The Co-existence of Science and Theology

11/21/2007 12:18:21 PM · #526

Originally posted by Phil:

The old "religion has done more harm to the world than anything" argument. The problem with that is that if these nutjobs didn't do it in the name of God they would find something else to take responsibility. Maybe a giant turtle?

And that argument in return sort of conveniently overlooks all of the things that were done in the name of God that were MAINSTREAM at the time.

Like the Aztecs and the Spanish Inquisition.

Re: The Inquisition(s) that covered damn near 1000 years total: Note Medieval, Portugese, Episcopal, Roman, Papal, Goa, and Spanish.....and the little factoid lower down about the Protestants have burned MANY more women at the stake than the Catholics.....

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition

//whgbetc.com/mind/inquisition.html

A link to the a dcree from "THE SUPREME SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE" which is missing those last three ever-so-informative words "Of the Inquisition" which is *STILL* alive and well!

IMNSHO, the Cathoilic Church is the largest and oldest terrorist organization in the world.

Anyone here *NOT* know someone whom you believe to be a good person that's plagued (Pun intended) by some perceived irredeemable sin.....like divorce or birth control, two things that are strictly perception, and certainly neither realistic or responsible in this day and age.

Old argument? Yeah......so're the killings in the name of all that's holy.

Really, really bad point to try and fly.

Unless of course you want to classify everyone in those days as nutbags.

Then you're right.

11/21/2007 12:21:07 PM · #527

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

My faith in God has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the Bible, or any of the inane doctrination and brain-washing that I was exposed to in the first 50 years of my life.

Originally posted by scalvert:

If the Bible had never existed, how would you have known that God exists? In all of history, there hasn't been a single example of a culture that independently developed belief in a Christian God outside of its biblical origins. Most weren't even monotheistic until fairly recently.

Umm....

I'm not a Christian.

And my God, while omnipotent and good, really doesn't conform to the "standards" that were assigned him by man.

Sorry!.....8>)

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

11/21/2007 12:23:15 PM · #528

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I'm not a Christian.

What are you, out of curiosity?

Flash

Nikon D700

11/21/2007 12:24:04 PM · #529

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by Flash:
If the Bible is a lie, as is purported (at least by inference/inuendo), then why has so much of it been literally proven?

From an archaeological perspective, who claimed the bible "was a lie"? I don't think anyone is dismissing the existence of Jerusalem, Jericho, Bethlehem, etc., as fabrications. The "lie" is not in the placement of the events of the bible in a historical context within a historically identifiable culture, it is in the events themselves (although one might more properly refer to the events not as lies, but as allegories with obvious inherent discrepancies).

But archeology has proven that the event of David and Goliath existed. Science has proven that sound waves can destroy rock walls. Archeology has demonstrated that the Reed sea could have been the real Red Sea of Moses' crossing. Archeology has proven the manner of Christ's execution, the garb of the Roman Centurians, and even the tomb of Christ. It has authenticated the Osuary of James - brother of Jesus and on and on and on. This was all with the use of science. Even the great Flood and Noahs Ark have been explained with logic and within a historical context.

It is those that strive to find particles of conflict (as I was one - once) in scripture that most represent the Roman Centurian at the feet of Christ during his crusifixtion, in denial.

Phil

Canon EOS-7D

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

11/21/2007 12:24:41 PM · #530

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Unless of course you want to classify everyone in those days as nutbags.

Then you're right.

Then I would be right. Everyone who acted and believed that way were nutbags. How's that?

Originally posted by Louis:

It was discussed at one point that faith exists without reason, then suggested that reason and faith can be complementary. I was illustrating what in my view were obvious problems of reasoning when it comes to faith to support an earlier position I held. Your post deftly outlined this in my opinion, as do your efforts in promoting your beliefs. So can you please stop talking about your testicles?

Sorry you don't find my simile comical.

Typical.

11/21/2007 12:33:18 PM · #531

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Where do you get the idea that you can't have faith and reason at the same time?

Originally posted by Louis:

Right here big guy:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
faith exists on a plane where reason does not operate.

So you're saying that Robert's not a reasonable guy???????

Sorry, couldn't resist!.....8>)

Seriously, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive and in an awful lot of ways, I feel that people with faith have an edge over opeople who not only have no faith, but are so "reasoned" that they can't accept that there are things that will *NOT* ever be explained by science, but go with the "not yet" thing.

With some faith, you're not hindered with the absolute need to have an answer that is reasoned and rational for every little scenario.

