No conflict between God and science

[IndigoChild5559]

God is the author of all truth, and that includes scientific truth. This post is NOT proposing that we should start with the Bible and then go looking for evidence to support it. Scientific Method is fine as it is. What I'm saying is that there is no conflict between those truths that science genuinely comes by and the Creator of the Universe.

For example, we know about the Big Bang. I see no reason not to see the Big Bang as the moment God created the universe. We also know about evolution. I see no reason not to see evolution as God's modus operandi for creating all the various life forms, including humanity.

Come on, folks. It's not like all scientists are atheists.

 

[HonestJoe]

God isn't the problem, only some people who refuse to accept scientific conclusions if they (think they) contradict their beliefs or twist and misrepresent science to manufacture false conclusions that align with their beliefs. It's usually just an irritant or distraction but sometimes it can be disruptive or even dangerous.

 

[Polymath257]

Let's put it this way.

IF there is a God, then he/she/it is the originator of the universe. So science cannot produce and answer that is different than how that happened.

The *real* question is whether the Bible is really the word of God. If it disagrees with the science, then we know it is not.

 

[sun rise]

I agree 100% with the OP. Science is the lens through which we see the intricate, magnificent glory of creation.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Some people feel the bible has 100% everything there is to know about life. Anything left out of the bible has no authoritative say. So, since the big bang is not in the bible, it really depends on the individual christian to believe it. Nonetheless, the only reason I can think they are "compatible" is that the bible never mentions it. A kind of default based on nothing to compare the big bang to in regards to creation versus formation of the physical universe.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

God is the author of all truth, ...

That is a statement of faith. The challenge faced by many theists is that their god seems to have authored a universe that operates in a way indistinguishable from one in which 'god' is conspicuously absent.

 

[Polymath257]

There is also the issue of how 'figuratively' to take the Bible (or other religious books, for that matter). Did Adam and Eve actually exist? is the Earth actually less than 10,000 years old? Did the Exodus actually happen? Is the Earth actually set upon pillars?

The only way most people get around what the Bible actually says is by claiming that it is symbolic. The problem with that is that what is written accurately gives the common view at the time it was written.

So, again, *if* there is a God, then science can determine the characteristics of the universe he/she/it created. And, it can do so whether or not there is a God.

But, the question is which, if any, human texts relate truthful descriptions of how God did things and what he/she/it wants.

 

[MonkeyFire]

I think science and religion can have a middle way, God is omnipotent LOVE why wouldnt he do this?

 

[Tambourine]

Some people feel the bible has 100% everything there is to know about life.

I figure those are the kind of people who don't read books, and also don't get out much.

 

[Quintessence]

Some scientists are even polytheists, pantheists, panentheists, animists, autotheists, monotheists, henotheists, transtheists, kakenotheists, duotheists, deists, and so on and so forth.

It's not really a hard concept.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

There is also the issue of how 'figuratively' to take the Bible (or other religious books, for that matter). Did Adam and Eve actually exist? is the Earth actually less than 10,000 years old? Did the Exodus actually happen? Is the Earth actually set upon pillars?

The only way most people get around what the Bible actually says is by claiming that it is symbolic. The problem with that is that what is written accurately gives the common view at the time it was written.

So, again, *if* there is a God, then science can determine the characteristics of the universe he/she/it created. And, it can do so whether or not there is a God.

But, the question is which, if any, human texts relate truthful descriptions of how God did things and what he/she/it wants.

The Bible is not designed to be a science textbook, so we should not go to it for scientific information. It's cosmology is clearly not literally true -- the earth is not flat, with a dome of water above and the abode of the dead below. Genesis 1 is clearly a creation myth -- were the story to be found in any other book than the Bible, fundamentalists would clearly recognize it as a creation myth. However, when I say myth, I don't mean lie. Myth is a wonderful thing, perhaps the most powerful form of literature to convey morals and values. I refer all my readers to Tolkien's famous essay, "On Fairy Stories."

There are some creationists who admit that the evidence is for an ancient earth and evolution. They claim that God created the earth with these evidences already in place. But God would have known we would find these evidences. Do we believe in a God that would willfully deceive us? What kind of God is that? The very theory of this is preposterous.

 

[Brian2]

Let's put it this way.

IF there is a God, then he/she/it is the originator of the universe. So science cannot produce and answer that is different than how that happened.

The *real* question is whether the Bible is really the word of God. If it disagrees with the science, then we know it is not.

