Christianity and Science? | INFJ Forum

Christianity and Science?

j654dgj7

Please delete this account.
Jun 8, 2012
3,220
3,292
440
MBTI
XXXX
In light of the rising popularity of creationism in Christianity: Can Christianity and Science co-exist?

Here's my stance, which fits in with the Quaker's official stance (Click here if you want to see the entire FAQ of our views)

"We understand that people evolved over millennia, and we stand in awe of the creation. Many Quakers feel called to help protect and heal the world that we are blessed to inhabit."
 
I dont think they will ever dissolve eachother but undoubtedly for Christianity to move into the future one of two things must happen. Christians will have to rework their religion to better fit with science or, they will have to destroy it.
 
I've battled this a lot, but what's interesting, is that many scientists and much of the 'ideas' around science, have come out of religion and wanting to understand God and what he created. A lot of famous scientists who have made significant contributions to a variety of scientific fields. So yes, I think they can co-exist!
 
Well considering that churches and were the houses of learning in the middle ages, and that most of our famous enlightened thinkers were indeed Christians on top of the fact that there are plenty of reasonable scientist in many different fields today who are Christians.

Yeah it stands to reason that they can co-exist and more importantly benefit from one another. As Albert Einstein would say, "Religion without science is blind, Science without religion is lame."
 
I think 'science' needs to stop being such a fancy pants and smoke a joint

Too many 'scientists' lock themselves into paradigms without realising that we are on a journey of discovery....it is a fluid process of flux

I think many christians are equally trapped in a box; they are thinking too literally. They too need to also expand their perceptual awareness

if christians and scientists can stop taking themselves so seriously and realise that there is nothing seperating them except their own mental constructs then of course they can live together harmoniously and go on to explore and to co create together
 
Religion was once an attempt to explain the world around us. People came to the conclusion that there could be some sort of creator, which is a nice explanation if you think about it. Through time people asked more and more questions and could find many answers, sometimes very contrary to their belief. This is when science came into the game. It is all faith 'till it is explained and tested and reexplained and retested under many different conditions.
Sadly we humans tend to be egocentric, so there were some people saying: "Hey, this is contrary my belief, ergo you are wrong!" and on the other hand people saying: "Hey, you didn't even try to think about it, you are wrong!"
If we could accept religion and science as what it is it would be much easier.
Science: Try to explain what we are able to know (yet).
Religion: Try to have faith in something we aren't able to know (yet).
There would be no points of contact.
But again, humans -.- : 2000 years ago the creationist beliefs were alright, there was no better explanation, no Darwin, no Kopernikus, no (insert all physic-scientists that lifed after the Roman empire)
Today: We should know better, we have evidence, we have explanations. We had 10000000 doubts and not one could debilitate the theory (not to confuse with the public belief that theory means "not explained") of evolution, just made a little scratch sometimes. We can never be 100% sure, but we can try to get as close to the 100% as it is possible. I don't get why we have to go back 2000 years and say: "No, these people were right, because... äh... God!" (No offence, just my oppinion)
I respect oppinions, I know I have oppinions as everyone else does.
Again: I wouldn't have any problem to pick a creator, if we would adopt the knownledge of our century. I don't think there is one, but I don't say I am right, because I can't know, so as noone is able to know it, just to believe and that's the part Religion should take and not the counter part to science.
Religion was once Science and Science was once Religion, they where torn apart by egocentric people not by being contrary in definition.

sorry for my English... I probably totally missed the point you wanted to discuss...

*lights up joint*
Ah, shit believe and think what you want, it doesn't need anyone to approve it, it's all about you!^^
(Why do I always find myself in senceless debates, dude, I am hungry...)
 
The issue is not: "Can Christianity and science co-exist?"

The issue is: "Can the revelation of God in the Holy Scriptures and the philosophies of men co-exist?"

And the resounding answer is: "NO."

For example, men theorize that everything came into existence by purely natural processes.

But the Word of God declares, in no uncertain terms, that God created the heavens and the earth.

Genesis 1:1 :
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

And, so, the Word of God declares, in Hebrews 11:3 :
By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

And that's only the tip of the iceberg.

The revelation of God and the philosophies of men will NEVER co-exist.

Mankind is LOST in DARKNESS, and CANNOT know the truth, unless it is REVEALED to him by the Spirit of God.

1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
 
Last edited:
If we are to be realistic, science has nothing to do with religion, and religion has nothing to do with science. Religion has to do with metaphysical claims, while science is materialistic and very practical by its nature. But this is just one side.

