The Co-existence of Science and Theology

12/07/2007 01:07:52 PM · #1076

Originally posted by Louis:

Incidentally, believing Dionysus, the god of orgiastic abandon and unrestrained wine-drinking, to be a herald of some sort of Jesus would be considered quite heretical in most Christian circles.

I already told you I had a lot of improving to do ;-)

12/07/2007 01:10:45 PM · #1077

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by Flash:
I do beleive that humans can act as mediums for miracles and have seen first hand the power of prayer. You may ascribe these events as a cosmic force, coincidence, or any number of explainations.

Or, as I do, to not actually having happened at all.

That is a choice.

edit to add; evidence of all sorts, can be dismissed and/or denied. Whether it be a Murder Trial (think OJ) or the scientifically known faults that lie beneath California (think the San Andreas) that we KNOW will cause earthquakes. Yet, people, lots of people, choose to live there anyway. Probably the same one's who will want to raise my taxes to pay for disaster relief when it happens. (This is not intended to make light of the pain and suffering sure to come, but rather to illustrate my belief that personal responsibility is part of the equation. If you choose to ignore, then pay the price - if there is one.)

got to go. thanks for allowing me an opportunity to share some thoughts.

Message edited by author 2007-12-07 13:23:21.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

12/07/2007 01:11:18 PM · #1078

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by Flash:

You may not believe in the event at Fatima, however the lives of those 3 young girls effected by it, certainly did.

Do you believe in it ? If so - did you become a Catholic ?

I believe the 3 young girls believe it. I believe that the last surviving nun had a personal closed door session with Pope John Paul and that some message was delivered.

My particular denomination is of no consequence - as I do not want this to digress even further into a denominational attack. My views have been clearly portrayed. Make of them what you will.

It isn't a denominational attack. Simply though, if the events at Fatima are taken as true, then the requirement is to be Catholic.

I'm sure many people believe many different things. It doesn't make them true or provide any proof that they are true.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

12/07/2007 01:24:14 PM · #1079

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:
A Jesus actually did exist as Jesus at least according to 1st century historian Josephus - who I might add, had no particular dog in the fight.

A Jesus actually exists in the 21st century, too, as well as the 20th, 19th, 18th... and likely well before the 1st. So? Even if you accept Paul's account of Jesus as historical, he attributed no supernatural acts of any kind to the guy. That a man existed is not proof (nor even evidence) of miracles or divinity.

And where did I say it was irrefutable evidence of miracles or divinity?

You've used such circumstantial findings as "historical evidence" of miracles several times in this thread. Like this:

Originally posted by Flash:

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.

(Unless, of course, you don't consider the stories of resurrection or Noah's Ark to be miracles)

Louis

Nikon D800

12/07/2007 01:33:56 PM · #1080

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by Flash:
I do beleive that humans can act as mediums for miracles and have seen first hand the power of prayer. You may ascribe these events as a cosmic force, coincidence, or any number of explainations.

Or, as I do, to not actually having happened at all.

That is a choice.

For some, the choice between acknowledging the existence of a universe that is predictable according to empirical data and believing in supernatural events that have no connection to observable reality is hardly a choice at all.

12/07/2007 02:42:45 PM · #1081

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:
A Jesus actually did exist as Jesus at least according to 1st century historian Josephus - who I might add, had no particular dog in the fight.

A Jesus actually exists in the 21st century, too, as well as the 20th, 19th, 18th... and likely well before the 1st. So? Even if you accept Paul's account of Jesus as historical, he attributed no supernatural acts of any kind to the guy. That a man existed is not proof (nor even evidence) of miracles or divinity.

And where did I say it was irrefutable evidence of miracles or divinity?

You've used such circumstantial findings as "historical evidence" of miracles several times in this thread. Like this:

Originally posted by Flash:
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.

(Unless, of course, you don't consider the stories of resurrection or Noah's Ark to be miracles)

And where did I say "it" (that Josephus' reference to Christ in the 1st century) was irrefutable evidence of his miracles or his divinity?

