And then there's this:

Which is it? Christians must reconcile with science, or science must be altered to appease Christians?

Your highlighted portion supports the article.

I'm sorry you are unable to understand the objection. I do not believe it is worth my time to explain any further to you.

... again.

But I do love looking at trains.

God gave us logic and reason and God meant for us to use our brains.

Just sayin'.

This is all about trying to have it both ways. It's also about religious privilege and how you reserve the right to "wall off" certain beliefs and say that we aren't allowed to go there. It's the exact same tactic fundamentalists use to protect their whackadoodle nonsense, too. When people say that moderates like you enable the fundies, this is exactly what they're referring to.

You have a problem with that, that's fine.

For instance, I have heard homilies which affirm that science explains HOW God created -- through the process of evolution -- and the opening Books of the Bible explain WHY God created.

I think that it is only literalists (those who cannot accept that the Bible uses many forms of literature, such as poetry, ancient Hebrew and Aramaic idioms, and so forth) and rigid adherents of (almost) cult-like Christian sects who struggle with acceptance of science. If I'm sick, I pray AND I see my doctor. Good science and authentic faith can -- and usually do -- walk hand in hand.

I'm pretty sure that I remember this quote of Einstein accurately -- "Science without religion is lame. And religion without science is blind."

I agree. Many Christians, and Christian who are scientists, can easily reconcile faith and science.

But many insist on a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible.

Yes - It's those literalists that concern me. In religion and in life. For them, there's never any nuance, no ambiguity, no mystery. It seems to drive them to rigidity. Not a happy place.

The RCC, while accepting of the general principle of evolution, still refuses to accept the entire theory.

They believe that at some point along the evolutionary path to modern humans, their god intervened and gave humans "souls." This is not supported by any science.

then God infused the human soul. In explaining that, the process of evolution is never denied. They do accept -- and teach -- unadulterated evolution in science classes in their schools.. It is in their religion and theology classes that they address the concept of the soul. Just for clarification.

They've corrupted the science to make room for their religious beliefs.

That's my point.

When in science class, evolution is taught whole and entire without any reference to the soul. Students are asked to accept it as a demonstrable FACT.

When these same students go to their theology class, the concept of the soul is explained. Students are asked to accept it as a BELIEF. A person cannot be forced to believe.

A grade can be given for knowledge of scientific fact. It cannot be given for belief or non-belief.

But they also don't accept evolution as a complete theory on the origin of human beings.

They distinguish between science and faith. They are not at all the same thing. They teach evolution - period. In an entirely different class, they teach about the existence of the soul. They also teach mathematics. And in a different class, they teach about Jesus. They teach geography. And in a different class they teach about moral decisions.

To reiterate - They do not conflate science and faith. They are each treated separately. There is no Christian evolution. It's just evolution. It is indistinguishable from the evolution as taught in any other school or university. Really.

Sorry to drone on, but this is a really important reality. Thanks for your patience.

in order to make us "human."

That isn't evolution. Sorry.

No fault. No foul. We don't agree, and that's fine. I'll bet we agree that the Mueller Report should be released IMMEDIATELY!

No offense, and we agree on the Mueller report, but the Catholic Church teaches that evolution alone cannot explain the existence of human beings. That statement is 100% pure fact.

Some, perhaps, but not all. Besides, the concept of ensoulment has no evidence to support it at all.

to explain the origin of human beings.

Ergo, they do not fully support the science.

the beginning of life on earth. Or how the earth came into existence.

That's the part that means they don't fully accept evolution as an explanation for the origin of human beings, which is what I said.

Abiogenesis is the theory about how life itself arose.

religious belief that doesn't conflict with Darwin's theory about the origins of biological life.

You still have not countered my point, which is that your church does not accept evolution as a complete explanation for the origin of human beings. "God" has to add some magic to make a human being. That's not science.

You might want to read the entire interview of Einstein you are paraphrasing from. I’m not sure you’ll find what you want to hear from it as he offers a considerable amount of criticism of religion. At the time the RCC and other religious groups dismissed it as heresy.

