Skip to comments.Breaking the Cease-Fire Between Science and Religion
Posted on 07/09/2009 6:45:37 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator
What is portrayed as the debate between religion and science feels increasingly like watching the very bitter dissolution of a doomed marriage. The relationship started out all roses and kisses, proceeded to doubts and regrets, then fights and silences, a mutually agreed separation, and finally to curses and maledictions: I wish you were dead!
In a recent Wall Street Journal opinion article, cosmologist Lawrence Krauss declared the inconsistency of belief in an activist god with modern science. Krausss essay was the latest eruption of a vituperative argument going on in the scientific community over accommodationism.
Accommodationists hold that even atheists should present science to the public as an intellectual activity compatible with religion. Critics of this position include those like University of Chicago biologist Jerry Coyne, who lashes out at the accommodationists because, as he wrote in an essay in The New Republic, a true harmony between science and religion requires either doing away with most peoples religion and replacing it with a watered-down deism, or polluting science with unnecessary, untestable, and unreasonable spiritual claims.
On the accommodationist side, there are forlorn figures like science journalist Chris Mooney. In a new book, Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future (Basic Books), Mooney chides popular blogger and University of Minnesota biologist P.Z. Myers, an ebullient atheist, for publicly desecrating a Catholic communion wafer an incredibly destructive and unnecessary act, Mooney complains, exacerbating tension between the scientific community and many American Christians.
Anti-accommodationists like bestselling atheist biologist Richard Dawkins, meanwhile, charge the accommodationists with hypocrisy. Says Dawkins in a recent documentary, They are mostly atheists, but they are wanting to desperately wanting to be friendly to mainstream, sensible religious people. And the way you do that is to tell them that theres no incompatibility between science and religion. The debate seems to come down to whether religious people are potentially useful idiots, or simply idiots.
Of course, it wasnt always like this. The origins of modern science, from about 1300 onward, were overwhelmingly religious. Isaac Newton regarded the universe as a cryptogram set by the Almighty, in John Maynard Keyness phrase. Scientists from Copernicus to Kepler, Boyle, Linnaeus, Faraday, Kelvin and Rutherford all sought to understand God through His creation. Because nature was the product of a mind acting freely, it made sense to them to try to understand that mind through its actions.
In his new book Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperOne), my Discovery Institute colleague Stephen Meyer writes about his days as a Ph.D student at Cambridge University, contemplating the entrance to the great Cavendish Laboratory where Watson and Crick elucidated the structure of DNAs double helix. In 1871, Christian physicist James Clark Maxwell had instructed that the great door be ennobled by an inscription in Latin from the book of Psalms: Great are the works of the Lord, sought out by all who take pleasure therein.
On a crash course with this tradition, however, was the Enlightenment narrative, with its insistence that science is destined to push religion to the margins of intellectual life. A turning point came with the triumph of Darwins evolutionary theory, purposefully excluding God, over the evolutionary thinking of Darwins contemporaries, including such scientific allies as Charles Lyell, Asa Gray and Alfred Russel Wallace, who saw a role for divine creativity in lifes history. In another new book, The Darwin Myth: The Life and Lies of Charles Darwin (Regnery), Benjamin Wiker tells this story well. With Darwins victory, envisioning a universe without design or purpose, God seemed on the way to being banished from scientific thought.
Over the ensuing century and a half, tension built as the logical consequences for religion became harder to deny. Yet a détente was generally upheld. In 1999, Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould summed up its terms as a kind of truce under the acronym NOMA, or Non-overlapping magisteria.
In this view, science and religion occupy totally separate realms of inquiry. Science is about facts, about reality, while religion is about values. Religion should be respected if it makes no claim to describe anything real and agrees not to challenge any idea accepted by most scientists.
Yet even the terms of NOMA are now being withdrawn. Today in academia, a believer like Evangelical Christian genome scientist Francis Collins, or like Catholic biologist Kenneth Miller at Brown University, can count on being ridiculed by the anti-accommodationists. In academia, where reputation is everything, you would not want to be an ambitious young scientist in their mold.
