Commenting on Religion and Science? Understand Science
I’ve decided that a second career as a theologian would actually drive me round the bend.
I found some fairly interesting taster material for a distance learning degree in Theology and Religious Studies from Oxford Brookes University. I was particularly taken by the material on Religion and Politics, which poses interesting questions for students to answer, and is relevant to both religious, and non-religious people.
As a science-y sort of person, I also read through the notes on Religion and Science. Which is what has set me dead against becoming a theologian, at least outside a strongly secular department.
Note Evolution remains a theory because there are still some problems with a complete explanation of creation; the ‘missing link’–the creature that links human beings with ape-like ancestors–is one.
Can I repeat for the record, in science, the word theory does not mean the same thing as it does in normal usage. In science, theory basically means coherent explanation, not crackpot idea.
Evolution remains a theory, because it hasn’t been replaced yet. When it is it may become known as the discredited theory of evolution. But that doesn’t always happen, we know that Newton’s Theory of Gravity isn’t the best explanation of how the universe is and that there are problems with Einsteins General Theory of Relativity, its replacement. But they are still extremely important and useful scientific theories.
I don’t mind people not understanding what a scientific theory is - not everyone is educated. People have a bigger problem with evolutionary theory than they do with plate tectonic theory or electromagnetic theory or big bang theory but that doesn’t mean that they should be allowed to misinform other people what scientific theory is. If you don’t know, don’t pretend you do.
There are undoubtedly things still to discover in evolution. And it would be great to have more mathematics involved - there should always be more mathematics. But that does not make it a half-baked idea. If you think the modern evolutionary synthesis is not the best explanation for observable facts, study hard, get your PhD in biology, do your own research and come up with a better explanation. If you achieve it you’ll undoubtedly get a Nobel Prize, and I would be delighted to see it. But don’t make stuff up about science that misleads people.
Popularity: 78% [?]
Comments
7 Responses to “Commenting on Religion and Science? Understand Science”
Got something to say?
blog hosting [url=http://wordpress.com]blog hosting[/url] blog hosting [url= http://wordpress.com ] blog hosting [/url]
Its a problem we all have when debating with creationists - thyey either just dont get the basics or f they do they are pepared to lie and distort in order to defend their literalist beliefs.
Hi, nice posts there
hold responsible’s exchange for the intriguing advice
I think we are all believing different things and can be very religious about them .
Can you imagine if both believers and non believers could come to grips with our differences and agree that we have a bigger problem in the world of humanity like the ones that actually call the shots ….Either side wants to claim allegiance with the believer of either group that has caused suffering on the others part …I guess maybe sometimes we both get played like a fiddle …Education is the one thing that can maybe bring us together in unity .Until then we just might have to drift apart .
For me the greatest fear Christianity has is Science. Why? Because it is simply
the only entity that can reduce Religion to mythology. In particular, Christianity.
For example, Jesus died, later was entombed. Three day’s later, the claim is
Jesus has risen! I say, “No way! I point out sufficiently what every human body
goes through upon death-the process of decomposition, that after 7 minutes
without oxygenated blood circulating to the brain and other parts necessary
for body function, the brain dies, internal organs begin to ferment, blood cells
used to keep the blood from bacterial infection now festers throughout. In short,
someone is lying through there teeth about this.
Regarding his “Ascension” well, it gets cold at 15,000 feet, and sub-freezing at
35,000 feet, by the time Jesus is supposed to all ready be in heaven, he’s still
looking for it because of the 4,600 trackable objects orbiting Earth today, there’s
still no sighting of Heaven in these parts or near the Moon, so it must be way, way, out there somewhere. If its true that the soul lives for eternity, and everyday
in outer space is “groundhog day,” then whats a few trillion years looking for a Christian Heaven! Don’t mind me, I just happen to think Christianity is today
the greatest fraud in the world promising impossible things to people it has no
Earthlic power to enforce. I suspect if people can be addicted to cigaretts they can be just as addicted to Religion.
I too started out attending a Catholic School, In l984, I became a Knight of Columbus, but the cumulative effect of scientific evidence versus faith overruled
40 years of Catholicism. I had to ask myself, “Why am I doing this for?” So I
quit. at first, of course it was uncomfortable, almost like quitting a job your not
very good at, but after a while, its like a weight lifting off your back. In hindsight
you ask yourself why you ever took that job. Leaving religion behind isn’t that
much different than leaving Zeus or Jupiter to join that great pantheon of myths
we once held so dear.
Sharing your hands good health. We expect more of your share ..
Michael, your points do not address religion but a rather unusual interpretation of a Biblical story. You make three related basic mistakes.
(1) That the Bible is not supposed to be read as a mythology (or literature).
(2) You miss the point of the resurrection and ascension (because you don’t understand myth.
(3) That you haven’t used science to criticize religious belief.
All you have done is said that a man can not survive death and a heaven is not above us. This would all be covered in the most basic theology or philosophy of religion course.
Religious Atheist, your definition of theory is confused. You are correct in making a distinction between a ’scientific theory’ and, for example, ‘a philosophical theory’ but even then, you miss the point. That point is:
(1) EVERYONE, believes in evolution. That things evolve isn’t a theory. It is fundamental belief.
There are two different arguments you can now choose to join.
(1) Non-religious. Is Darwin’s account believable? The popular view is yes because they don’t know the obvious problems.
(2) Religious. How the universe came into being.
If you choose (1) then biology is a good place to start. Unless you are looking at the evolution of, for example, the motor car, then something like engineering would be preferable. If you choose (2) then measurements of how things evolve won’t really be of interest.
If you are interested in Religion and Science, you can look at, for example, comparisons between the Steady State theory, and, the Cosmological Model (not to be confused with the cosmological argument). The Bible says the universe had a beginning, the Steady State theory (the long prevailing view) said it didn’t. Science coming to aid of religion (or not).