Reconciliation Issue

[Stosh]

I normally don't start threads, but this news article intrigued me.

 

How does one reconcile the issue of Biblical tenets and scientific evidence in light of scientific testimony from a major scientific contributor?

 

Le's look at how Albert Einstein might have felt about how strictly removed each side is on the issue.

 

NEW YORK – A Bible with an inscription from Albert Einstein has sold for $68,500 at an auction in New York City.

 

The Bible was part of a fine books and manuscripts auction at Bonhams on Tuesday. The German-born physicist and his wife signed it in 1932 and gifted it to an American friend named Harriett Hamilton.

 

The auction house says Einstein writes in the German inscription the Bible "is a great source of wisdom and consolation and should be read frequently."

 

The Bible's final price far exceeds its pre-sale estimate of between $1,500 and $2,500. The final price includes the auction house's commission.

 

The auction house hasn't said who bought the Bible.

 

Einstein formulated the theory of relativity and won a Nobel Prize in physics. He died in 1955.

 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/06/27/bible-signed-by-albert-einstein-sells-for-68500/?intcmp=features#ixzz2XW76CMpY

[Horizon]

For some of us, we reconcile our faith with science by NOT taking the Bible as the LITERAL word. We go further to accept the belief / statement that the Bible was written by people influenced by their culture and environment, and the Bible should be read with that understanding.

 

In high school, I read Genesis and story of the creation of Adam from sand. I looked at it and felt that if I were to try to explain single cell evolution, I would use sand to eventual human as an excellent analogy.

[The Blancmange]

>>>>How does one reconcile the issue of Biblical tenets and scientific evidence in light of scientific testimony from a major scientific contributor?<<<<

 

A surprising example how this can be done comes from the Catholic Church:

 

http://www.vaticanobservatory.org/index.php/en/about-us/cat-history

 

From persecutor of Galileo to sponsor and facilitator of cutting-edge scientific research - too bad it only took 350 years

[walk in the woods]

The argument between science and religion is driven by zealots on either side. Science seeks to explain HOW something comes about/works. Religion teaches and explains to me WHY I should act and live a certain way. Two different questions all together. As for creation vs evolution, etc. You call it science, I call it the hand of God. It's all good.

[King Ding Dong]

People believe what they want to believe. When one side sticks ardently to a position that an individual eventually comes to recognize as just plain self serving bunk it can lead to a very critical questioning and likely rejection of everything else. This happens on both sides. The result is we have one political party the now has the reputation of hating science and another that has a reputation of hating religion. I don't believe either of these perceptions is in reality is true, but it gets played out that way on nearly every divisive issue. In the political arena the answer is not for one side or the other to win. The answer is to stop the gerrymandering of congressional districts and return to competitive races where the strength of ideas will hopefully win out. There will always be safe districts, but they should look more like the states themselves and not a cup of coffee you spilled on the floor.

[AZMike]

>>>>How does one reconcile the issue of Biblical tenets and scientific evidence in light of scientific testimony from a major scientific contributor?<<<<

 

A surprising example how this can be done comes from the Catholic Church:

 

http://www.vaticanobservatory.org/index.php/en/about-us/cat-history

 

From persecutor of Galileo to sponsor and facilitator of cutting-edge scientific research - too bad it only took 350 years

It didn't exactly "start" with the "persecution" of Galileo, Blancmange. You only have academia and a university system because of the Catholic Church. You have the preservation of Greek science because of the Church. The Church was doing cutting-edge research in the sciences - in fact, pretty much the ONLY group funding and doing cutting edge research in the sciences - because of the belief that the Universe is ordered, that it operates by standard rules, and that it is good and worthy of study ("For God so loved _the world_ that he gave it his only begotten son.") You have the scientific method and sciences like geology, volcanology, lunar mapping, seismology, genetics, the Big Bang Theory, and lots more, because the Church has always given people time and money and encouragement to study the sciences. Galileo was an anomaly in Church history who ran afoul of Italian power politics because he was in the middle of Medici factions, because he insisted on publishing theory as fact (consider what happened a particularly brutal form of the academic review process at the time) well before the supporting observations were available, because he insisted on commenting on a science that was outside his field of expertise, and because he was prickly enough to insult another powerful Italian male (formerly one of his best friends and patrons) in public by calling him a simpleton (the whole incident was a lot more like a subplot of "The Sopranos" - "He said THAT about ME?!" - than an instance of some supposed never-ending battle between religion and science.) It was an example of the adoption of Biblical literalism in the face of the Protestant Reformation that made some (by no means all) Catholics adopt a biblical literalism that was never part of the Church before (heck, even St. Augustine said Genesis should be read metaphorically). Galileo was never tortured, never executed, never imprisoned, and his sentence was stay in a friend's house to rebuild his strength and sample his wine cellar. No, he never said "It still moves!" either. He continued to receive the sacraments and remained a Catholic.