Okay, let's do a little scenario.....you're walking down the street, and you run into someone you haven't seen in three years, he's on a rebuild of his life after damn near augering in, and he can really use that closet full of clothes that don't fit you any more that you've had for two years that you've been meaning to get rid of, that "just happen" to be his size that he needs RIGHT NOW.......you say that this is freak, random coincidence, I say it's God's grace for both of you.

You're doing a good thing that goes beyond just dumping the stuff at Goodwill, and he's really, REALLY grateful that he "just happened" to run into you.

Who's right?

You, with freak, random coincidence, or me with grace?

You really can't prove either, you just go with what YOU BELIEVE, right?

All I'm saying is that doesn't make me any less reasonable than you, just different. And I get some warmth and solace for being what I believe to be a minor instrument in a very big picture.

As are you, by definition of an incident, as well.

11/21/2007 12:43:03 PM · #532

Originally posted by Flash:

But archeology has proven that the event of David and Goliath existed.

Show me.

Originally posted by Flash:

Archeology has proven the manner of Christ's execution, the garb of the Roman Centurians, and even the tomb of Christ.

If you are suggesting there is archaeological evidence for the site of Jesus' crucifixion, complete with material from that event, show me. If you are merely suggesting that crucifixion in general happened and that Romans wore a particular kind of armour, I concur.

Originally posted by Flash:

It has authenticated the Osuary of James

No, it has not. The best you'll get from legitimate scholars with no interest other than a scientific one is from the curator at the ROM here in Toronto: "The ROM has always been open to questioning the ossuary's authenticity, but so far no definitive proof of forgery has yet been presented, in spite of the current claims being made." That is not authentication.

Originally posted by Flash:

Even the great Flood and Noahs Ark have been explained with logic and within a historical context.

Show me.

Originally posted by Flash:

It is those that strive to find particles of conflict (as I was one - once) in scripture that most represent the Roman Centurian at the feet of Christ during his crusifixtion, in denial.

Actually, those who use their conclusions as the basis of their arguments are the ones in denial.

Message edited by author 2007-11-21 12:43:41.

11/21/2007 12:47:45 PM · #533

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I'm not a Christian.

What are you, out of curiosity?

A Unitarian Universalist.

Gives me all kinds of outs!......8>)

Seriously, I've had all manner of grief and problems with Christianity for years and these guys pretty much are more humanists and students of the world's religions and very little in the way of creed and dogma.

Detractors of UUs pretty much scoff at the freedom and lack of structure, but the basic principles of Unitarian Universalism are pretty darn decent in my book and have plenty of place in the minds and hearts of people with both faith and reason.

Not too long ago we had a service done by two members of the congregation who are lay worship associates. One is a physicist who offered her opinions on God, and the other was the son of a Protestant minister who carried a pretty good argument for atheism.

Services are never dull at our church......8>)

BTW, for Robert's benefit, the highest concentration of UUism is in New England, both historically and today. That's where there are lots of reasoned men of faith.....kinda makes me wonder if he's one....8>)

11/21/2007 12:51:53 PM · #534

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

BTW, for Robert's benefit, the highest concentration of UUism is in New England, both historically and today. That's where there are lots of reasoned men of faith.....kinda makes me wonder if he's one....8>)

Yeah, we got UU up the wazoo on Cape Cod. I'm not a churchgoer for the simple reason that I can't understand a word they are saying during services. It's very frustrating. But if I were one, I'd be looking at UU for sure.

R.

11/21/2007 12:52:57 PM · #535

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Unless of course you want to classify everyone in those days as nutbags.
Then you're right.

Originally posted by Phil:

Then I would be right. Everyone who acted and believed that way were nutbags. How's that?

Okay.....and the science at the time held that the world was flat.....times change. We think those scientists were at very least, naive at the time, more like nutbags now, BUT......

AT THE TIME, both views were mainstream, thereby making the attitude of those who killed in the name of God, pretty grim.

So you cannot really discount the "Old Argument" just because we know better now.

Which judging from the situation in the middle East, we haven't come all that far with the God biz.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

11/21/2007 01:18:42 PM · #536

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

AT THE TIME, both views were mainstream, thereby making the attitude of those who killed in the name of God, pretty grim.

The persecution of apostates and unbelievers by the Catholic Church through its inquisitors was NEVER "mainstream" by any valid definition of the word. It was the hierarchy of the church that did this, not the mass of believers within the church. May's well say that the USSR's shipping of millions of people to the gulags was a "mainstream" activity.

R.

Message edited by author 2007-11-21 13:19:09.

Flash

Nikon D700

11/21/2007 01:34:16 PM · #537

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by Flash:
But archeology has proven that the event of David and Goliath existed.

Show me.

Goliath

Others will follow. I was pleased to read that you did not question the proof that sound waves can destroy rock walls or that the Reed Sea could have been the actual Red Sea of scripture.

