4 ms·

How do you deal with all the inconsistencies between science and religion? e.g. evolution vs creationism.

by pubby 12y ago

zaphar 12y ago
I consider most if not all those consistencies to be manufactured. Evolution vs Creationism is of course the poster child for this. The simple answer is I wasn't around for either Evolution or Creation whichever one happened so I can't give a definitive ruling either way. I happen to believe that God did some sort of creative act. What form that act took (7 days of creative work? or billions of years of guided evolution?) I can't really say. Either one is something of a miracle to my mind though. Both appear to be highly unlikely to occur, yet I and your are here having this conversation so one of them had to. I choose to believe God was the motivating force behind whichever one it was. I have one rule that I follow. My faith must be rational. If an article of faith is disprovable then I don't hold with it. That leaves a lot of room for faith though.
- MaxDPS 12y ago
  Do you believe in the literal story of Noahs flood? As in, the whole world was covered in water?
  - zaphar 12y ago
    I can't say one way or the other. There is enough water to cover most of the earths surface if it's not tied up in ice at the poles so it's physically possible. And there is also evidence of water coverage over many parts of the earth that are not near any ocean. However the story could also be interpreted in terms of a localized flood covering all of the known earth. I do believe Noah was a literal person and I do believe there was a flood. I even like the idea of a global flood as it seems to allow one to explain some phenomena observed in Geological formations. However I'm not a Geologist so my opinions there are pretty uninformed and could just as likely be wrong.
    - MaxDPS 12y ago
      Its true that a lot of land would be covered by melted ice but even then, over 90% of earth would still be above sea level as shown here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2488452/Map-reveals-devastation-worlds-ice-melted.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2488452/Map-r... Also, fossil evidence doesn't not support a worldwide flood. If a worldwide flood would have happened you have have fossils from that era all over the place in sediments of rock, but you don't. They are all found neatly organized in their own respective layers. Here is some more info if you are interested: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_flood#Fossil_layers http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_flood#Fossil_layers I think a localized flood is a much better explanation for people who believe that part of the bible.
- robotresearcher 12y ago
  > I wasn't around for either Evolution or Creation You are around for evolution.
gliese1337 12y ago
Fundamentalist creationism is not an inescapable consequence of "religion" generally. Can't speak for zaphar, but I for one have no problem believing that God could've created the world any way he felt like, including by letting evolution happen. Despite being not merely religious but an actual Bible-believing Christian, I am nevertheless quite willing to accept that a good deal of scriptural text is metaphorical. A lot of it is pretty dang hit-you-over-the-head-with-a-stick obviously metaphorical, so the idea that the Biblical creation account might not be intended as an accurate scientific account is Not A Problem. Regarding other possible inconsistencies, I find that most of the ones people complain about are like evolution- not actually necessary inconsistencies if you think about it. For the rest, I assume that one or the other is either wrong or incomplete, and hold off judgment until either scientific concensus or doctrinal assertion are changed. When it comes to questions of scientific fact, I usually lean in favor of science. When it comes to matters of philosophy or ethics, I lean in favor of religion. And for reference, I don't usually consider sociology or social psychology to be very convincing "science".
- zaphar 12y ago
  A lot of it is pretty dang hit-you-over-the-head-with-a-stick obviously metaphorical Revelation anyone?
- lotharbot 12y ago
  > "A lot of it is pretty dang hit-you-over-the-head-with-a-stick obviously metaphorical" Origen: "[if scripture was purely literal] we would not certainly believe, when thus possessing the meaning of Scripture in a continuous series, that anything else was contained in it save what was indicated on the surface; so for that reason divine wisdom took care that certain stumbling-blocks, or interruptions, to the historical meaning should take place, by the introduction into the midst (of the narrative) of certain impossibilities and incongruities; that in this way the very interruption of the narrative might, as by the interposition of a bolt, present an obstacle to the reader, whereby he might refuse to acknowledge the way which conducts to the ordinary meaning; and being thus excluded and debarred from it, we might be recalled to the beginning of another way, in order that, by entering upon a narrow path, and passing to a loftier and more sublime road, he might lay open the immense breadth of divine wisdom. This, however, must not be unnoted by us, that as the chief object of the Holy Spirit is to preserve the coherence of the spiritual meaning, either in those things which ought to be done or which have been already performed, if He anywhere finds that those events which, according to the history, took place, can be adapted to a spiritual meaning, He composed a texture of both kinds in one style of narration, always concealing the hidden meaning more deeply; but where the historical narrative could not be made appropriate to the spiritual coherence of the occurrences, He inserted sometimes certain things which either did not take place or could not take place; sometimes also what might happen, but what did not: and He does this at one time in a few words, which, taken in their “bodily” meaning, seem incapable of containing truth, and at another by the insertion of many." - http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.v.v.i.html http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.v.v.i.html section 15 Origen was one of the foremost Christian scholars of the 2nd-3rd century. This was the predominant approach Christians took to scripture until 19th century America, when literalism took over -- for a short time. Of particular note, the earliest parts of Genesis would have been obviously metaphorical to any of the early readers... because they blatantly undermine the Egyptian creation stories. They take the most significant Egyptian gods and describe them as mere objects (even the sun and moon aren't named -- they're just "lights".) They take the most significant elements of the Egyptian stories and turn them around, twist them up on themselves, and use them to express how Yahweh is different from Horus, Isis, and the rest. It's like the way Shrek takes common tropes from Cinderella-type movies and turns them on their head, only serious instead of comedic.