I do consider the resurection of Christ to be a miracle, however as already posted by me, there is no irrefutable evidence that it occured. My reference in the quote you chose, is to the manner of death, garb of the Centurians, etc, which has been verified as practices during the period. Even the tomb in which Christ was buried has been identified, although 100% concensus on that finding has not been achieved. (I would submit that exapmples of failing to meet 100% concensus could be found in the Scientific world as well). The great Flood, I am not convinced at this time was a miracle, and currently hold it as a record of an actual event, the specifics of which are murky. Neither of these would hold for me, as they seem to do for you, proof of the falibility the Bible.

You may have a point when specifically picking out my reference to David and Goliath, and I may have been a bit zealous in my claim of proof in that regard, however, my point was to present archeology as a scientific tool that has illuminated many verses in scripture to be representatively accurate.

Certainly as accurate as the basis for Santa Claus/Saint Nicholas.

Message edited by author 2007-12-07 14:49:35.

12/07/2007 02:57:46 PM · #1082

Originally posted by Flash:

The great Flood, I am not convinced at this time was a miracle, and currently hold it as a record of an actual event, the specifics of which are murky.

Does ANYONE classify the Flood as a "miracle"? This is not a rhetorical question; I wasn't aware anyone does. Or, for that matter, the plague of locusts? Or the bringing down of the Tower of Babel? Examples of the Lord's handiwork, surely. But to call them "miracles" is, essentially, to say that anything that "happens" is miraculous, and denatures the meaning of the word.

"Miracles" would be, to me (and I assumed to everyone), events that defy rational explanation. That there WAS a flood, as we have seen earlier, is pretty well documented colloquially across diverse cultures in all corners of the globe, and scientifically in certain geological studies. Was it worldwide? That may be unlikely, but to the peoples themselves, at their instant of time, the local world was all the world they knew, so naturally they thought so.

In any event, these things are not beyond comprehension. The question would be "Were they 'natural' or were they directly caused by God for a specific purpose?" I'm not sure that's a distinction we really have to make. I mean, if one believes in an omnipotent God then one might naturally be inclined to believe that specific events are the results of His intervention in human affairs, right? On the other hand, one who believes in a disinterested supreme being who caused the universe to be but does not actively involve himself in its temporal affairs can just as easily disregard all "religious" interpretations of these phenomena, right?

Where it gets trickier is in things like the healing of the sick, loaves and fishes, spiritual visitations, stuff like that. To me, this is what we are talking about when we speak of miracles. Am I off base here?

R.

12/07/2007 03:04:07 PM · #1083

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Flash:
The great Flood, I am not convinced at this time was a miracle, and currently hold it as a record of an actual event, the specifics of which are murky.

Does ANYONE classify the Flood as a "miracle"? ... Am I off base here?

R.

I think Scalvert does.

Not to me.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/07/2007 03:12:39 PM · #1084

Originally posted by Flash:

my point was to present archeology as a scientific tool that has illuminated many verses in scripture to be representatively accurate.

Certainly as accurate as the basis for Santa Claus/Saint Nicholas.

Which does not lend credence to the supernatural aspects of either story.

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Does ANYONE classify the Flood as a "miracle"?

I would. Getting representative groups of every species from all over the world onto a handmade structurally sound wooden boat larger than any built by modern engineers, and having them cohabit peacefully for a month+ through a storm that submerged the tallest mountain peaks (even locally) certainly sails deep into miracle territory IMO. While we may have evidence of various local floods, we also have evidence that humanity was not globally wiped out 6,000-ish years ago. If that was the goal, He missed.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

12/07/2007 03:39:45 PM · #1085

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Does ANYONE classify the Flood as a "miracle"?

That Noah was able to track down even one platypus -- let alone a mating pair -- in the Middle East seems miraculous to me.

Flash: you seem to accept that the Bible may be substantially allegorical rather than the literally true, word-for-word, trascriptions of God's voice as channeled by prophets. I believe many/most agnostics/atheists share that view, and really have little argument with many of the basic "lessons" taught.