I anticipate your next claim will be to the effect that this pottery shard with Goliath's name on it does not prove the event of David's slaying, even though it is the oldest yet discovered philistine writing and is dated to within 70 years of the event described in scripture. My counter would of coures be, that it is at least as much evidence as that man evolved from fish.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

11/21/2007 01:35:47 PM · #538

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Love is simply biology overruling reason.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Got news for ya, Spaz.....if you REALLY believe that, you have never really been in love 'cause it has nothing to do with biology.

I'm not saying that love isn't wonderful that it doesn't feel good, nor that it is an any way bad, but, it is, a biological response.

And, yes, I have really been in love.

Message edited by author 2007-11-21 13:36:01.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

11/21/2007 01:39:18 PM · #539

Originally posted by Louis:

Gosh, isn't that essentially what I've been saying about the theory of evolution all along. Let me rephrase what you just said, but with macroevolution as the subject:

From an archaeological perspective, who claimed that the fossil record "was a lie"? I don't think anyone is dismissing the existence of Archeopteryx, Apatasaurous, etc., as fabrications ( well, for the most part, anyway - some fossils, like Piltdown Man and Brontosaurous were, indeed, fabrications ). The "lie" is not in the fossils themselves, it is in their placement within an historically identifiable zoological context ( although one might more properly refer to such placements not as lies, but as assumptions with obvious inherent discrepancies ).

11/21/2007 01:44:23 PM · #540

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Love is simply biology overruling reason.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Got news for ya, Spaz.....if you REALLY believe that, you have never really been in love 'cause it has nothing to do with biology.

I'm not saying that love isn't wonderful that it doesn't feel good, nor that it is an any way bad, but, it is, a biological response.

And, yes, I have really been in love.

Well, the POINT here is that a lot of people DO believe "love" is something more than pheromones etc, and science can't PROVE that it is or is not; all it can do is hypothesize about the biological basis of love.

And the argument can be made that whoever will not accept the transcendence of love, whoever is determined to reduce it to chemical/biological origins, has impoverished himself by cutting off his access to a world of beauty and mystery.

And, in the context of the present thread, how is this "belief in love" any different from a "belief in God"? And if you are one of those who says that "believers in God" are irrational, don't you have to also say that those who "believe in love" are likewise irrational?

R.

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

11/21/2007 01:45:50 PM · #541

Originally posted by Flash:

Goliath

From your linked article:

"'What this means is that at the time there were people there named Goliath,' [Director of the excavation Aren Maier] said. 'It shows us that David and Goliath's story reflects the cultural reality of the time.'...Maeir doubts an archaeological find can ever prove Goliath's existence, but said the shard was exciting nonetheless because of its depiction of life during the time period."

That is not, as you characterized it, "proof that the event of David and Goliath existed".

Originally posted by Flash:

I was pleased to read that you did not question the proof that sound waves can destroy rock walls or that the Reed Sea could have been the actual Red Sea of scripture.

Not repeating your quote is not the same as not wanting critical unbiased proof of those particular claims. You should not use your desired outcome as proof of what you want your desired outcome to be.

Originally posted by Flash:

My counter would of coures be, that it is at least as much evidence as that man evolved from fish.

Such a counter would merely demonstrate your lack of understanding of the theory in question.

Phil

Canon EOS-7D

11/21/2007 01:46:46 PM · #542

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Unless of course you want to classify everyone in those days as nutbags.
Then you're right.

Originally posted by Phil:
Then I would be right. Everyone who acted and believed that way were nutbags. How's that?

Okay.....and the science at the time held that the world was flat.....times change. We think those scientists were at very least, naive at the time, more like nutbags now, BUT......

AT THE TIME, both views were mainstream, thereby making the attitude of those who killed in the name of God, pretty grim.

So you cannot really discount the "Old Argument" just because we know better now.

Which judging from the situation in the middle East, we haven't come all that far with the God biz.

It's hard for me to compare scientic theories about the world being flat to the Spanish Inquisition. It didn't take a nutbag to think the world was flat then. It does take a nutbag to kill people for different religious beliefs (just like the nutbags today that bomb abortion clinics and beat homosexuals in the name of God).

As for the rest, I just can't give people a pass who stuck women in a pile of brush and set them on fire; chalking it up to mainstream views at the time. Slavery here was a mainstream view only 150 years or so ago. For the life of me I just can't seem to think that a good person could actually buy a human and take a whip to their back to make them work harder or call you sir..... no matter how widely accepted it was to do so. Do you accept that slavery was just something some good ol' boys did ONLY because it was accepted? I can't. They were nutbags just like the ones aforementioned (in my eyes of course).

