Does science make belief in God obsolete?

I find some of the public responses to be just as poignant, intelligent and compelling as the articles themselves...and, like any good cross-section of humanity, some are pseudo-intellectual or arrogant religious tripe.:lol:

The discussion itself has benefits. It hones the brain and focuses questions.

The Templeton folks are the leaders in this area.

wow. that is quite a can of worms you've just opened Mal. i think you are right Ohio. this is subject that needs to be talked about. the notion of "God" is 2000 years old now, much older if taking other religions into account. instead of keeping "God" in that old reverence, maybe we should let "God" grow up too. give "God" a little more credit than we have.

Looks like there really is no definite 'yes' or 'no' answer. Everyone has an opinion. :yes:

"The Rev wrote:

Looks like there really is no definite 'yes' or 'no' answer. Everyone has an opinion. :yes:

And kudos to you for saying that...there are some who will insist that they "know". :rolleyes:

"Pagan wrote:

And kudos to you for saying that...there are some who will insist that they "know". :rolleyes:

oh believe me I know. But I'm not telling. :shifty:

I don't think that will ever be the case.

I like to think of science as the study of finding out how god works or how Einstien said, "How good thinks."

To mix philosophy with science and then mix in religion and you get the conundrum of trying to either "prove" a matter of faith or disprove the existence of something inherantly unknowable in totality. Neither side can "prove" their position in the classic sense of a proof.

No, the discussion is where the "truth" of the question is/will be found. The earliest of the written Hebrew scriptures is likely Exodus 15:21, the Song of Miriam. It dates back over 3500 years. Their "experiance" with God is radically different than mine and yet to my understanding it is the same God. Geology, archeology, and other scientific disciplines have cast new insights on the story and they have the capacity to illumine the "event" from a variety of directions.

Give me the rough and tumble of honest, sincere, respectful dialog anytime!

For me it seems difficult to take a literal translation of the Bible if one believes in science and philosophy in the way discussed in the first example. I dont think that means that God is obsolete, but the Bible certainly becomes suspect.

"DonShula84 wrote:

For me it seems difficult to take a literal translation of the Bible if one believes in science and philosophy in the way discussed in the first example. I dont think that means that God is obsolete, but the Bible certainly becomes suspect.

You make a great point. I think many people believe that either the Bible is entirely true, or entirely false.

There's probably not a majority of people who would believe that only bits and pieces are true and vice versa. (I could be dead wrong there)

I'd be interested to know what the Christians on this board think of this notion. Has science disproved some of the things the Bible tells us? Or is at all fact regardless of what we've learned in the last 2000 years?

"DonShula84 wrote:

For me it seems difficult to take a literal translation of the Bible if one believes in science and philosophy in the way discussed in the first example. I dont think that means that God is obsolete, but the Bible certainly becomes suspect.

I always remember a quote from my systematic theology professor at seminary. He was asked if he believed literally in the creation story in Genesis. He said of course. We were aghast because his teaching didn't reflect that. He then turned to us, winked, and said he believed it was always, literally, to be read as a myth (classic definition which is to say a story a culture tells to describe why things are the way they are or where things come from). "Literal interpretation" is an oxymoron like jumbo shrimp or military intelligence. How can anyone know what the author meant as it left their pen?

For me the Bible isn't suspect but certainly "easy" readings of it which do not take into account context, history, and all the problems inherant in written/spoken language will always be suspect!

It is said that when Queen Anne inspected the "new" St. Paul's Cathedral in London she told its archtect, Christopher Wren, it was artifical, awful, and amusing. Today we would be devastated because those would be insults today. Wren was delighted however because in his day artifical meant full of artistic wonder, awful meant awe inspiring, and amusing meant amazing. Such is the power that history, context, and a deep understanding of language have to illuminate a sacred text.

For me that history, context, and linguistic information are often the results of scientific inquiry.

"Ohiophinphan wrote:

I always remember a quote from my systematic theology professor at seminary. He was asked if he believed literally in the creation story in Genesis. He said of course. We were aghast because his teaching didn't reflect that. He then turned to us, winked, and said he believed it was always, literally, to be read as a myth (classic definition which is to say a story a culture tells to describe why things are the way they are or where things come from). "Literal interpretation" is an oxymoron like jumbo shrimp or military intelligence. How can anyone know what the author meant as it left their pen?

For me the Bible isn't suspect but certainly "easy" readings of it which do not take into account context, history, and all the problems inherant in written/spoken language will always be suspect!