 

Any other scientists that were persecuted by the Church? I can't think of any, but can think of lots of scientists that were actually tortured and executed by secular and atheist regimes...not to mention those that have been slandered and lost their funding because their research results weren't in accord with secular social beliefs.

[Cambridgeskip]

It all becomes easier to recognise when you take a step back and consider what the bible actually is.

 

It is not one text. Instead it is a collection of 68(?) individual texts that were put together in an anthology in order to tell the story of man, God and their relationship with each other as Christians believe it. Yes there are common themes that the reader is intended to derive from it, but when each individual text was written down it was for a different purpose. Some are books of law, some are histories, some are letters to individuals or letters to groups of people. Some have purposes which are unclear. Most were written down many years after the events which they actually recount having been passed on by word of mouth before that. They were written in a variety languages, including some which have died out in recent years. Like any texts they were naturally influenced by the culture, politics and events of the day and need to be seen in that context.

 

Once you understand and accept all those things it becomes much easier to see that there is more than one way of interpreting any individual passage and just because the literal English translation of a given passage seems at odds with current scientific understanding it doesn't need to create a massive problem.

[GeorgiaMom]

This is my take as a conservative Christian. The Bible is not a science textbook. It's about the relationship between God and man.

 

I compare it to the way I answer my preschooler when he asks "Where did I come from?" I tell him, your Dad and I love each other very much, and we wanted a son to love, too. Is it a full scientific explanation of how my son was conceived and born? No. Is it true? Yes. It is appropriate to his age and level of understanding.

 

The first books of the Bible were written pre-Bronze age. It makes no sense to me to expect writing for that audience to fully explain 21st century science and technology. The Bible wasn't written to give a scientific explanation of our world. It was given to explain how we got here, how to live in peace with each other, and to let us know that we are God's beloved children.

 

I do not expect to ever fully understand God's creation from a scientific standpoint. I enjoy learning about it, but ultimately, I don't think I'm capable of ever wrapping my human mind around all the things God can do. I would make more sense to me to expect an ant to understand how and why I do things as a human. The gulf of understanding and capability between me and God is far greater than the gulf between the ant and me.

 

Isaac Newton was a faithful Christian, and had many good quotes about the relationship between science and God, including this:

 

"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."

 

Newton often said that the purpose of science is to begin to understand God's creation. I agree with him.

 

I often wonder that modern science has room to believe in 11 dimensions, membrane universes, and life on other planets, but no room to believe in God. I find the more I understand about science, the more support I find for God's existence.

 

Faith is something that has to be experienced with an open mind. I see evidence all around for God's existence and his love for me: in my husband, my children, my friends, and my life. It does require a willingness to believe.

 

I compare it to my relationship with my husband. I believe my husband loves me. I see all kinds of evidence that he loves me. I choose to accept that belief. Can I ever definitively, scientifically prove that he loves me? No.

 

If I chose to nitpick, I could come up with all kinds of "evidence" that my husband is a jerk who never loved me at all. He makes mistakes just like I do. If I chose to try to disprove God's existence, I could nitpick it to death and come up with plausible evidence for that theory.

 

There will never be a definitive way to prove or disprove God's existence. That's why it's called "faith".

 

Thanks for asking,

 

Georgia Mom

[skeptic]

This is my take as a conservative Christian. The Bible is not a science textbook. It's about the relationship between God and man.

 

I compare it to the way I answer my preschooler when he asks "Where did I come from?" I tell him, your Dad and I love each other very much, and we wanted a son to love, too. Is it a full scientific explanation of how my son was conceived and born? No. Is it true? Yes. It is appropriate to his age and level of understanding.