Most surviving religions* share most of the fundamental values held by "christian" people, as do the vast majority of of non-believers; that we shouldn't murder or steal or lie, and should try to treat others as we ourselves would like to be treated. Sharing those values is completely independent of the existence of anything/anybody supernatural, God(s), miracles, afterlife, whatever.

*The glaring exception is laissez-faire capitalism, the unofficial state religion of the US, and one which seems unabashedly anti-Christian in its core tenets.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/07/2007 04:04:12 PM · #1086

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Flash: you seem to accept that the Bible may be substantially allegorical rather than the literally true, word-for-word, trascriptions of God's voice as channeled by prophets. I believe many/most agnostics/atheists share that view, and really have little argument with many of the basic "lessons" taught.

Most surviving religions* share most of the fundamental values held by "christian" people, as do the vast majority of of non-believers; that we shouldn't murder or steal or lie, and should try to treat others as we ourselves would like to be treated. Sharing those values is completely independent of the existence of anything/anybody supernatural, God(s), miracles, afterlife, whatever.

I think we have a basic agreement. A specific deviation for me, would be the "red letter" words ascribed to Christ himself. Those I feel are as accurate as any translated document in the last 2000 years. These are the crux on which I judge all other scripture. I agree that many religions teach tenets similar to christianity and even that agnostics/atheists can live a christian type life, without belief in God. I subscribe to the fact that I do not know (irrefutably) that my understanding is correct/accurate. However, based on what I think I understand, from my studies, following the course set out by Christ, is not a bad thing.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

12/07/2007 04:08:16 PM · #1087

Originally posted by Flash:

I do not know (irrefutably) that my understanding is correct/accurate. However, based on what I think I understand, from my studies, following the course set out by Christ, is not a bad thing.

You've just perfectly described the "Theory of Christianity" ... :-)

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

12/08/2007 12:49:10 PM · #1088

Originally posted by Flash:

However, based on what I think I understand, from my studies, following the course set out by Christ, is not a bad thing.

Imagine having a religion in which you can choose to follow all those teachings of Christ with which you agree, but are not required to arbitrarily condemn, say, gay people, or people with different belief systems, nor feel guilty about ignoring those bits of the bible that are outdated and no longer apply to modern society.

Wouldn't that be a good thing? Perhaps even morally superior?

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

12/08/2007 01:01:04 PM · #1089

Originally posted by scalvert:

[
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Does ANYONE classify the Flood as a "miracle"?

I would. Getting representative groups of every species from all over the world onto a handmade structurally sound wooden boat larger than any built by modern engineers, and having them cohabit peacefully for a month+ through a storm that submerged the tallest mountain peaks (even locally) certainly sails deep into miracle territory IMO. While we may have evidence of various local floods, we also have evidence that humanity was not globally wiped out 6,000-ish years ago. If that was the goal, He missed.

Oh, the whole "all the animals in the ark" bit is, IMO, entirely allegorical. My point was a little more subtle than that; in the classifying of events, is it considered "miraculous" when God uses his power loose plagues of locusts and bring forth torrential rains and knock down stone towers? I've always thought those were examples of God's power, so to speak, and not part of what is considered "miraculous"; for me miracles are things that otherwise defy rational explanation.

So the question is one of semantics, of definitions, I am curious to know how others would classify these things.

R.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

12/08/2007 06:41:05 PM · #1090

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by Flash:
However, based on what I think I understand, from my studies, following the course set out by Christ, is not a bad thing.

Imagine having a religion in which you can choose to follow all those teachings of Christ with which you agree, but are not required to arbitrarily condemn, say, gay people, or people with different belief systems, nor feel guilty about ignoring those bits of the bible that are outdated and no longer apply to modern society.

Wouldn't that be a good thing?

Depends on how you define "good".

Originally posted by Matthew:

Perhaps even morally superior?