This is despite the fact that both men strenuously deny that there can be any empirical evidence of Gods creativity in nature. Still faithful to NOMA, they affirm that the history of life could have produced intelligent creatures very different from human beings for God to enter into a relationship with. Perhaps a big-brained dinosaur, or a mollusk with exceptional mental capabilities, as Miller has speculated, surrendering the basic Judeo-Christian belief that the human face and body mysteriously reflect the image of a non-corporeal God.
That may sound as if weve come to a final parting of the ways between science and religion. However, it all depends on what you have in mind when you speak of science.
Must religion indeed accommodate any scientific idea even if the idea is wrong, even if its bad science, ideologically motivated in its origins, intended to explain nature specifically with the view of keeping God out? If thats what science requires, then of course there can be no reconciliation.
But remember alongside the secular Enlightenment view of science, there runs a parallel tradition, seeking to explain nature without preconceptions, secular or otherwise. That way of thinking still exists among individual scientists, though it is in need of a good revival. With that tradition older, grander, more open-minded, even more enlightened, you could say there is no need for a truce with faith, no need for a separation, no need for a divorce.
David Klinghoffer, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, writes the Kingdom of Priests blog at Beliefnet.
Hmmm. I don't know what Judeo-Christianity (who or whatever that is) taught you but here is what the Bible says:
Before the resurrection, when Christ clearly was flesh and bone: John 14:9 - "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father."
After the resurrection, same flesh and bone: Luke 24:39 - "Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost (pneuma or 'spirit') does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."
Who (or what) is the Judeo-Christianity that taught you?
I see an assertion, but no argument or evidence.
Anyone know what his argument or evidence was to support that statement?
Or does it simply depend on his use of the word 'activist' and the definition thereof?
I suppose that the atom (three particles combined into one quantum entity) isn't empirical evidence of the Trinity?
“The light shined into the darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not”
“Of course, it wasnt always like this”.
But you wouldn’t know that from the posts from the cultists here who were thoroughly indoctrinated by the mess that is public schools, ruined by the ACLU and NEA with their ideology of multiple God hang-ups.
Of course, it wasnt always like this.
But you wouldnt know that from the posts from the cultists here who were thoroughly indoctrinated by the mess that is public schools, ruined by the ACLU and NEA with their ideology of multiple God hang-ups.
Recall as well that these same groups that attack "rednecks" for not kissing the backside of Lord Science are the same who have praised the mythologies of the "oppressed indigenous pipples" to the skies and have worshiped the "noble savage" for as long as they've scorned the Biblical G-d. In fact, don't they blubber about how the IP's should never have had their beliefs changed by contact with the "west" in the first place? But they sure want "Bible-thumpers" beliefs changed, don't they?
Huh? That made my head hurt..
Accommodationists hold that even atheists should present science to the public as an intellectual activity compatible with religion. Critics of this position include those like University of Chicago biologist Jerry Coyne, who lashes out at the accommodationists because, as he wrote in an essay in The New Republic, "a true harmony between science and religion requires either doing away with most people's religion and replacing it with a watered-down deism, or polluting science with unnecessary, untestable, and unreasonable spiritual claims."
Liberals are a really really sick lot.
I did not realize that "The Jewish Daily Forward" was a Discovery Institute publication. Nor did I realize that the "tentacles" of the Discovery Institute reached from Seattle to New York.
Three independent entities becoming one entity? When combined into an atom, the neutron, proton and electron essentially lose their individual identities and become a single quantum entity. Outside the atom, each particle can exist independently with particular properties.
Seems like the perfect, scientifically-empirical representation of the Trinity to me. The very thing both Collins and Miller deny the existence of.
“Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.”
Please tell me that you’re really not THAT simple!
You apparently, like many others, can’t seem to grasp even MINOR metaphors!
Your second quote has absolutely NOTHING to do with the subject.