On the other one, religion might argumentate that science somehow prove a Maker, a Creator, and thus science is a tool for religious means.


The worst thing of all this is the development of scientism. Scientism is religious science, when science is place on a pedestal, and people worship it until they romanticise it. The pseudo-conflict between religion and science is not propagated by religion, but rather by scientism.
People who don't have a religion, usualy make scientism their religion. And from here the war begins.
What is very important one should recognise is that scientism is a system of philosophy, a worldview, something which is implied along the advances of science, secretly, and many times, whithout people realising it.
Its like one would see a conflict between mathematics and religion, or between mechanics and religion. Yep, the advocates of scientism don't think more than that.
 
Christianity vs. science is just a false dichotomy and people who like to fight generally like those sorts of things because they want something to support and something to oppose in equal measure, the same sort of character profile exists in equal strength and number on both sides of the equation too and they need each other but they dont and wont ever acknowledge it.
 
Truth is not opposed to truth.

True religion will never fundamentally conflict with true science.



In 1950, Pope Pius XII clarified that it was acceptable to consider either that humans could have been created in a miraculous manner, or that the human body had evolved over a long time - and that at a certain point God created the first human souls in two of these hominids. Ie. When Adam was formed from mud/slime it can be understood either literally in respect of the terms, or comparatively (ie. from something far beneath him). What must be held is that human souls, being spiritual, cannot emerge from matter - be it animate, or inanimate - but are created by God in each case; and that only two humans souls have been created in creatures which were not offspring of other humans.
 
Misconceptions of science and religion found in new study - See more at: http://news.rice.edu/2014/02/16/misconceptions-of-science-and-religion-found-in-new-study

The public’s view that science and religion can’t work in collaboration is a misconception that stunts progress, according to a new survey of more than 10,000 Americans, scientists and evangelical Protestants. The study by Rice University also found that scientists and the general public are surprisingly similar in their religious practices.


Elaine Howard Ecklund. Photo courtesy: Jeff Fitlow/Rice University
The study, “Religious Understandings of Science (RUS),” was conducted by sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund and presented today in Chicago during the annual American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) conference. Ecklund is the Autrey Professor of Sociology and director of Rice’s Religion and Public Life Program.

“We found that nearly 50 percent of evangelicals believe that science and religion can work together and support one another,” Ecklund said. “That’s in contrast to the fact that only 38 percent of Americans feel that science and religion can work in collaboration.”

The study also found that 18 percent of scientists attended weekly religious services, compared with 20 percent of the general U.S. population; 15 percent consider themselves very religious (versus 19 percent of the general U.S. population); 13.5 percent read religious texts weekly (compared with 17 percent of the U.S. population); and 19 percent pray several times a day (versus 26 percent of the U.S. population).

“This is a hopeful message for science policymakers and educators, because the two groups don’t have to approach religion with an attitude of combat,” Ecklund said. “Rather, they should approach it with collaboration in mind.”

Ecklund said that the way the science-religion relationship is portrayed in the news media influences the misperception.

“Most of what you see in the news are stories about these two groups at odds over the controversial issues, like teaching creationism in the schools. And the pundits and news panelists are likely the most strident representatives for each group,” she said. “It might not be as riveting for television, but consider how often you see a news story about these groups doing things for their common good. There is enormous stereotyping about this issue and not very good information.”

Ecklund noted that portions of the two groups are likely to stay put in their oppositional camps. As an example, she found that evangelical Protestants are twice as likely as the general population (11 percent) to consult a religious text or religious leader for questions about science.

Other key findings:

Nearly 60 percent of evangelical Protestants and 38 percent of all surveyed believe “scientists should be open to considering miracles in their theories or explanations.”
27 percent of Americans feel that science and religion are in conflict.
Of those who feel science and religion are in conflict, 52 percent sided with religion.
48 percent of evangelicals believe that science and religion can work in collaboration.
22 percent of scientists think most religious people are hostile to science.
Nearly 20 percent of the general population think religious people are hostile to science.
Nearly 22 percent of the general population think scientists are hostile to religion.
Nearly 36 percent of scientists have no doubt about God’s existence.
Ecklund found another counterintuitive result in the survey. The conventional wisdom is that religious people who work in science will have more doubts about their faith, but the survey revealed the opposite: Evangelical scientists practice religion more than evangelical Protestants in the general population.

“Those scientists who identify as evangelical are more religious than regular American evangelicals who are not in science,” Ecklund said.