It is said that when Queen Anne inspected the "new" St. Paul's Cathedral in London she told its architect, Christopher Wren, it was artificial, awful, and amusing. Today we would be devastated because those would be insults today. Wren was delighted however because in his day artificial meant full of artistic wonder, awful meant awe inspiring, and amusing meant amazing. Such is the power that history, context, and a deep understanding of language have to illuminate a sacred text.

For me that history, context, and linguistic information are often the results of scientific inquiry.

Brilliantly said!

"Celtkin wrote:

Brilliantly said!

Yea...what he said.

Whether science leaves room for God depends on how big your definition of God is.
Science leaves little room for small, anthropomorphic gods who intervene via clumsy deus-ex-machina miracles, but still leaves plenty of room for gods big and smart enough to have created this universe with everything in place to unwind just the way They wanted it to.

"Ohiophinphan wrote:

I always remember a quote from my systematic theology professor at seminary. He was asked if he believed literally in the creation story in Genesis. He said of course. We were aghast because his teaching didn't reflect that. He then turned to us, winked, and said he believed it was always, literally, to be read as a myth (classic definition which is to say a story a culture tells to describe why things are the way they are or where things come from). "Literal interpretation" is an oxymoron like jumbo shrimp or military intelligence. How can anyone know what the author meant as it left their pen?

For me the Bible isn't suspect but certainly "easy" readings of it which do not take into account context, history, and all the problems inherant in written/spoken language will always be suspect!

It is said that when Queen Anne inspected the "new" St. Paul's Cathedral in London she told its archtect, Christopher Wren, it was artifical, awful, and amusing. Today we would be devastated because those would be insults today. Wren was delighted however because in his day artifical meant full of artistic wonder, awful meant awe inspiring, and amusing meant amazing. Such is the power that history, context, and a deep understanding of language have to illuminate a sacred text.

For me that history, context, and linguistic information are often the results of scientific inquiry.

this is truly amazing. thank you. who is to know exactly what was meant by what has been written, then translated and re-written. i think to exclude the Bible would be a mistake, but trying to understand it from when it was compiled would make more sense. weather or not the Bible is proved or disproved should not interfere with ones personal relationship with God. just the same, i believe that science and philosophy can serve much the same purpose as the Bible in helping us understand the essence we call God.

"Ohiophinphan wrote:

I always remember a quote from my systematic theology professor at seminary. He was asked if he believed literally in the creation story in Genesis. He said of course. We were aghast because his teaching didn't reflect that. He then turned to us, winked, and said he believed it was always, literally, to be read as a myth (classic definition which is to say a story a culture tells to describe why things are the way they are or where things come from). "Literal interpretation" is an oxymoron like jumbo shrimp or military intelligence. How can anyone know what the author meant as it left their pen?

Thanks for making a very good point. Mind if I ask you a question? Since you are talking about literal and metaphorical interpretations, I'd like to know what you make of the biblical fall of man and its symbolical meaning. I've always found that passage of the Bible most telling (I'm not a believer, by the way). You have God forbidding man to eat from the Tree of Knowledge (why? isn't knowledge a good thing?) and subsequently you have man realizing his own nakedness, constituting a fundamental instance of self-awareness. Why would that be "The Fall"? What's so bad about man knowing and being aware of himself? Essentially, that passage of the Bible condemns man for being man which I find a rather peculiar idea of man, considering that God's creation is supposed to be inherently good and right.

"Vendigo wrote:

Thanks for making a very good point. Mind if I ask you a question? Since you are talking about literal and metaphorical interpretations, I'd like to know what you make of the biblical fall of man and its symbolical meaning. I've always found that passage of the Bible most telling (I'm not a believer, by the way). You have God forbidding man to eat from the Tree of Knowledge (why? isn't knowledge a good thing?) and subsequently you have man realizing his own nakedness, constituting a fundamental instance of self-awareness. Why would that be "The Fall"? What's so bad about man knowing and being aware of himself? Essentially, that passage of the Bible condemns man for being man which I find a rather peculiar idea of man, considering that God's creation is supposed to be inherently good and right.

We know from other Hebrew passages that the expression "knowledge of good and evil" was that which distinguished God from creation. Thus to eat of the fruit of the tree was in essence an attempt to displace God, an attempted coup if you will. That is the essence of sin, the desire to be God or at least the unwillingness to submit to the will of God. The knowledge of nakedness was the discovery that we had disobeyed and couldn't measure up to God anyway!

