NationStates Jolt Archive

I usually do my best to ignore the junk that Hotmail expunges every time I sign out of the site, but I took a look at one of their articles today and was pleasently surprised. Finally, a report on the way I (And I would imagine most Christians, at least around here) view the whole science-Christianity "debate" (I am hesitant to use the word, since in my view they should be in harmony).

Anyway, the full article is here (http://technology.sympatico.msn.ca/Home/ContentPosting.aspx?newsitemid=179860&feedname=PCMAGAZINE&show=False&number=0&showbyline=False&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc). I will sum up below:



...Despite the well-known 17th century clash between Galileo and the Inquisition over whether the Earth revolved around the sun, the Catholic Church has a long history of encouraging science and especially astronomy, said Father Chris Corbally, the British-born vice director of the Vatican Observatory.

...

"The methodology I use is the same as the non-Jesuit colleagues with whom I work," he said. "But does being a Jesuit affect my appreciation of the science? Of course it does. It is a joy to work and understand the created universe, the Creator's universe."

Father Bill Stoeger, a cosmologist who also holds degrees in theology and philosophy, said there might sometimes be some tension but there was no conflict, between his dual callings.

"If we believe that God is creator, then God is in some way reflected in what God creates," he said.

"We learn a little bit about God from scripture but a lot about God from creation—which includes ourselves, nature, art, the beauty and goodness of the universe and its tragedy," he said...

Pity all the fundies are just going to say those men a blasphemers.

I agree with you that there is no systemic clash between science and religion - in a perfect world, the two would be in perfect harmony. In fact, my religion stems directly from my sense of science and ethics (though most people go the other way around).

The problem is, though, that religious persons or institutions quite often make unfounded scientific claims. If any person makes a scientific claim, it should be judged strictly by scientific merit. Notice, however, that in order to be judged in an unbiased manner, there needs to be no involvment of religion at all. Sound method includes a falsifiable hypothesis with repeatable results. The overwhelming majority of religion does not fit this criteria. For example, the hypothesis that god exists, or is a man, that people have souls, that everything was created, or that this or that miracle happened in a particular way - all of this may have tremendous religious and personal value, but because it has no evidence and is not repeatable, it does not have scientific merit. This is where the conflict arises.

Most fundies think the Vatican is heretical anyway.

The problem isnt the catholics, its the "american taliban" people like james dobson and the other barbarians and vandals.

The problem is, though, that religious persons or institutions quite often make unfounded scientific claims.

But not every claim a person (Or a religious authority) makes is a scientific claim. There is no science behind me saying that I prefer the colour green over the colour beige. It cannot be proven, nor can it be falsified. Believing in God is similar to that. It is not a matter of science, it is a matter of faith. I think that these Jesuit astronomers also realise that. They are not looking through their telescope trying to prove that God exists, they are seeking to find out how stars are formed. I am not suggesting that everything in religion has to have a scientific basis, I am saying that there is no reason why a truth arrived at by faith has to be opposed to one arrived at by science. As a matter of faith I believe that there is a God. As a matter of science I believe that people evolved from lower lifeforms. I am simply trying to point out, with some help from these Arizonan Jesuits, that the two are not mutually exclusive.

But not every claim a person (Or a religious authority) makes is a scientific claim. There is no science behind me saying that I prefer the colour green over the colour beige. It cannot be proven, nor can it be falsified. Believing in God is similar to that. It is not a matter of science, it is a matter of faith.

This is precisely my point, and this is why there is a conflict between science and religion. For example, if I asked you, you would probably tell me there is a god. If I asked you why, you would say because you belive it - it's a matter of faith. I have no right to persecute you for that view, but I CAN reach the conclusion that it is a bad hypothesis for what is actually true. In making a any claim about the nature of things, you are in fact making a scientific claim. Personally, I see no reason to put religion up on a pedestal - people should be no more or less sensitive to a person's feelings, regardless of where the argument comes from. That said, when a person makes a claim that is not falsifiable or repeatable - a claim that has no evidence - I am going to reject it. It is the nature of responsible science to reject the objective idea of god or souls or voodoo or mystical crystals. Thus, the conflict.

I think that these Jesuit astronomers also realise that. They are not looking through their telescope trying to prove that God exists, they are seeking to find out how stars are formed. I am not suggesting that everything in religion has to have a scientific basis, I am saying that there is no reason why a truth arrived at by faith has to be opposed to one arrived at by science. As a matter of faith I believe that there is a God. As a matter of science I believe that people evolved from lower lifeforms. I am simply trying to point out, with some help from these Arizonan Jesuits, that the two are not mutually exclusive.

Very well written, but there are a few points I would disagree with. First, you actually havn't demonstrated your point - the conclusions arrived by these astronomers really have nothing to do with religion. Their motivation and passion is a different thing entirely from their claims. I would hope that a religious person would be motivated to discover the nature of our universe, the incredible array of order and life that we find before us. So you would be right if you said that the interest in science and religion are not mutually exclusive (and are actually genetically reinforced). However, the claims are mutually exclusive. That's why there's conflict. I would even object if these scientists let their motivations slip into their research, by saying "god made this cluster particularly beautiful". That is a scientific claim, and will be judged by scientific standards, nothing less.

