question is simple. On what basis do you decide which parts of the Bible you take literally, and which you don’t? What is your hermeneutical principle?
For instance, do you believe there was a literal flood, that destroyed all people in the world except those on the ark, as Peter did (1 Peter 3:20 and 2 Peter 3:3-6)?
Do you believe there was a virgin birth? On what basis?
Do you believe Jesus lived a sinless live? Why?
Do you believe the resurrection? Is that a literal account or figurative statement?
The New Testament writers did not undermine the literal nature of the Old Testament accounts in their plain reading, including the recorded words of Jesus.
To answer your questions:
1. The Creator witnessed creation, and revealed it to Moses to record for posterity.
2. The original autographs of Scripture are inspired and without error, no translation is error free, but honest translations are still the Word of God. Consider that Jesus quoted the Septaguint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, and applied it to Himself as Scripture.
3. Cain’s wife was likely either a direct creation of God, or his sister, neither of which possibilities are recorded as God did not think it necessary for us to know. Many births are NOT recorded in Scripture.
4. I understand there is figurative language in the Apocrypha (Revelation), specifically designed to reveal the Lord to us, and things that will come to pass. My question for you had to do specifically with whether you believe individuals will stand before the judgment seat(s) of Christ and God, as revealed in 2 Corinthians 5:10 and Revelation 20:11-15? Do you believe in a new heaven and earth with no more sea (Revelation 21:1), or is this figurative language for you?
If your own finite, fallible, personal judgment/intellect is not your basis for deciding which parts of the Bible to literally believe, and which parts to “literally” reject, what is the criteria you use to decide?
Here’s the thing: for me, the literal truth isn’t as important as the spiritual truth. Did everyone die in a flood as Noah’s story talks about? Does it really matter? Personally, what I find more important is that one time God decided to destroy those who did not follow his commands, and saved those who did. That is the important part of the story.
For me, the “factual, historical record” isn’t that important. We already know that the Bible - even the earliest Aramaic copies - consists of dozens, if not hundreds, of generations of verbal copies. Was there no error in all those telling and retelling, especially as the meaning of words change?
Consider what the word “gay” means. What it means today is radically different than what it meant - in the common vernacular - in the 1920s. Language evolves and changes.
As far as Creation and Cain’s wife, if the Bible does not contain the details of Cain’s wife, is it possible that the Bible does not contain the details of how God created everything? That maybe the details aren’t important, because the important part is that God created all?
Essentially, I choose NOT to hold the words of the Bible as factually and exactly inerrant as the spoken, 100% correct words of God. Why? We don’t have the original manuscripts. We have dozens of translations all with small changes in tense and verbiage which all slightly shade the meaning of the literal words. So wouldn’t these translations be, in effect, heresy?
Anyway, I don’t place so much emphasis on the exact words of the Bible, as I believe that’s not its purpose. It’s the spirituality behind it that matters.
Otherwise, we end up making up our own facts, like where did Cain’s wife come from, and we end up trying to decide which translation of the Bible is “correct”.
The fact is, they are ALL correct, because they all tell about how God created us, how He loves us, and how He wants a relationship with us.
I don’t know if I get your actual meaning, though I think I understand your sentiment.
When you separate literal truth from spiritual truth, what do you mean?
For instance, when Jesus says “destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” is he speaking of a literal, physical resurrection of his body, or a spiritual one, or something else?
When the prophet says “a virgin shall conceive” does he mean a woman that is pure in mind, or somehow spiritually pure, or does he mean a woman who has never had sex with a man?
When Jesus speaks of resurrected bodies for believers, is this a physical resurrection, and will we have glorified bodies, or we will we simply be somehow existing as disembodied entities in some state of eternal spiritual bliss?
If the “high profile” targets of the Old Testament cannot be believed (creation and the flood), how can the more palatable (He loves us, and He wants a relationship with us) spiritual truths be accepted so readily.
How can I trust a God who would lie to me about how He made me (humanity) and destroyed the world, save eight people, when He tells me He loves me and sent His Son to save me?
Restated, how do I know which statements of God from the Bible to believe, and which not to believe?
How, specifically, do you choose which statements, or “spiritual” truths, from the Bible to believe...and which “literal” truths (or statements) to reject?
What criteria do you use so as not to “end up making up (y)our own facts?”
Well, a LITERAL reading would be the physical temple in Jerusalem! Jesus was speaking metaphorically, which is what I believe most of the stories in the Old Testament (especially Genesis, as it happened well before the earliest written records) to be. Metaphors, examples, parables. Not a hard, literal reading.
Now, about his actual resurrection, I believe it was a transcended resurrection - spiritual and physical (as needed). Just like the duality of Jesus: fully God AND fully man. It's pretty clear that His body wasn't always "normal" when He returned; Mary Magdalene didn't realize it was Him until he spoke! And yet He still bore the wounds, so that Thomas could be challenged.
I believe His resurrected body took whatever form was needed to deliver the message and encouragement as needed. Much like the Bible; the actual physical placement of the words or order of the books is irrelevant because it is the message within that matters.
When Jesus speaks of resurrected bodies for believers, is this a physical resurrection, and will we have glorified bodies, or we will we simply be somehow existing as disembodied entities in some state of eternal spiritual bliss?