And I realize that Einstein was critical of religion. I'm not looking for absolute affirmation from Einstein. Just thought his statement indicated that he could conceive of some form of non-hostile co-existence between science and faith. But I appreciate your comments.

His point was from the origins of religion, part of the motivation was curiosity about the origins of the cosmos. His point was religionists should see science in that regard, but quite often they do not. This is as true today as it was during his time.

As far as the RCC goes, are they as bad as evangelicals who present their hocus pocus as an “alternative” to science? No, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t providing cover to those who do.

The RCC accepts that the universe is around 13.7 billion years old. It rejects the concept of a 6,000 year old planet as silly.

It accepts that evolution is a reliable explanation of current biological reality. It has its own perception of the existence of the human soul, but it does not interfere with the science of biological evolution.

Ete.

It's definitely true that in the past, some of its positions relied on a form of biblical literalism, and anyone with a modicum of education is aware of this, but currently, it is a strong critic of such literal interpretations today.

I don't mind disagreements on perceptions, but facts are essential. The RCC has its own problems, but acceptance of current cosmological science isn't one of them.

...which in fact takes no official position.

The idea of theistic evolution isn’t the same thing as natural evolution. The RCC still teaches all humans are descendants of Adam and Eve and does take the position that anything else is blasphemy. So while the RCC kinda sorta no longer directly contradicts the Theory of Evolution, neither do they contradict YEC. As I said, the best you can say about them is they provide cover for the YEC crowd, many of which are Catholics.

Religion, on the other hand, doesn't fare so well, so it has adapted itself to scientific explanations of what is wrong with literalism in scriptures.

Science, however, has no need for religion at all to explain things, even things for which an explanation has not yet been found. Interesting, that.

I think I'll stick with the option that is still looking for answers and finding them.

Science need not reconcile with religion. It can operate independently of fables.

please let us all know.

Unlike religion, science is evidence-based and falsifiable. If there is no evidence, science makes no claims.

Show me your evidence of religion. Religion is based completely on claims that lack any evidence at all.

Bye, now.

The point of the post is that it would be helpful if some religious groups who are hostile to science -- inexplicably, on my opinion -- could open themselves to the reality of science.

Instead, some religionist is claiming that religion must reconcile with science. The converse is simply not necessary.

No biggie!

After all, Science deals with the real world and how things really are. Religion is made-up stories and morality-tales.

No one has ever brought him up before. How novel of you. I have obviously been wrong all this time. I now believe in God. BRB, going to church.

So I went to a bar and porno shop instead. Looks like I'm an atheist again.

I did not know there were still porno shops. I thought it was all online now...I'm really old and out of touch, I guess.

Come on, man. Get with the times.

Both are available for same-day delivery. One needn't leave the Internet to find whatever rocks your boat.

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=ball+gag
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=brownie+mix

All the churches near me offer some kind of mid week snack for the spiritual soul.

People work, you see, so those gatherings have to accommodate.

Choir practice, too, is often on Wednesday. A break in the tedium of the week. The DU Atheist's Choir, however, meets on Thursdays, at a location to be announced. We keep that location known only to the members, themselves, to prevent our many groupies from showing up and interrupting our rehearsals with seductive antics. Any meetings with groupies must occur on non-practice days, for everyone's peace of mind.

they do things early. They used to have a 7 o'clock sunday service for them. They were like a mysterious group who were only spoken of in hushed tones, and the only proof they existed was when one of them stayed late to help with the coffee and doughnuts for the normal people.

I didn't go to Church. I made it a block down the street, figured I had time to stop by the bar and, well, I got a little side tracked.

If you're having any kind of health problems, you may not want to ask for that.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060403133554.htm

Prayers Don't Help Heart Surgery Patients; Some Fare Worse When Prayed For

Right now, I'm doing very well, in terms of my health. At least for a 73-year-old man. No worries.

The really true Christians are taking back the US from the radical ultra-liberal pro-abortion democrat socialists. The land of the free - you know, where there is liberty and justice for all - is being wrestled back from the demon possessed Obama groupies who Satan forced into power for those horrible eight years when some people actually hinted that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old.

Collins is obviously a plant by the left wing atheist devil worshipers; won't be long before Trump, Sekulow and the true patriot Jesus followers will see through the farce, and send him packing.