This is precisely my point, and this is why there is a conflict between science and religion. For example, if I asked you, you would probably tell me there is a god. If I asked you why, you would say because you belive it - it's a matter of faith. I have no right to persecute you for that view, but I CAN reach the conclusion that it is a bad hypothesis for what is actually true. In making a any claim about the nature of things, you are in fact making a scientific claim. Personally, I see no reason to put religion up on a pedestal - people should be no more or less sensitive to a person's feelings, regardless of where the argument comes from. That said, when a person makes a claim that is not falsifiable or repeatable - a claim that has no evidence - I am going to reject it. It is the nature of responsible science to reject the objective idea of god or souls or voodoo or mystical crystals. Thus, the conflict.
I have no idea why we keep "arguing" back and forth, when we are both saying the same thing. I am fine with you insisting on proof of what you hold true. I simply see no need for it to create a conflict if you need your own evidence and I believe on the merits of what I personally have experienced. If you want to reject the concepts of God or anything else religious, I am not going to push them onto you. Why, then, would you push your reliance on the physical world on someone who is contend to go along without having to prove everything?


Very well written, but there are a few points I would disagree with. First, you actually havn't demonstrated your point - the conclusions arrived by these astronomers really have nothing to do with religion. Their motivation and passion is a different thing entirely from their claims. I would hope that a religious person would be motivated to discover the nature of our universe, the incredible array of order and life that we find before us. So you would be right if you said that the interest in science and religion are not mutually exclusive (and are actually genetically reinforced). However, the claims are mutually exclusive. That's why there's conflict. I would even object if these scientists let their motivations slip into their research, by saying "god made this cluster particularly beautiful". That is a scientific claim, and will be judged by scientific standards, nothing less.
I agree that their motivation/passion and their claims are not the same thing. As the article says, though, they consciously make the point not to confuse the two. They do not make the judgements you suggest, except perhaps privately (In the same way that a non-believing scientist might say that one nebula was nicer looking than another in a private journal, but not report it as such officially). At least within Christianity, I have not come across any claims that conflict with scientific theories. My position is that there is a God who created all the natural laws like gravity and whatnot, but also that in performing His miracles he obeys those same laws. I do not see anything supernatural in the physical world, but rather that God knew just exactly how to set off the Big Bang to result in the universe as we know it.

As a way of visualising what I mean, picture a secular scientist and a Christian looking at the same tree, each marking its attributes on a notepad. In my point of view, they write down the exact same thing; the same details about the tree's evolution, and how it was manipulated by the weather and local condition to grow as it did, and the process of getting energy from the ground and sunlight. Both may even say the tree looks pretty in the sunset. The only difference is that the Christian writes at the bottom of the page that the tree reflects a bit of God's glory. There is no need for the two to argue about their differences, because substantially they have written the same thing. The Christian simply has another level on which to appreciate the tree. To the secular scientist it means nothing, and should be treated as such. It is simple, and non-conflictual.

Most fundies think the Vatican is heretical anyway.
Which I find funny, because only the fundies could possibly be heretical, because (in my opinion) the Catholic Church came before them and they broke off, not the other way around.

Pity all the fundies are just going to say those men a blasphemers.

Catholics aren't fundamentalists.

Stop being so RACIST!!!11! OMG!!!!!!

I have no idea why we keep "arguing" back and forth, when we are both saying the same thing. I am fine with you insisting on proof of what you hold true. I simply see no need for it to create a conflict if you need your own evidence and I believe on the merits of what I personally have experienced. If you want to reject the concepts of God or anything else religious, I am not going to push them onto you. Why, then, would you push your reliance on the physical world on someone who is contend to go along without having to prove everything?

We're in disagreement over one big thing: you think there is no conflict between religion and science. In your case, it sounds like you're close to achieving that. Your spirituality actually sounds fairly close to my own in a lot of ways, though I am wary of restricting myself to a name and group identity. However, your embrace of evolution, the non-existence of heavon and hell and angels and demons - I assure you, these are not the official tenets of organized christianity. The official claims of christianity stand in stark constrast to what we can show with science, and religion has done nothing but muddy the waters with claims of a young earth, trick fossils, systemically distinct animal species, incorrect radiocarbon dating, the "ensoulment" of a zygote, noah's arc, 6000-year old dinosaurs, and stories of invisible people that we can't measure in any way who "watch over us".

People are naturally superstitious (something that has been proven under laboratory conditions), so it's not my place to demand that people stop believing these things. Not everybody needs things like "proof". But then, not everybody needs to be a scientist. You have it backwards- it's not I who is forcing my views on people. Religious institutions have been indoctrinating everybody they can get their hands on for 3500 years, usually murdering people who don't agree with them. Like it or not, organized religion has been responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths for stupid and pointless reasons. A modern incarnation of that is hounding teachers who discuss safe sex or evolution in the classroom, and I will not stand for it.

The main issue is this: There is a direct contradiction between religious claims and scientific claims. People can believe whatever they want, but there IS a direct conflict, and a bad scientific claim should be discarded, whether or not it is religious in origin. Good science should be kept, regardless as well of it's origin. The problem is, most of religion is BAD SCIENCE. Standards were lower when it was invented, anyways.

If I was God, I would be pretty bummed-out if the only sentient beings I created didn't want to find out how they or anything else worked. "I put so much time into it! But they don't care at all!"