A new report from the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life takes a look at what it calls the seemingly "paradoxical" relationship between science and religion. According to the report, many surveys show that Americans respect science and the benefits it brings to our lives. Yet at the same time, many Americans reject certain scientific theories -- especially evolution -- because of strong religious convictions. Does this tension mean that science and religion are necessarily at odds?
Some believe so. Scientists like Richard Dawkins and Steven Weinberg (both in the "Anti-religious Non-accommodationists" of BioLogos' leading figures section) contend that science frees society from the social ills caused by what they call "religious superstitions." Similarly, many creationists believe that any scientific theory contradicting a "natural" or "plain" reading of the English text of the Bible must be rejected. Furthermore, they blame evolution as a root cause for the social ills of society.
Yet others support a harmonious relationship between science and religion. According to the report, "throughout much of ancient and modern human history, religious institutions have actively supported scientific endeavors." Specifically, the report points to scientists like Nicolaus Copernicus and Gregor Mendel, men of the cloth who made major scientific breakthroughs, as well as Sir Isaac Newton and Johannes Kepler, who viewed their scientific work as a means to explore God's creation. More recently, scientists like Georges Lemaitre, Max Planck, and Francis Collins have shown that faith and science need not be exclusive.
However, issues like evolution show that there is work to be done to integrate the two sources of knowledge. A May 2009 survey conducted by the Pew Forum, for example, found that only 61% of the general public accepted some form of evolution as the source of life today, compared with 97% of all scientists. Of those 61%, only 22% believed that evolution was guided by a supreme being. Still, as the report concluded, "if the past is any guide, the United States will likely continue to be a nation of both high levels of religious commitment and high regard for scientific achievement." The hope of The BioLogos Foundation is that many will realize these two important aspects of American life need not be at odds or even mutually exclusive, but are entirely compatible.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Hi Knockgoats, welcome back!
I think you are right, but I think the problem is knowing which, if any are RIGHT. One can find out if they are wrong by non contradiction.
If they contradict internally, or contradict external reality, then doesn't that show they are wrong?
As a recovering Fundamentalist ;-) I know it is hard to deal with finding out my religious beliefs were wrong, but I could not deny reality with a clear conscience.
If there is incompatibility, there is discernable differences.
Obviously in religion, there is a way to determine what is error and what is reality. There is a lot of knowledge to be had from religion. It deals with the actions of men.
Take marriage for example, in Christianity, the entire witness of the New Testament shows it as immutably a man and a woman. Those that claim to be Christians and hold to some other deviation of the man/woman arragement, are provably wrong BY the words written IN the New Testament and the context by which they are laid down.
Now, there are liars and deceivers (of course) that want to twist things around to accomodate non and anti Christians, "deviants" but again, you go to the NT to prove them wrong.
In Islam, Mohammad wrote what he did to show the Jews and Christians wrong. Is a Muslim a Orthodox Jew? Does Islam declare Christ Crucified? No. Religion showing incompatibility.
In simple terms, some are right and some are wrong.
Now evolution - a bit of natural evidence proclaimed by BioLogos as critically important to being a Christian - is proven, by the culture detailed in the New Testament as how to live for Christians, shows that they, the BioLogos theologians, are wrong.
Evolution is meaningless to our religious position on earth in current time. It's fascinating, like building a puzzle, but once the picture is finished, the puzzle only shows you the completed picture. Evolution is not important to religion. That we were once frogs, squirrels or chimps, means nothing. We are never ever going to be a frog or fish again.
That's a scientific fact.
For now anyway.
If they contradict internally, or contradict external reality, then doesn't that show they are wrong? - Michael Thompson
That's true (and thanks for the welcome back), but I did say there was no religious way to find out if you are wrong - prayers won't do it, and any gods there may be seem to have given up on the carefully directed smiting of false prophets they used to go in for. You can see on this site that demonstrating such contradictions with regard to religious doctrines does not lead most believers to conclude that they must be wrongThis is manifestly true of creationists, but Gordon J. Glover conceded that the doctrine of the hypostatic union is logically impossible, but nevertheless refused to abandon it. The last resort of the believer, always available, is "these things are beyond human understanding".
Take marriage for example, in Christianity, the entire witness of the New Testament shows it as immutably a man and a woman. Those that claim to be Christians and hold to some other deviation of the man/woman arragement, are provably wrong BY the words written IN the New Testament and the context by which they are laid down. -
Mere_Christian
Not really: there are always alternative versions of the text and alternative interpretations, but the fundamental question is whether the words of the NT have the kind of authority some (but not all) self-described Christians attribute to them: there is no religious way to settle this.
If you hold that they do, however, the NT also absolutely forbids remarriage after divorce (in Jesus's own alleged words - Matthew 10:6-12). Do you hold to that doctrine too?
Jesus also confirmed that all OT laws continue to apply:
Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
So I hope you don't eat any pork products, rabbit or shellfish, and are careful not to wear cotton-rayon mixtures or work on a Saturday.
a bit of natural evidence proclaimed by BioLogos as critically important to being a Christian Mere_Christian
Not really my concern as an atheist, but this is quite clearly a lie: at least one recent post confirms that their view is that one can be a Christian either accepting or rejecting that evolution has occurred.
That we were once frogs, squirrels or chimps, means nothing.
We never were any of these things, and nor were any of our ancestors. That really is a scientific fact.
Why is that a problem from your perspective? Indeed, it doesn't occur to me that Biologos believes that evolution was "guided" in the usual sense that word is taken.
One could certainly believe in "unguided evolution" without believing that it could not be ultimately "set in motion" or "caused by" God.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Hello
This is interesting post.I think evolution is the only area of science that courts have to render decisions on.Thank you very much for giving such good post to us.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.