Except the concept of ‘three entities’ as being part of an atom is the third grade version. There are actually six “flavours” quarks: up, down, bottom, top, strange, and charm;
, six types of leptons: electron, electron neutrino, muon, muon neutrino, tauon, tauon neutrino; and twelve gauge bosons (force carriers): the photon of electromagnetism, the three W and Z bosons of the weak force, and the eight gluons of the strong force. Composite subatomic particles (such as protons or atomic nuclei) are bound states of two or more elementary particles. For example, a proton is made of two up quarks and one down quark, while the atomic nuclei of helium-4 is composed of two protons and two neutrons. Composite particles include all hadrons. These, in turn, are composed of baryons (e.g., protons and neutrons) and mesons (e.g., pions and kaons).
Here we see how man imposes his number (the number 6) on creation. Quarks do not exist naturally, but are a product of man's efforts. Notice the emergence of the occult with the naming of the 'strange' and 'charm' quarks.
"and twelve gauge bosons (force carriers): the photon of electromagnetism, the three W and Z bosons of the weak force, and the eight gluons of the strong force. Composite subatomic particles (such as protons or atomic nuclei) are bound states of two or more elementary particles. For example, a proton is made of two up quarks and one down quark, while the atomic nuclei of helium-4 is composed of two protons and two neutrons. Composite particles include all hadrons. These, in turn, are composed of baryons (e.g., protons and neutrons) and mesons (e.g., pions and kaons)."
Also notice the emergence of certain Biblical numbers. 12 being the number of divine government, 8 being the number of resurrection, 6 being the number of man or the flesh and 4 being the number of creation. Notice that life is carbon-based and carbon is element number 6. It also has 4 bonds. Matter has 4 natural states and there are 4 forces.
"Except the concept of three entities as being part of an atom is the third grade version."
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualitieshis eternal power and divine naturehave been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools..."
Perhaps I am not the one who is simple.
"You apparently, like many others, cant seem to grasp even MINOR metaphors!"
You apparently, like many others, can't seem to grasp even obvious truth.
"Your second quote has absolutely NOTHING to do with the subject."
Sure it does. Flesh and bone in a corporeal, resurrected body. The very thing you deny.
I see, you are into numerology and the ilk.. sorry, that is a type of religion I can’t comment on... I thought we where talking about Christianity here.. my bad..
No, numerology is something completely different than what I presented. In both Hebrew and Greek, letters have numerical values and so do words. As a result, certain numerical concepts arise quite naturally. We also have certain numerical values arising from the text independent of letter and word values. 12 apostles, 12 tribes, man created on the 6th day, the Trinity (3), 4 corners of the earth, 4 seasons, etc.
But I see that you used the 'ilk' word, so it's clear that your mind is already closed.
"sorry, that is a type of religion I cant comment on... I thought we where talking about Christianity here.. my bad."
Clearly this is based on your particular understanding and definition of Christianity. To conclude that we are not talking about Christianity simply because it doesn't meet your definition is your bad...
For example, do you know what the number 153 stands for? Did they teach you that in Christianity class or did your teachers even know what it meant so that they could teach you?
It is numerology when you take it out of the Biblical context and try to use it with every form it takes if it suits your purpose.. but hey, that’s cool.. if that’s your form of religion, we are all free. I know some ‘Christians’ who even use Tarot cards just like you use number, and find Biblical justification for it..
I am laughing you brought up 153 because I’ve seen a lot of people who use numerology use this, just like 11:11. 153 is one of those mathematical numbers that have unique attributes (look up “happy cube”) Some people like to make a Biblical symbol out of it because in John, that is how many fish where caught.. when, instead of a symbol, it could just happen to be how many fish where caught.
If you start getting into the whole 9 is the Holy Spirit, 17 is the earth, 153 is 9 x 17, then you have reached into well beyond Biblical territory and into, sorry to tell you, pure numerology. Just because you stick God’s name on it doesn’t make it any less so.
But all that is between you and God.. for folks on a forum, it is just an indicator on how seriously to take your posts in the future.