Perhaps, if you establish the definition of morality by taking a poll. However, if the moral standard against which thoughts, words, and deeds are measured is Christ's teaching, then no, it wouldn't be.

By the way, I don't know of any of the teachings of Christ that arbitrarily condemn gay people, or people with different belief systems. They may, in fact, be condemned, but if they are, it doesn't occur arbitrarily.
Nor does Christ teach that any bits of the bible are outdated ( in fact, He teaches just the opposite ). He does, however, teach that some bits no longer apply to modern society ( such as the 'eye for eye' bit ).

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

12/09/2007 08:47:13 PM · #1091

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Matthew:
Perhaps even morally superior?

Perhaps, if you establish the definition of morality by taking a poll. However, if the moral standard against which thoughts, words, and deeds are measured is Christ's teaching, then no, it wouldn't be.

I would be interested to consider this point a little more generally.

It is a fallacy of the highest order to suggest that one can apply in an objective fashion the morality preached in a religious text.

Even if you think that you are applying a religiously sourced moral standard, you use your independent moral judgment in many ways. You choose: how to distill the complexity of life into sufficiently simple terms in order to consider them in a moral context; which factors to take into account in your determination; which statements in your holy text amount to moral guidance and what the moral essence of those statements might be; which of many potentially applicable moral standards to apply; and if the situation is not exactly the same, how an existing moral standard might be extended, or how any analogy might apply. On top of this, there will be all the moral decisions upon which your chosen holy text is completely silent.

In all these respects, you apply your own independent moral judgment.

People can identify â��rightâ�� from â��wrongâ�� independently and without the benefit of a religious education. There does appear to be a consistency of morality that exists independently of any religious text.

It is absurd to suggest that there might be an absence of morality in the absence of a religious text, or that the partially encoded morality of an ancient religious text somehow has any greater authority than contemporary morality, or that a religious text has some kind of objectivity or consistency of interpretation when it is applied in the context of contemporary morality.

In conclusion, morality can only be determined by reference to a general consensus (or a poll, as you put it) because there is no other more objective standard. Where we may differ would be in the choice of whom to poll, though I suspect that in many respects that people would share a common morality regardless of religion.

12/09/2007 09:09:43 PM · #1092

Originally posted by Matthew:

It is a fallacy of the highest order to suggest that one can apply in an objective fashion the morality preached in a religious text.

Even if you think that you are applying a religiously sourced moral standard... etc etc

I'd flip this entire argument on its butt and say "That's exactly what religions do!"

In other words, religion is, and always has been, the vehicle by which the commonly accepted moral code is, in fact, codified and presented so it can be taught, learned, and followed.

R.

12/09/2007 09:10:58 PM · #1093

Originally posted by RonB:

Nor does Christ teach that any bits of the bible are outdated ( in fact, He teaches just the opposite ). He does, however, teach that some bits no longer apply to modern society ( such as the 'eye for eye' bit ).

Say what? If some bits "no longer apply in modern society" isn't that the same as saying "some bits are outdated (or obsolete)"?

R.

12/09/2007 09:31:37 PM · #1094

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Matthew:
It is a fallacy of the highest order to suggest that one can apply in an objective fashion the morality preached in a religious text.

Even if you think that you are applying a religiously sourced moral standard... etc etc

I'd flip this entire argument on its butt and say "That's exactly what religions do!"

In other words, religion is, and always has been, the vehicle by which the commonly accepted moral code is, in fact, codified and presented so it can be taught, learned, and followed.

R.

I'm pretty sure Matthew's point is the "objective" part. All religious texts are subject to considerable interpretation on the part of the individual. You'd be hard pressed to find two people even within the same church congregation who have the exact same moral standards for every situation.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

12/09/2007 10:05:32 PM · #1095

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Matthew:
It is a fallacy of the highest order to suggest that one can apply in an objective fashion the morality preached in a religious text.

Even if you think that you are applying a religiously sourced moral standard... etc etc

I'd flip this entire argument on its butt and say "That's exactly what religions do!"