There are different ways to understand the Bible and science keeps changing it's theories.
Why should I believe every little idea that comes out of science? Your "real question" seems to be based on science being absolutely correct all of the time.

 

[Polymath257]

There are different ways to understand the Bible and science keeps changing it's theories.
Why should I believe every little idea that comes out of science? Your "real question" seems to be based on science being absolutely correct all of the time.

Not at all...only as time goes on...it is self-correcting.

That said, some views have been shown to be wrong: young earth, for example.

 

[Polymath257]

There are some creationists who admit that the evidence is for an ancient earth and evolution. They claim that God created the earth with these evidences already in place. But God would have known we would find these evidences. Do we believe in a God that would willfully deceive us? What kind of God is that? The very theory of this is preposterous.

I'm not sure why it is preposterous. Trickster deities are very common in many religions. It all depends on your theology.

 

[Trailblazer]

The only way most people get around what the Bible actually says is by claiming that it is symbolic. The problem with that is that what is written accurately gives the common view at the time it was written.

That was the common view at the time the Bible was written because that was thousands of years ago, before we had science as we have it in modern times. Now we think it must be symbolic because we cannot imagine how people could believe it literally.... but that was then and now is now. It is time for humanity to move forward.

Why do people think that scriptures written thousands of years ago pertain to the age we live in? Everything else in the world changes over time and people accept those changes and move forward, but when it comes to the Bible they cannot accept that it does not pertain to the age in which we live. The strangest thing to me is that even atheists talk about the Bible as if it is the only holy book ever written for all time.

 

[Heyo]

God is the author of all truth, and that includes scientific truth. This post is NOT proposing that we should start with the Bible and then go looking for evidence to support it. Scientific Method is fine as it is. What I'm saying is that there is no conflict between those truths that science genuinely comes by and the Creator of the Universe.

For example, we know about the Big Bang. I see no reason not to see the Big Bang as the moment God created the universe. We also know about evolution. I see no reason not to see evolution as God's modus operandi for creating all the various life forms, including humanity.

Come on, folks. It's not like all scientists are atheists.

There is one fundamental conflict between science and (most) religions.
The basic axioms of science can be formulated as "There is no magic (in our universe).".
The basic belief in (most) religions is that "divine intervention" (i.e. magic) is possible.

I see this conflict as irreconcilable but most scientists don't get to that depth in their daily work. They don't see magic in their field of work but don't exclude it for other domains.

There is a way to have magic in a religion that some philosophers won't accept though science doesn't exclude it. Magic can happen outside of the realm of science (the observable universe). If a religion can keep its magic outside from reality, the conflict is solved. But most don't.

 

[Trailblazer]

Not at all...only as time goes on...it is self-correcting.

Science is self-correcting but the Bible isn't... It can't be because after canonization nothing could be added.

That is why further Revelations of God were needed, to keep up with the times in which we live, just as science does.
Science is constantly evolving, so why would religion not continue to evolve?

 

[Trailblazer]

There is one fundamental conflict between science and (most) religions.
The basic axioms of science can be formulated as "There is no magic (in our universe).".
The basic belief in (most) religions is that "divine intervention" (i.e. magic) is possible.

Science deals with the material world and material things and religion deals with the spiritual world and spiritual things...
Spiritual things are outside the purview of science so they do not conflict with science.

Anything non-material is outside the purview of science so it does not conflict with science. Science cannot prove that there is no or no spiritual world where we die for example.

 

[Twilight Hue]

God is the author of all truth, and that includes scientific truth. This post is NOT proposing that we should start with the Bible and then go looking for evidence to support it. Scientific Method is fine as it is. What I'm saying is that there is no conflict between those truths that science genuinely comes by and the Creator of the Universe.

For example, we know about the Big Bang. I see no reason not to see the Big Bang as the moment God created the universe. We also know about evolution. I see no reason not to see evolution as God's modus operandi for creating all the various life forms, including humanity.

Come on, folks. It's not like all scientists are atheists.

Its interesting that theists cannot use science to prove a God exists, while falling back on something that is unfalsifable and ironically challenging others to prove there is one.

I would say science in that respect is very conflicting with theism.

 

[Heyo]

Science deals with the material world and material things and religion deals with the spiritual world and spiritual things...
Spiritual things are outside the purview of science so they do not conflict with science.

Anything non-material is outside the purview of science so it does not conflict with science. Science cannot prove that there is no or no spiritual world where we die for example.

Agreed. Gould's NoMa would be a perfect solution to the conflict, but both sides, though mostly the religious, have overstepped the boundaries. It seems the truce is very fragile.