We believe that God created us in order to freely praise and worship Him, as is His right as creator. For that to be free the ability to resist had to be part of the equation. That is the fall, the refusal to be what we were created to be.

As an aside, it is interesting that in that passage there is also referenced another tree, the tree of life, which they do not attempt to eat from. I have always wondered if that wasn't to tell us that we are not only sinners but that we aren't even good at that! We could have had immortality and instead sewed fig leaves.

"DOLPHAN1 wrote:

this is truly amazing. thank you. who is to know exactly what was meant by what has been written, then translated and re-written. i think to exclude the Bible would be a mistake, but trying to understand it from when it was compiled would make more sense. weather or not the Bible is proved or disproved should not interfere with ones personal relationship with God. just the same, i believe that science and philosophy can serve much the same purpose as the Bible in helping us understand the essence we call God.

Keep in mind that we do have very early manuscripts in the original languages. When the Dead Sea scrolls were first discovered they pushed the extant Hebrew texts back 1300 years in some cases and the transcription error rate was infintessimal. Holy texts are copied very carefully.

Now that said, the way we who study scripture "decide" what it says is in community. That is not to say that someone can't stand alone, but then the weight of argument falls to the person holding the new or different position. In many ways it is similar to publishing scientific papers in peer review journals. Biblical scholars, theologians, and Church Histiorians all use a peer review publishing system as well.

I get together with 6-20 colleagues each Thursday to examine the texts for ten days hence to try and answer some of those questions.

"Ohiophinphan wrote:

Keep in mind that we do have very early manuscripts in the original languages. When the Dead Sea scrolls were first discovered they pushed the extant Hebrew texts back 1300 years in some cases and the transcription error rate was infintessimal. Holy texts are copied very carefully.

Now that said, the way we who study scripture "decide" what it says is in community. That is not to say that someone can't stand alone, but then the weight of argument falls to the person holding the new or different position. In many ways it is similar to publishing scientific papers in peer review journals. Biblical scholars, theologians, and Church Histiorians all use a peer review publishing system as well.

I get together with 6-20 colleagues each Thursday to examine the texts for ten days hence to try and answer some of those questions.

Wasn't the translation commissioned by King James likely one of the first "peer reviewed" publications?

"Celtkin wrote:

Wasn't the translation commissioned by King James likely one of the first "peer reviewed" publications?

I hadn't thought of it in those terms but that is an excellent point. Unlike the Tyndall translation in earlier English or Luther's translation in German, the King James Version was a committee work where scholars worked very, very hard on both meaning and quality of prose/poetry. Yes, there was a community approach to the work and for its time it was magnificent!

"Celtkin wrote:

Wasn't the translation commissioned by King James likely one of the first "peer reviewed" publications?

if that's the case, then couldn't you go back to Constantine in the 300's ad when the original was reduced from some 66 books to what is known today at roughly 33, depending on sect? i understand that even in the Catholic organization their are several versions that include or exclude certain books based on particular beliefs.

"Ohiophinphan wrote:

Keep in mind that we do have very early manuscripts in the original languages. When the Dead Sea scrolls were first discovered they pushed the extant Hebrew texts back 1300 years in some cases and the transcription error rate was infintessimal. Holy texts are copied very carefully.

Now that said, the way we who study scripture "decide" what it says is in community. That is not to say that someone can't stand alone, but then the weight of argument falls to the person holding the new or different position. In many ways it is similar to publishing scientific papers in peer review journals. Biblical scholars, theologians, and Church Histiorians all use a peer review publishing system as well.

I get together with 6-20 colleagues each Thursday to examine the texts for ten days hence to try and answer some of those questions.

aren't we finding that translating these languages though is more difficult due to the fact that the languages themselves have changed enough that words and phrases used then do not neccessarily have similar meaning today? if that is the case then aren't we just filling in the blanks so-to-speak?

"Ohiophinphan wrote:

I hadn't thought of it in those terms but that is an excellent point. Unlike the Tyndall translation in earlier English or Luther's translation in German, the King James Version was a committee work where scholars worked very, very hard on both meaning and quality of prose/poetry. Yes, there was a community approach to the work and for its time it was magnificent!

that also marked the beginning of the Protestant movement in the 1500's didn't it? and in what regard is it less magnificent today? just curious, the way you worded this.

Science by itself is not incompatible with religion. The trouble comes in when the enemies of religion attempt to use science as a means to bludgeon religion.

Religion tells us that God created all. Science describes those creations. There is nothing incompatible there.