Does it matter? Does it matter if you have a physical or spiritual body when you are in the presence of God? Do we become enamored with the idea of maintaining physical bodies when we are resurrected because it's what we're comfortable/expect/can relate to?
If the “high profile” targets of the Old Testament cannot be believed (creation and the flood), how can the more palatable (He loves us, and He wants a relationship with us) spiritual truths be accepted so readily.
Because the high profile targets simply add support to the spiritual/philosophical message of the Bible! The fact that God created us, that He would keep good men (Noah) from harm, that He would protect His people. Did Samson actually use just the jawbone of an ass to kill 10,000? Hey, is it any less impressive if he used a club and killed 100? Either way it could only happen because God gave him the strength.
How can I trust a God who would lie to me about how He made me (humanity) and destroyed the world, save eight people, when He tells me He loves me and sent His Son to save me?
Is God lying? God is only lying if you accept the words as you receive as literal, inerrant. I do not believe that was ever the intended role of the Bible! It was never meant to be a 100% word-for-word dictate from God, like muslims believe of the Koran from Allah.
In fact, if you DO hold that position, then can you tell me which Bible is correct? Is it the Protestant Bible? Or perhaps the Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox canon that is correct? Because they all have different books in them, and if the exact words are important, then we have some SERIOUS problems.
Furthermore, if you can answer that, then which translation is correct? Look at my earlier example with the word "gay". How are you 100% sure that back when Moses and others started writing things down that the word 'day' simply meant a 24 hour period? Perhaps day meant that BUT was also used as "length of a task", with rise and fall of the sun meaning starting and ending of a task?
And we are left with VERY difficuly questions, such as who was Cain's wife? The Bible is VERY explicit about who was made by God (Adam and Eve), and that they bore two children: Cain and Abel. And then Cain killed Abel, was banished, and then married - who? It's not recorded, so does that mean it did not happen, that he married no one?
How is that different than assuming things like the process of evolution - it's not recorded so it didn't happen? Or is the actual process of creation irrelevant, because what matters is that God created?
Restated, how do I know which statements of God from the Bible to believe, and which not to believe?
Any statement about spirituality, philosophy, morality are to be believed. Does it change the teachings of Christ if he only fed 4,500 with 5 loaves of bread and two fish, versus 5,000 men? Does it make the miracle of Daniel any less important if he was in a den with just one lion versus many?
Those details are NOT the point of the Bible! They are merely means of conveying that which is important - that Jesus' words and actions can feed everyone, and that God will protect His chosen people.
How, specifically, do you choose which statements, or “spiritual” truths, from the Bible to believe...and which “literal” truths (or statements) to reject?
All spiritual truths are to be believed; when you do that, do the literal "truths" matter? My faith does not need physical concrete proof to exist, for the word faith itself implies believing something that cannot be proven!
Once you accept the spiritual truths revealed in the Bible, the issues of physical reality become essentially irrelevant. And we - as Christians - can focus on the preaching of the early church and Paul and Peter; providing encouragement and support and instruction to new believers, not debating "was it 6 literal days" or "was it 7 shouts at Jericho".
In fact, I believe it debases Christianity and a person's faith therein to try to find physical, concrete "proof" of what happened. It says a lot about the strength of that faith...
I'm comfortable saying that God created everything, and that He did it in the way that worked according to His will. Was that evolution or direct creation? Doesn't matter. It may have been the former, it may have been the latter. My faith does not hinge on that!
In fact, if you want to talk about "lies", then why would God set up a universe with specific, hard physical laws and then immediately set about violating them when He created all? To mislead unbelievers? To confuse His people?
What criteria do you use so as not to “end up making up (y)our own facts?”
I don't make up my facts...;) I don't try to figure out and explain where Cain's wife came from, for example! Rather, the exact "facts" - especially about Genesis - are irrelevant! What do they matter? Is the story of Genesis made worthless if the flood of Noah wasn't the ENTIRE world we know of today, but only the "world" that Noah knew of - perhaps 100-200 miles in radius? And does either change the truth that God saved the righteous man?
Effectively, my approach is to look at the lesson/story/spiritual truth that God is trying to reveal in all the stories in the Bible. And then learn from those. The details of the physical actions as recorded are not important in this light.
Since you have divorced the “spiritual truths” of the Bible from space-time history (Francis Schaeffer’s expression), then you are free to “create” your own views of reality...including a shape-shifting “resurrected” Jesus!
For instance, you wrote: “Those details are NOT the point of the Bible!”
Following your logic...
What does it matter if Jesus even fed anyone (let alone 5000 men) with loaves and fishes?
What does it matter if Samson even existed?
What does it matter if there ever was a cross, or even if there was a Jesus to die on it?
These are simply details of a supposed historical account, not to be taken literally in your view.
Why would there even be a Bible, which a supposedly historical Jesus purportedly declared to be the very words of God, and reportedly constantly appealed to? Why isn’t there just some simple statement I love you and want a relationship with you...wouldn’t that be more helpful?
This has been an illuminating discussion.
I’m sorry, I think you may misunderstand... That Jesus rose as a physical, living body is not in dispute; that we may be resurrected in Christ with physical bodies is what I say is irrelevant.
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.