 

The first books of the Bible were written pre-Bronze age. It makes no sense to me to expect writing for that audience to fully explain 21st century science and technology. The Bible wasn't written to give a scientific explanation of our world. It was given to explain how we got here, how to live in peace with each other, and to let us know that we are God's beloved children.

 

I do not expect to ever fully understand God's creation from a scientific standpoint. I enjoy learning about it, but ultimately, I don't think I'm capable of ever wrapping my human mind around all the things God can do. I would make more sense to me to expect an ant to understand how and why I do things as a human. The gulf of understanding and capability between me and God is far greater than the gulf between the ant and me.

 

Isaac Newton was a faithful Christian, and had many good quotes about the relationship between science and God, including this:

 

"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."

 

Newton often said that the purpose of science is to begin to understand God's creation. I agree with him.

 

I often wonder that modern science has room to believe in 11 dimensions, membrane universes, and life on other planets, but no room to believe in God. I find the more I understand about science, the more support I find for God's existence.

 

Faith is something that has to be experienced with an open mind. I see evidence all around for God's existence and his love for me: in my husband, my children, my friends, and my life. It does require a willingness to believe.

 

I compare it to my relationship with my husband. I believe my husband loves me. I see all kinds of evidence that he loves me. I choose to accept that belief. Can I ever definitively, scientifically prove that he loves me? No.

 

If I chose to nitpick, I could come up with all kinds of "evidence" that my husband is a jerk who never loved me at all. He makes mistakes just like I do. If I chose to try to disprove God's existence, I could nitpick it to death and come up with plausible evidence for that theory.

 

There will never be a definitive way to prove or disprove God's existence. That's why it's called "faith".

 

Thanks for asking,

 

Georgia Mom

Thanks; good to see that simple common sense is still around after-all.

[NJCubScouter]

Jblake: Interestingly enough, Einstein identified himself as an agnostic.

[SSScout]

I do not think Herr Einstein "identified himself as an agnostic" :::.:

":Ich glaube an Spinozas Gott, der sich in der gesetzlichen Harmonie des Seienden offenbart, nicht an einen Gott, der sich mit Schicksalen und Handlungen der Menschen abgibt.".

• Translation: I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.
  
• And....."Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the "old one." I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice."
  

[packsaddle]

I do not think Herr Einstein "identified himself as an agnostic" :::.:

":Ich glaube an Spinozas Gott, der sich in der gesetzlichen Harmonie des Seienden offenbart, nicht an einen Gott, der sich mit Schicksalen und Handlungen der Menschen abgibt.".

• Translation: I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.
  
• And....."Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the "old one." I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice."
  

Well, he was wrong about quantum mechanics. And while I never heard him play I have been told he 'sucked' at playing the violin, as if that is relevant to anything.

[SR540Beaver]

This is my take as a conservative Christian. The Bible is not a science textbook. It's about the relationship between God and man.

 

I compare it to the way I answer my preschooler when he asks "Where did I come from?" I tell him, your Dad and I love each other very much, and we wanted a son to love, too. Is it a full scientific explanation of how my son was conceived and born? No. Is it true? Yes. It is appropriate to his age and level of understanding.

 

The first books of the Bible were written pre-Bronze age. It makes no sense to me to expect writing for that audience to fully explain 21st century science and technology. The Bible wasn't written to give a scientific explanation of our world. It was given to explain how we got here, how to live in peace with each other, and to let us know that we are God's beloved children.

 

I do not expect to ever fully understand God's creation from a scientific standpoint. I enjoy learning about it, but ultimately, I don't think I'm capable of ever wrapping my human mind around all the things God can do. I would make more sense to me to expect an ant to understand how and why I do things as a human. The gulf of understanding and capability between me and God is far greater than the gulf between the ant and me.

 

Isaac Newton was a faithful Christian, and had many good quotes about the relationship between science and God, including this:

 

"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."

 

Newton often said that the purpose of science is to begin to understand God's creation. I agree with him.

 

I often wonder that modern science has room to believe in 11 dimensions, membrane universes, and life on other planets, but no room to believe in God. I find the more I understand about science, the more support I find for God's existence.

 

Faith is something that has to be experienced with an open mind. I see evidence all around for God's existence and his love for me: in my husband, my children, my friends, and my life. It does require a willingness to believe.