In other words, religion is, and always has been, the vehicle by which the commonly accepted moral code is, in fact, codified and presented so it can be taught, learned, and followed.

R.

I'm pretty sure Matthew's point is the "objective" part. All religious texts are subject to considerable interpretation on the part of the individual. You'd be hard pressed to find two people even within the same church congregation who have the exact same moral standards for every situation.

I didn't want to "quote" the entire post, but it's the whole thing I am referring to. For a fact he talks about standards that are evolved through consensus, basically, and my point is that historically that's what religions do; some group codifies its standards, and religion is the application of this.

R.

Message edited by author 2007-12-09 22:05:55.

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

12/09/2007 10:07:31 PM · #1096

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

In other words, religion is, and always has been, the vehicle by which the commonly accepted moral code is, in fact, codified and presented so it can be taught, learned, and followed.

R.

Do you mean "commonly accepted" to mean "socially determined"? Isn't the commonly accepted or socially determined moral code contained in our laws? And isn't it true that we are taught and learn our morality as children mainly through the example set by our parents and other adults in our lives, and that to some extent we are innately moral animals?

Message edited by author 2007-12-09 22:09:05.

12/09/2007 10:11:10 PM · #1097

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
In other words, religion is, and always has been, the vehicle by which the commonly accepted moral code is, in fact, codified and presented so it can be taught, learned, and followed.

R.

Do you mean "commonly accepted" to mean "socially determined"? Isn't the commonly accepted or socially determined moral code contained in our laws? And isn't it true that we are taught and learn morality mainly through the example set by our parents and other adults in our lives, and that to some extent we are innately moral animals?

Don't read too much into it. I'm not trying to run a full-fledged argument here, myself. It's just my point that way back in the day, before the establishment of the rigidly codified states/controls we have now, religion WAS the way we did our moral codification. It's not a big deal one way or the other to me, it's just that I've always seen that as a primary FUNCTION of religion, when it comes right down to it. And it's not inconsistent with what he was saying.

R.

"In conclusion, morality can only be determined by reference to a general consensus (or a poll, as you put it) because there is no other more objective standard. Where we may differ would be in the choice of whom to poll, though I suspect that in many respects that people would share a common morality regardless of religion."

One group makes the collective determination "these are the rules we will live by". Others elect to join the group, follow those rules. Now you have a religion. I grant you that's a gross over-simplification, but you see what I mean?

Message edited by author 2007-12-09 22:13:30.

12/09/2007 10:57:19 PM · #1098

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

One group makes the collective determination "these are the rules we will live by". Others elect to join the group, follow those rules. Now you have a religion.

The point remains that it's still open to individual interpretation, and even some of the most vocal believers here have admitted to basically cherry picking the parts they believe are relevant.

12/10/2007 07:18:51 AM · #1099

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
One group makes the collective determination "these are the rules we will live by". Others elect to join the group, follow those rules. Now you have a religion.

The point remains that it's still open to individual interpretation, and even some of the most vocal believers here have admitted to basically cherry picking the parts they believe are relevant.

Not sure who you are referencing here; but "cherry picking" might be too broad a term. For me, scripture needs to have a consistency to it. In other words, it needs to make some sort of logical sense. The measure or test I use to have it make sense, is the quoted words of Christ. For me, the New Testament and specifically the Gospels/Acts, are the foundation on which the balance of scripture is understood. When a verse appears to contradict another verse, then it is Christ's words I use to decipher the "true" meaning. If a contradiction still exists, then historical use/application is assessed. Sometimes, no concrete answer is provided and I default to Christ's version as the most accurate.

I do draw a distinction between social and religious morals. 2 of the easiest to exemplify are homosexuality and abortion. Although I believe they are both morally wrong, I do not personally have a problem with either and subscribe that those who engage in these morally wrong behaviours can still seek the guidence of Christ. One's actions are ultimately between them and God. Some social actions are between them and society (like murder, rape, etc) and society will address them (with or without adherence to a religious morality code - think of Darfur).