“Evangelical scientists feel that they’ve been put under pressure or they find themselves in what they view to be more hostile environments,” she said. “They potentially see themselves as more religious, because they’re seeing the contrast between the two groups all the time.”

RUS is the largest study of American views on religion and science. It includes the nationally representative survey of more than 10,000 Americans, more than 300 in-depth interviews with Christians, Jews and Muslims — more than 140 of whom are evangelicals — and extensive observations of religious centers in Houston and Chicago.

- See more at: http://news.rice.edu/2014/02/16/mis...gion-found-in-new-study/#sthash.mw5FGgmX.dpuf


It's possible, but not for everyone.
 
Science is supposed to explain nature, right? Christians believe in God and we believe that God created nature, right?

So if both of these arguments are true, Science should support Christianity... I believe that Christianity is that true religion, you may believe otherwise... But I would like to show you how Christianity and Scientific facts (not scientific theories) are in total agreement.

1. In the Bible you read that God created the heavens and the Earth (Genesis 1: 1). In 1924 Edwin Hubble looked at the stars with a telescope and realized that most stars were drifting away (he expected some stars to be close and some far since the scientific belief was that the univers was stationary, that it didn't move). So it was discovered that the Earth was not only expanding, but that if you could "rewind the movie", the Earth had a begining.

2. In the Bible you read that during the fifth and sixth "days" of creation, Jehovah created all animal life-forms, not through evolution but suddenly. How does science support this fact? “Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life,” says evolutionary paleontologist David M. Raup, “what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. The period to which the majority of the most ancient fossils are found is what paleontologists call the Cambrian period. So science has discovered that God did create life suddenly and not through evolution.

3. For a very long time people have wondered about the shape of the Earth. About a century ago, many people still believed that the Earth was flat. Interestingly, Aristotle noticed that the Earth was in fact round, in the 4th century BC, but he thought that there were other invisible spheres that were keeping it floating. Prophet Isaiah wrote under divine inspiration (it's the only explanation I could find) and referring to God: "There is One who dwells above the circle of the earth". This was written in the 7th century BC, about three hundred years before Aristotle. But the Bible was even more advanced than Aristotle, because in the 15th century BC, it was written "He stretches out the northern sky over empty space, suspending the earth upon nothing" (Job 26: 7)

These are only a few examples. You can find some more fascinating examples of how Science and History support what the Bible teaches, and the Bible teaches Christianity is the way.
 
The story of creation as written in the Bible is a parable.

To take it literally is just plain silly.

bizarrobelieverjerkcolor-630x750.jpg
 
The story of creation as written in the Bible is a parable.

To take it literally is just plain silly.

bizarrobelieverjerkcolor-630x750.jpg

Comment of the week!

Another thing - "Earth was created in 7 days" - if Earth was created in 7 days, doesn't that imply that the 7 days were God-days? Pre-Earth days? Those could be billions of years, or whatever.
 
Comment of the week!

Another thing - "Earth was created in 7 days" - if Earth was created in 7 days, doesn't that imply that the 7 days were God-days? Pre-Earth days? Those could be billions of years, or whatever.

The 7 days story is just the outer exoteric story of the inner esoteric sacred geometery

The priests never told the common people the inside info they just told them childrens stories

The seed of life and the 7 'days' of creation:

Seed_Of_Life_Stages.jpg

The priests never counted on the internet! May god bless it and all who sail on her :)

[video=youtube;e3tcxY2aEzU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3tcxY2aEzU[/video]
 
The 7 days story is just the outer exoteric story of the inner esoteric sacred geometery

The priests never told the common people the inside info they just told them childrens stories

The seed of life and the 7 'days' of creation:

View attachment 20796

The priests never counted on the internet! May god bless it and all who sail on her :)

[video=youtube;e3tcxY2aEzU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3tcxY2aEzU[/video]

Truth start from simple to complex, not the other way around.
"inner esoteric sacred geometery" is just too fancy to me. God show His glory by small things, the most simple and "insignificant" (for the fool's eyes) things.
 
Truth start from simple to complex, not the other way around.
"inner esoteric sacred geometery" is just too fancy to me. God show His glory by small things, the most simple and "insignificant" (for the fool's eyes) things.

Who do you think first told the story oif creation taking place over 7 days?

Where do you think they got that idea from?
 
Who do you think first told the story oif creation taking place over 7 days?

Where do you think they got that idea from?
From Revelation of God. Anything that is "inner" and "esoteric" is interdicted in the Bible. Everything that has to do with the occult.