 

I compare it to my relationship with my husband. I believe my husband loves me. I see all kinds of evidence that he loves me. I choose to accept that belief. Can I ever definitively, scientifically prove that he loves me? No.

 

If I chose to nitpick, I could come up with all kinds of "evidence" that my husband is a jerk who never loved me at all. He makes mistakes just like I do. If I chose to try to disprove God's existence, I could nitpick it to death and come up with plausible evidence for that theory.

 

There will never be a definitive way to prove or disprove God's existence. That's why it's called "faith".

 

Thanks for asking,

 

Georgia Mom

Well stated! My view has developed over the years to this. I believe God exists and is the creator. Is the Earth 5000 years old and was it created in 6 days? Science says no. Could a Biblical creation day be a billon years? Sure, why not. I don't concern myself as much with the how as I do the who. I won't deny science and I won't deny God. They can and do co-exist quite nicely.

[st0ut717]

I read a book that to me is one of the best books written on this topic. it is written by a rabbi who happens to be a physics professor. The book is the science of god:

 

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/ScienceGod.aspx#

 

[ThomasJefferson]

Science is the collection of evidence, observations, experiments, and testing your ideas to see if they prove out under stress.

 

Religion is just a story someone wrote.

 

There is no comparison. One is a fiction book. The other is the real world.

 

I am happy that I do not believe anything that is in the Bible. All of the stories in the bible are just recycled stories with different names and slight twists from earlier cultures. Very little of the Bible to me is good advice or comforting. I find most of it brutal, horrific, and scary.

 

God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, but two thousand years prior was so pissed off that he nuked two cities and the surrounding areas because his creation had run amok. This speaks to an angry, flawed God with a temper who apparently cannot control man or create beings he is satisfied with. I can't remember if this is before or after this apparently non-innovative and highly flawed super being flooded the world to rid it of sin but somehow stupidly could not see that the people he saved would breed out randomly and result in there being sin again.

 

The entire bible makes no sense. I read it to my kids to see if they were interested. We got through two books, and they were sitting there mouths open. "Poeple believe this nonsense?" I told them, "People do not read this nonsense. People say they read it, but really they only listen to surgically plucked phrases and quotes while never actually reading it."

 

I've read the entire book cover to cover - unlike any other Christian I am aware of. Reading it as if reading a novel left me with my eyes bugging out at the goofy things I was reading and horrible advice I received.

 

It's not extremism on both sides. Only religion is extreme. The rejection of it is simply to not believe it. It isn't anything. It's just a state of not purchasing the idea of a God. You are not an extremist if you don't watch TV. You are simply choosing to not watch it. Perhaps extremism on the other side would be calling for burning of churches and the banning of religion. Atheists don't really do that. We mostly ignore it and quietly tolerate religious behaviors around us without outing ourselves for fear of being judged and preached at by confused believers.

 

The science of God is simple. People saw scary things, attributed thunder, lightning, comets, etc to Gods. Then a smart guy in the tribe saw opportunity and became the "priest" as a way of taking power without being chosen. If the chief was uncooperative, the medicine man said "The Gods have spoken. He is evil!" It's still done today by people claiming that God wants this and that when really it is just them who wants it.

 

I was raised with religion. I am happier and my children are happier in a home with no ghosts, no alien abductions, no bigfoot, no lochness monster, and no God.

 

This chart shows that the US is alone except for the third world in its religious fervor:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gallup_Religiosity_Index_2009.png

 

Here's a study showing that as a nation's average IQ goes up, the tendency toward atheism in the population also increases:

 

http://davesource.com/Fringe/Fringe/Religion/Average-intelligence-predicts-atheism-rates-across-137-nations-Lynn-et-al.pdf

 

The chart from that study:

 

http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com/iq_vs_religiosity.htm

 

There are well-studied links between growing up conservative and growing up with lower intelligence and fewer resources:

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/13/1131220/-Religious-and-Conservative-people-have-lower-IQs-than-their-counterparts

 

I believe religion is something that humans still feel they need, but eventually will just outgrow. No earth-bound religion will survive the arrival of a superior alien species or man's spreading out through space to other worlds. Once all of the events in the bible are easily explained with technology we possess ourselves, it's no longer going to interest anyone. It's all just a matter of time.