Science or Scripture? (tradition, prophecy, scriptures, Christian, Christ)

[gnomon]

Originally Posted by GeneCosta

If the scientific community promotes an idea that goes against scripture, which should you rally yourself behind?

The scientific community.

That one was easy!

[s2a]

Hello Victor,

You quoted me selectively when I said:
If the "Religious Right" believes that homosexuality is a "sin", then I would recommend that they themselves--as pious adherents of their own faith (ie, opinion)--should avoid indulging such a sinful act to preserve themselves from the promised wrath or punishments from their god. But as you are well aware, they act so that their opinions should be a matter of universally applicable social policy and enforceable law. I have a problem with that...

Is this something others outside of the Religious Right are immune to?

Perhaps not immune, but neither especially motivated nor predisposed to alter in adherence to (or for the sake of) religious opinions alone. The "Religious Right" is motivated to see "God's Will"--as they claim to understand/interpret such--imposed (legally) whenever, wherever, and however they see fit. Theirs is an exercise in (righteous) obedience to religious dogma, not in efforts to promote or preserve constitutional principles and establishments. To the "Religious Right", the US Constitution is an obstacle to overcome, not a shield to defend against tyranny and opression.

A truly secular society does not favor or promote (or persecute and limit) one religious "opinion" (or "value") over another. The "right" to a personally held religious opinion (and the dictates/demands it places amongst it's faithful) are not, and should not be the concern or prevailing/intervening interest of secular self-government.

I'll provide another example.

A person of religious faith may ardently adhere to their particularly proscribed dogma that drinking alcohol is a "sin [against their god wishes]". That person (and like-minded adherents) is most welcome to "preach" or "testify" against the "evils" of booze, or attempt to compellingly persuade others that personal alcohol consumption infuriates their god, and is "bad". Secular government has no (and should not express any biased) opinion regarding the "sinfulness" of alcohol consumption. "Sin" is a religious concept, and a qualified "opinion".

When people offer their personalized objections predicated on religious beliefs (opinions) alone, secular government must (and should) remain neutral. Government allows people of that religious opinion to abstain from alcohol consumption (and remain adherent to their faith), free from governmental mandate or law that imposes requisite minimums of alcoholic consumption upon all citizens, under penalty of prosecutorial law. Secular government allows (and even vigorously defends) one's right to not consume alcohol, especially if it conflicts with one's own exercise of religious liberties. Ain't it cool? If you think that drinking booze is a "sin", a truly secular government won't make you have a drink. You retain the rightful choice to say, "No, thank you".

[And the afforded liberties extend outward from there...
Don't want to smoke? You are free not to smoke!
Morally opposed to abortion? The state won't choose for you!
You feel that homosexual marriage shouldn't be sanctioned by your religion? You can say so!
Your opinion is such that you deem assisted suicide/euthanasia is a "sin"? You're free to suffer in languishing pain and misery for months on end!]

The right and privilege of personal choice (either to drink, or choose not to) is the proper compass to follow, not some prevailing wind of public sentiment, or loud and/or fiscally empowered majority opinion. This "difference" is what separates a constitutional Republic from a "pure democracy". It ain't about "majority opinion". We "democratically" elect our representatives to swear an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of The United States (and/or the Constitution of their own State)--not to promote or legislate the opinions of religious majorities within a pluralistic society.

I'm with you on disagreeing with the Religious Right on this one but to have a problem with them attempting to do so baffles me.

I sincerely doubt that you are "baffled" by my objections to their efforts. Opinions alone (especially those dictated by religious mandate) are poor foundation for any societally imposed law.

Slavery, religious persecution ("Burn the witch!"), gender discrimination, segregation, sexual gender preferences, abortion, et al; have all be "rationalized" into enforceable law (or defended as "just" when challenged) as a matter of religious [majority] "opinion". Proponents of these societal limitations of civil/human rights have almost always exclusively argued from a distinctly opinionated "moral" perspective (or subservient dogmatic imperative). Tough to argue today in favor of any of those religiously-biased positions.

Fortunately, some folks had "problems" with such "moral" laws...

Surely there is certain things you agree should be universally applicable social policy?

Surely. ;-)

What's the difference?

If yet unclear to you, the "difference" is marked and simple.

One perspective seeks to limit and define the parameters of personal liberties (often enough within the limitations and parameters established in sectarian dogma).
The other seeks to expand and ensure personal liberties for all.

You are either irritated at their attempt to do so (which I don't get) or for actually succeeding (which I do get). It's just the way our system works.

I would submit that it's "their" way of "working the system", but not how "the system" was intended to work or serve the entirety of, "We the people...".

The measure of personal liberty in a free society is defined by the limitations of governmental power, not in the governmentally-imposed limitations of personal conscience and choice upon it's citizens.

I hope you get that...

[Heckler]

History has shown time and time again that eventually the facts of science (not theorys that cant be proved but facts) are in harmony with the bible.

Many sciencists do not like the idea of not being able to answer every questions that arrises (Stephen Hawking once commented on this) therefore they keep pushing new theorys.

And yet the many facts that science has been forced to agree with over the years in the bible have been there for thousands of years.