And once again, the situation in the Middle East has nothing to do with me or my beliefs.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

11/21/2007 01:47:15 PM · #543

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

AT THE TIME, both views were mainstream, thereby making the attitude of those who killed in the name of God, pretty grim.

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Okay.....fine....then let's do this one...CRUSADES
And we call the Muslims wack-jobs!

Or this one.....MORE CRUSADES

My point is, there was all too much horror committed in the name of God, and to just say, "Well, it was only the bosses that were the wack-jobs." doesn't really excuse the followers.

Today, your priest says,"Go kill that guy in the name of all that's holy." and you're gonna have him arrested.

I'm sure in seconds flat, I can come up with more religious horrors that you can defend as not mainstream that account for millions of lives lost in the name of God by these "minute" sections of the churches......all of which you can try to explain away, but that doesn't make the actions any less heinous.

And I know you're trying to be reasonable and accurate, but my point is the numbers, not the specific incidents......if you call 1000 years of tyranny and murder like the Inquisitions an incident.

Message edited by author 2007-11-21 13:50:49.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

11/21/2007 01:47:58 PM · #544

Originally posted by Flash:

I anticipate your next claim will be to the effect that this pottery shard with Goliath's name on it does not prove the event of David's slaying, even though it is the oldest yet discovered philistine writing and is dated to within 70 years of the event described in scripture. My counter would of coures be, that it is at least as much evidence as that man evolved from fish.

Hey, here's a shard with Horus inscribed on it among the earliest Egyptian artifacts. He must be real! Wait... here's another one from ancient Athens with the name Zeus on it. All those stories of Zeus are REAL! Gah... here's an old plate that says Mickey Mouse! Hoo, yeah... that's at least as convincing as observed biological diversity, intermediate fossils and DNA evidence of lineage. I'm sold. :-/

11/21/2007 01:48:53 PM · #545

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

And if you are one of those who says that "believers in God" are irrational, don't you have to also say that those who "believe in love" are likewise irrational?

Now hold on a minute!

Whose side are you on???? LOL!!!

11/21/2007 01:49:17 PM · #546

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by Flash:
Goliath

From your linked article:

"'What this means is that at the time there were people there named Goliath,' [Director of the excavation Aren Maier] said. 'It shows us that David and Goliath's story reflects the cultural reality of the time.'...Maeir doubts an archaeological find can ever prove Goliath's existence, but said the shard was exciting nonetheless because of its depiction of life during the time period."

That is not, as you characterized it, "proof that the event of David and Goliath existed".

Right. Just as historical proof the man Jesus existed, or even that He preached, had disciples, and was crucified is NOT proof that He was the Son of God. THAT is matter of belief & faith.

R.

Message edited by author 2007-11-21 14:06:03.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

11/21/2007 01:54:39 PM · #547

Originally posted by RonB:

Gosh, isn't that essentially what I've been saying about the theory of evolution all along.

I can do that too. Let's see, I'll use breakfast cereals instead.

From a breakfast perspective, who claimed that Cheerios were a lie? I don't think anyone is dismissing the existence of Wheetabix, Corn Flakes, Honeycombs, etc., as fabrications. The "lie" is not in the cereals themselves, it is in their placement within a historically identifiable dietary context (although one might more properly refer to such placements not as lies, but as assumptions with obvious inherent discrepancies).

See, you can take anyone's words, add your own recipe, and pretend that he's actually arguing in your favour! Neat! :-D

By the way, it weakens your position in the extreme when you do this, because you have not provided any substance to your position, and makes your "reasoning" easy to vapourize.

Flash

Nikon D700

11/21/2007 01:57:03 PM · #548

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:
I anticipate your next claim will be to the effect that this pottery shard with Goliath's name on it does not prove the event of David's slaying, even though it is the oldest yet discovered philistine writing and is dated to within 70 years of the event described in scripture. My counter would of coures be, that it is at least as much evidence as that man evolved from fish.

Hey, here's a shard with Horus inscribed on it among the earliest Egyptian artifacts. He must be real! Wait... here's another one from ancient Athens with the name Zeus on it. All those stories of Zeus are REAL! Gah... here's an old plate that says Mickey Mouse! Hoo, yeah... that's at least as convincing as observed biological diversity, intermediate fossils and DNA evidence of lineage. I'm sold. :-/

Again it is the ridicule...

The article identified a piece of pottery, carbon dated it to around 950 BCE (using science that you claim is valid), is within 70 years of the event described in Scripture AND has the name of the most famous Giant of all time inscribed on it. Reads like evidence to me. I'll choose to wait around for the next find, as they keep coming, just as you'll wait for the elusive missing link between man and fish.