How do you deal with all the inconsistencies between science and religion? e.g. evolution vs creationism.

by pubby 12y ago

How do you deal with all the inconsistencies between science and religion? e.g. evolution vs creationism.

I consider most if not all those consistencies to be manufactured. Evolution vs Creationism is of course the poster child for this. The simple answer is I wasn't around for either Evolution or Creation whichever one happened so I can't give a definitive ruling either way. I happen to believe that God did some sort of creative act. What form that act took (7 days of creative work? or billions of years of guided evolution?) I can't really say. Either one is something of a miracle to my mind though. Both appear to be highly unlikely to occur, yet I and your are here having this conversation so one of them had to. I choose to believe God was the motivating force behind whichever one it was. I have one rule that I follow. My faith must be rational. If an article of faith is disprovable then I don't hold with it. That leaves a lot of room for faith though.

MaxDPS 12y ago
Do you believe in the literal story of Noahs flood? As in, the whole world was covered in water?
- zaphar 12y ago
  I can't say one way or the other. There is enough water to cover most of the earths surface if it's not tied up in ice at the poles so it's physically possible. And there is also evidence of water coverage over many parts of the earth that are not near any ocean. However the story could also be interpreted in terms of a localized flood covering all of the known earth. I do believe Noah was a literal person and I do believe there was a flood. I even like the idea of a global flood as it seems to allow one to explain some phenomena observed in Geological formations. However I'm not a Geologist so my opinions there are pretty uninformed and could just as likely be wrong.
  - MaxDPS 12y ago
    Its true that a lot of land would be covered by melted ice but even then, over 90% of earth would still be above sea level as shown here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2488452/Map-reveals-devastation-worlds-ice-melted.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2488452/Map-r... Also, fossil evidence doesn't not support a worldwide flood. If a worldwide flood would have happened you have have fossils from that era all over the place in sediments of rock, but you don't. They are all found neatly organized in their own respective layers. Here is some more info if you are interested: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_flood#Fossil_layers http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_flood#Fossil_layers I think a localized flood is a much better explanation for people who believe that part of the bible.
robotresearcher 12y ago
> I wasn't around for either Evolution or Creation You are around for evolution.

gliese1337 12y ago

Fundamentalist creationism is not an inescapable consequence of "religion" generally. Can't speak for zaphar, but I for one have no problem believing that God could've created the world any way he felt like, including by letting evolution happen. Despite being not merely religious but an actual Bible-believing Christian, I am nevertheless quite willing to accept that a good deal of scriptural text is metaphorical. A lot of it is pretty dang hit-you-over-the-head-with-a-stick obviously metaphorical, so the idea that the Biblical creation account might not be intended as an accurate scientific account is Not A Problem. Regarding other possible inconsistencies, I find that most of the ones people complain about are like evolution- not actually necessary inconsistencies if you think about it. For the rest, I assume that one or the other is either wrong or incomplete, and hold off judgment until either scientific concensus or doctrinal assertion are changed. When it comes to questions of scientific fact, I usually lean in favor of science. When it comes to matters of philosophy or ethics, I lean in favor of religion. And for reference, I don't usually consider sociology or social psychology to be very convincing "science".

zaphar 12y ago
A lot of it is pretty dang hit-you-over-the-head-with-a-stick obviously metaphorical Revelation anyone?
lotharbot 12y ago
> "A lot of it is pretty dang hit-you-over-the-head-with-a-stick obviously metaphorical" Origen: "[if scripture was purely literal] we would not certainly believe, when thus possessing the meaning of Scripture in a continuous series, that anything else was contained in it save what was indicated on the surface; so for that reason divine wisdom took care that certain stumbling-blocks, or interruptions, to the historical meaning should take place, by the introduction into the midst (of the narrative) of certain impossibilities and incongruities; that in this way the very interruption of the narrative might, as by the interposition of a bolt, present an obstacle to the reader, whereby he might refuse to acknowledge the way which conducts to the ordinary meaning; and being thus excluded and debarred from it, we might be recalled to the beginning of another way, in order that, by entering upon a narrow path, and passing to a loftier and more sublime road, he might lay open the immense breadth of divine wisdom. This, however, must not be unnoted by us, that as the chief object of the Holy Spirit is to preserve the coherence of the spiritual meaning, either in those things which ought to be done or which have been already performed, if He anywhere finds that those events which, according to the history, took place, can be adapted to a spiritual meaning, He composed a texture of both kinds in one style of narration, always concealing the hidden meaning more deeply; but where the historical narrative could not be made appropriate to the spiritual coherence of the occurrences, He inserted sometimes certain things which either did not take place or could not take place; sometimes also what might happen, but what did not: and He does this at one time in a few words, which, taken in their “bodily” meaning, seem incapable of containing truth, and at another by the insertion of many." - http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.v.v.i.html http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.v.v.i.html section 15 Origen was one of the foremost Christian scholars of the 2nd-3rd century. This was the predominant approach Christians took to scripture until 19th century America, when literalism took over -- for a short time. Of particular note, the earliest parts of Genesis would have been obviously metaphorical to any of the early readers... because they blatantly undermine the Egyptian creation stories. They take the most significant Egyptian gods and describe them as mere objects (even the sun and moon aren't named -- they're just "lights".) They take the most significant elements of the Egyptian stories and turn them around, twist them up on themselves, and use them to express how Yahweh is different from Horus, Isis, and the rest. It's like the way Shrek takes common tropes from Cinderella-type movies and turns them on their head, only serious instead of comedic.