[wizanda]

I think it is a science to understand the scriptures; especially when globally and most books, it is like a refining process and takes careful analyzing and experimentation to understand the way 100%.

[Dirty Penguin]

Originally Posted by GeneCosta

If the scientific community promotes an idea that goes against scripture, which should you rally yourself behind?

Here's the thing. People can correct me if i'm wrong.

There will always be some who will always lean towards science.
ones that lean toward religion
and the ones that are in the middle anccepting both.

For me it will always be science. Now we are using science in the broad turn. I would assume you mean theory of evolution. a lage percentage of theist accept science... the many different flavors of science such as agriculture, medicine etc.

My experience, now i can only speak for me, is that i have basic and sometimes complex questions and science helps me to answer these questions. Religion has not.

Now i have always said this in other forums. Science is not here to intentionally prove religion wrong.

Now some one said that "God's" word will stand true for ever but that may not be the case becase like science religion can be devided. we see this with the many different sects of christianity, islam and judaism. Just as these religoious scholars believe their way of life to be the truth there are always others out there to interpret the information in a different way.

Again, i assume we are talking about evolution vs. creationism. It is my experience that the scriptures seem to be silent or not able to answer hard hitting questions surrounding dinosaurs, prehistoric aquatic life or ancient man.

look, to constantly say "God" did it or "The lord moves in mysterious ways" seems to be ignorant statements.

I don't mean that in a derogetory way. just simply ingnoring certain facts. i think that sometimes people need something to rely-on (religion) in oder to explain that which they lack the ability to explain.

It is a fact there were dinosaurs, ancient aquatic life, ancient man. NOW, were are looking for religion to help us out here to explain, WITH PROOF, as to how these animals (creatures) lived and died. We want to know from a religious stand point how these creatures were related because from a scientific stand point we can see how they lived and what creatures share common ancestors. We can look at fossils and determine how an animal of yesteryear is similar to an animal of today.

Take the saber-tooth tiger. Check this link. You'll be able to see that this animal has an extensive evolutionary tree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saber-tooth_tiger

This is why i lean toward the science. Religion does not seem to provide the answers I need. Addtionally some religions seem to be conflicted amongst themselves as to their own ideals and way of life.

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by Heckler

History has shown time and time again that eventually the facts of science (not theorys that cant be proved but facts) are in harmony with the bible.

Welcome to the Forum!

This sounds like selective perception, Heckler. I mean, anyone can say that the facts of science are in harmony with the Bible if they are willing to discount any fact of science that isn't by saying it's actually a theory that cannot be proved.

[Dirty Penguin]

Originally Posted by PureX

I personally don't see any way for science to contradict scripture.

It all depends on what particular field of science and what particular areas of the scripture we're talking about.

But as I've said before. Science is not out to prove religion wrong. Christianity with its MANY, MANY, MANY sects has enough to deal with. The same goes for Islam and Judaism.

I do not believe that scripture was ever intended to be taken as factual, but rather was always intended to be taken symbolically/metaphorically.

Well that definately makes it hard to believe ANYTHING the scriptures tell us. We wouldn't know what is factual, by your assertion, or what is speculation/interpertation. Now do you see why people have a problem with the scriptures? If it's not meant to be taken as fact then what's the point in dealing with it at all if they're all open to any ones' interpertation?

And don't you you say "Faith".... !!!!!

So scripture is not making any kind of assertion that science could possibly contradict. And the kinds of assertions that scripture is making, are not concepts that science has the capacity to even address, let alone contradict.

I believe that back then if you were to use science to contradict religion you were deemned as evil or a witch. History tells us this. I personally believe that put to the test, science could show some inaccuracies in the scriptures, but again that is not the goal of science. this has always been an area that science does not like to get into.

So for me, they're not in contention. In fact, I personally tend to view them as complimentary.

Agree on the first part. I disagree on the second. Science has NO Problem Standing on its own.

[Dirty Penguin]

Originally Posted by Heckler

History has shown time and time again that eventually the facts of science (not theorys that cant be proved but facts) are in harmony with the bible.

Tha't not saying very much. To say that you would have to admit it is in harmony with the qur'an and most other religious scriptures. But i don't gather that you are a muslim (soley)...christians...(soley)...jewish...(soley). ..buddist...(soley).....etc....

Science stands on its own and has no need to include scriptures to teach us of the life that existed on the planet billions of years ago.

Many sciencists do not like the idea of not being able to answer every questions that arrises (Stephen Hawking once commented on this) therefore they keep pushing new theorys.

Are you speaking for all scientist now?

No more blindly believing. I assume we are talking about evolution and crationism. A lot of the religious community has benefitted from the discoveries of science. Now we have dinosaur bones annd eggs from millions of years ago as well as fossilzed aquatic life from millions of years ago and bones from prehistoric man and the religious community can not answer the questions that are put forth to them about this.

Does the bible agree that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, if noth then why?

Can the bible explain the many different types of ancient animals that existed millions of years ago?

Can the scriptures explain why the dna of ancient man is close to present man?

and these are just basic questions.

And yet the many facts that science has been forced to agree with over the years in the bible have been there for thousands of years.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. science is not forced to agree with anything the bible says.