A nice parody of what some actually believe.

Do Christians bring added value to science?

Absolutely. If you go back in history, you’ll see that an awful lot of scientific revelation of the past many centuries has been conducted by Christians because Christians have this sense of awe of God the creator, the fact that God created an ordered universe that could be understood. That’s why Christianity has been the cradle of so many scientists in the past, because of this opportunity through science to worship a God of order.

Tell that to Galileo, Bruno, Darwin....

Western civilization has largely been Christian, so the culture most western Scientist come from is Christian, but for the most part Christianity has been a deterrence to science.

Added value my ass.

There have been plenty of scientists over the years who go to church and seemingly have religious faith, yet are good scientists and do not intermix their religion with science. I know some of these folks. I think this is possible because of how science and religion have coexisted in the West since the Enlightenment.

That is, science deals with knowledge of the natural, and uses things like facts, observations, evidence. Religion deals with matters of ethics, metaphysics, rituals, "the supernatural". And they generally do not try to infringe on each others sphere of influence.

Of course, there are exceptions, and setbacks. The Scopes monkey trial comes to mind, as well as modern attempts to remove evolution from textbooks (or insert intelligent design). And then occasionally we have a scientist write a provacatively titled book like "The God Delusion". These are skirmishes in what is otherwise a longstanding, uneasy truce between science and religion.

If I may read something into what Dr. Collins is saying, I think it is this: Let's keep this truce going. Let science deal with matters of science, and religion deal with matters of religion.

And he is saying it to those who are highly likely to choose their religion over science, if they view it as a binary choice. Overall, I view this as a positive thing. And I say that as someone who believes that we will be better off as a species when we can leave religion behind. We aren't ready for that yet, but we can get there, gradually.

Many theists, myself among them, see no contradiction between religion and science. Any battle, as you said, arises because some feel that only one side can be chosen.

I received 17 years of education in RCC institutions, and even back in the dark ages of my youth, evolution was taught in biology.

Last edited Fri Apr 5, 2019, 05:11 PM - Edit history (1)

https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/scientists_lemaitre.html

Monsignor Georges Lemaître was a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, physicist and astronomer. He is usually credited with the first definitive formulation of the idea of an expanding universe and what was to become known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, which Lemaître himself called his “hypothesis of the primeval atom” or the “Cosmic Egg”.

Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître was born on 17 July 1894 at Charleroi, Belgium. After a classical education at a Jesuit secondary school, the Collège du Sacré-Coeur in Charleroi, he began studying civil engineering at the Catholic University of Leuven (Louvain) at the age of 17. In 1914, he interrupted his studies to serve as an artillery officer in the Belgian army for the duration of World War I, at the end of which he received the Military Cross with palms.

After the war, Lemaître studied physics and mathematics, and simultaneously began to prepare for priesthood. He obtained his doctorate in 1920 and was ordained a priest in 1923. That same year, he became a graduate student in astronomy at the University of Cambridge in England, working with Arthur Eddington, who initiated him into modern cosmology, stellar astronomy and numerical analysis. He spent 1924 at Harvard College Observatory in Massachusetts, U.S.A., and at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In 1925, he returned to Belgium and became a part-time lecturer (and later a full-time professor) at the Catholic University of Leuven, where he remained for the rest of his career.

In 1927, he discovered a family of solutions to Einstein's field equations of relativity that described not a static universe, but an expanding universe (as, independently, had the Russian Alexander Friedmann in 1922). The report which would eventually bring him international fame, entitled “A homogeneous universe of constant mass and growing radius accounting for the radial velocity of extragalactic nebulae” in translation, was published later in 1927 in the little known journal “Annales de la Société Scientifique de Bruxelles”. In this report, he presented his new idea of an expanding universe, and also derived the first statement of what would later become known as Hubble’s Law (that the outward speed of distant objects in the universe is proportional to their distance from us), and provided the first observational estimation of the Hubble constant.

SNIP

And, amazingly enough, he was able to reconcile his faith and his science.

...but the Evangelicals seem to define themselves by their opposition to rationality and critical thought. Not sure there’s any there there.

And some insist on a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible.