Can Christianity and science be reconciled? I don't mean only dude god did evolution but also why didn't he mention anything about the issues between science and religion in the bible, how can romans 1 be upheld when evidence points more to atheism than theism, contradictions in christ's last words etc.
Note: This is not /pol/. I don't want to discuss whether religion is good for a society or whether you believe in it regardless of these issues. I only want to discuss how these could be reconciled.
To make it clear: I have no problem with you saying for example the great flood is a metapher or something but I'd like to hear you argue for that and not just merely escape controversy. I hope I don't sound to antagonizing I'm genuinely interested
Ryder Phillips
>Can Christianity and science be reconciled
The idea of them being in conflict happened over a millennia of being established in Europe and practiced, so yes they definitely can be reconciled.
What particular to Romans 1 conflicts with you?
>evidence points more to atheism to theism
The main argument for theism - divine conservation - is still very valid. Moreover, the ideology that is incorrectly called "atheism" in the west (metaphysical naturalism) is being tested severely by the Problem of Intentionality in the whole consciousness debate. Theistic thought in the mainstream is only modern stuff and discourse centers around Protestant circles rather than all the arguments that formed the theistic tradition throughout Europe's foundation.
>flood as metaphor
Such a view is in fact trying to escape controversy or being foolish because they can give symbolic understandings of stories. A general understanding of the actual discourse around the deluge story is here:
>What particular to Romans 1 conflicts with you? >knowing that god existed they suppressed that knowledge >he gave enough evidence in the heavens and the earth so that the unbelievers are without excuse I'm not sure if it's romans 1 and quoted from head but the point is saying everything points to god to a degree that unbelievers are without excuse even though science points to atheism seems kinda hypocritical
>main argument for theism - divine conservation - is still very valid I actually agree but it's not flawless. How do you explain for example dinosaurs if evolution was guided by god to bring about humans? Why did early humans die before Adam? What if multiple origin is true and Adam thus seemingly disproven?
>the ideology that is incorrectly called "atheism" in the west (metaphysical naturalism) Come on don't be cheap. If Jesus is the truth shouldn't you be morally obliged to present your opposing viewpoint fairly?
>Problem of Intentionality How so?
I just realised I framed this poorly between atheism and christianity when nonchristianity and christianity would be more fitting. I'm very open to the idea of deism but I mentioned problems with christianity beyond just theistic ones i.e. contradictions, preservance failures etc.
Joseph Stewart
Christianity can't even be reconciled with itself, let alone anything else.
Luis Ortiz
>I'm not sure if it's romans 1 and quoted from head but the point is saying everything points to god to a degree that unbelievers are without excuse even though science points to atheism seems kinda hypocritical
Au contraire. Paul in 1 Cor 1 seems to think that reason does not point to God:
>Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided, through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength.
Ayden Perry
>Au contraire That doesn't mean the other quote doesn't exist For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
If you use one quote to disprove another you give food to more than anything.
Evan Perry
Romans 1:18-20?
This isn't condemning people for not upholding the right worldview, it is condemning them for being immoral. It's an affirmation of the Christian belief that God's moral law is innate to us. This is apparent in the early church's support of "virtuous pagans". Those who find virtue and grace from God without explicit knowledge of God.
>I actually agree but it's not flawless. How do you explain for example dinosaurs if evolution was guided by god to bring about humans? Why did early humans die before Adam? What if multiple origin is true and Adam thus seemingly disproven?
How does any of this deal with divine conservation? Nothing of Christian thought or Theistic Evolution made evolution specifically about bringing about humans. Humans aren't the center of the world, they just have a specific role and Christianity is a response to them and their role.
Adam and Eve are considered ancestors who had specific traits that were passed down to all humans now. If we were to understand this as a population bottleneck then we'd have to explain the references to other people in the Adam and Eve story. The assumed view is that they are a first pair to all of biological humans and that assumption came about from the fixism at the time rather than doctrine. As with evolution now Adam and Eve is generally understood as a pair of common ancestors between all humanity by the time of Christianity.
part 1/2
Dylan Cooper
part 2/2
>Come on don't be cheap.
When people speak of atheism as a view, that is what is implied constantly. How am I not being fair? You speak of atheism as if it were a specific thing. It, by it's definition, is not but rather a lack of something. That can be explained and understood in various different ways as theism and "deities" are all very different types of things in very different kinds of worldviews.
>How so?
Naturalism rejects goal-directedness in physical objects. Physicalism says the brain is a fully physical object. Regardless of both of these views, intentional states in consciousness are immediately apparent and the gathering of information in induction and deduction is inherently goal-directed as they deal with inferring. You'd have to reject the ability to have beliefs and thoughts and information or assume intentionality can rise out of non-intentional objects which is an internally inconsistent view meant to save both naturalism and physicalism.
As naturalists' historically rejected all goal-directedness and swept it under the rug as mental extrapolations naturalism is now at the point that it needs to deal with the lump under the rug and explain how the mental can have extrapolations. This is a make or break period.
Ian Sanchez
Always nice having you, wolfo.
Joshua Anderson
Religion is philosophy,science is technical
so no reconciliations
Mason Sanders
philosophy is supposed to harmonize religion and science, the only problem is philosophers are dicks
Nicholas Bell
I appreciate it. Hope I can help.
Jose Peterson
>appealing to Aristotelian metaphysics >using the 'lump under the rug' metaphor You're definitely a fellow Edward Feser bro
Wyatt Nguyen
>Can Christianity and science be reconciled?
Both Christianity and science have a common enemy. Asymmetrical information.
How do you parse the set of infinite "diefic" states? You might say "But a trickster god acting in random periods of time is outlandish.". But who are you to judge Gods? Have you created Leviathan and Behemoth?
The veil of Maya mocks all attempts to turn the concept of God into something solid that can be fought against.
Hudson Richardson
And of course while you're worried about the truth...a question must come up.
Does the religion of Christ produce a moral-aesthetic world more valuable than that of someone who sees the universe as atoms?
If we're humans bound by life onto death, we might as well "ride the best ride". That sort of ride may not be a completely naturalistic account but may include false objects which paradoxically don't "really" exist but which adds a taste of victory, of defeat, of grief, of happiness, etc. and increase the value of a cognitive agent's mental frames.
Blake Allen
>why didn't he mention anything about the issues between science and religion in the bible "Science," as we understand it, didn't really begin to take form until the Early Modern Period. It would be ridiculous to imagine God talking about science to a Bronze Age Near Eastern shepherd. Moreover, there is no indication at all, even if you are a biblical literalist, that any book of the Bible was ever intended to be a science textbook.
When I was a Christian, I personally held more to a framework interpretation of Genesis (Genesis is a theological and covenantal account of the Creation and Fall, and was never intended to answer questions about the mechanics and chronology of creation), and was relatively accepting of evolution. I thought it would be ridiculous to imagine that God was lying to us all in His natural revelation (the created world), which undeniably reveals evolution to be true, or in His special revelation, denying what we can really observe studying the world.
The one thing that I could never reconcile, however, was Adam. Regardless of the framework interpretation of early Genesis, the Bible DOES require a historical Adam. But if evolution is true, it requires death BEFORE the fall of Adam, thus destroying the entire Biblical narrative from Genesis to Revelation. I have never discovered a satisfying answer to that problem, and at this point, it seems unlikely that I ever will discover one that isn't some rank form of sophistry.
Nathan Brooks
I quite liked his explanation.
Adrian Campbell
There's a problem I haven't found any answer for.
Either God made disease or disease is a consequence of something else and god wants to help us against it.
If the former god can't overcome medicine made by man and if the latter man is better to cure than god is.
How to solve this riddle?
Eli Harris
Not even a Christian, but these are clearly false dichotomies. They beg the question and construct a mechanical view of the deity reminiscent of Deism or Unitarianism.
All the major monotheistic traditions have asserted the sovereignty of God in creating, maintaining, and upholding the world, while also expressing a willingness to help some of his creation in a limited (not universal) sense. Consult the scholastics, and you'll find incredibly complex and thorough expositions of causality, secondary causality, primary and secondary actuality, contingency, concursus, etc.
Jackson Diaz
Seriously who cares? People will believe anything that seems to fit their narrative of what reality is,both science and Christianity hold different truths that in the right context have a certain benefit, ideas exist to explain the unexplainable choose whatever floats your boat, when they are measured against good and ultimately pure truth they are as inadequate as any other explanation.
Adam Myers
Science is wrong. Evidence doesn't exist. The only reconciliation is the destruction of the horrid ideology of science. Epistemological cancer belongs in the cancer ward.
Joseph Hall
>hurr u hav ur truth i hav mien Even the neopragmatists think you're a copout.
Brandon Barnes
No, only bad philosophy does that.
John Russell
how dare they I'll kick their asses
Ian Thomas
Reject the nonsense that is 'evolution'. God created disease. Disease is a punishment and a test.
Benjamin Miller
I really haven't ever seen any good explanation for why god can't cure leepers today when he did it in the new testament.
Lincoln Thompson
What's the riddle? Those who show greater endurance in the realm of Maya survive. It's a tautology.
> disease is a consequence of something else
Evolution? Remember, this is the God of Behemoth and Leviathan. God does not care about your hedonic treadmill. The suffering of disease, and of surviving it, is one of those things bequeathed onto man along with the rest of life. And in turn they develop defenses and act in all sorts of different ways in response to a disease.
>Either God made disease
The complexity of life makes room for disease. It's like complaining about hot and cold days. The complexity of climate on Earth allows for states of "hot" and "cold".
Once again, it's the crafter of Leviathan and Behemoth.
Because the worst type of God would be one who would simply "make it all good again". How does man grow and develop under the will to abolish even the thought of bad things? Not much.
What would be the point of man, if not to overcome the challenges of reality?
Mason King
there's nothing that need be reconciled, only the ignorant come to believe that science is inherently opposed to religion and vice versa
Ian Garcia
You've been deluded by the Antichrist. Science is the tool of the Antichrist, possibly even the embodiment of the Antichrist.
Jacob Parker
>inb4 muh scholastics/christian scientists All thralls of Satan.
Juan Roberts
>evidence points more to atheism than theism
Bentley Clark
Yeah yeah everything that's logical is bad 4 u listen to faggot on Veeky Forums who does nothing for the world but pretends he knows Christ anyway
Joshua Sanders
The ultimate problem, as stated earlier, is information asymmetry. There's a set of possible Gods, or collections as such, who have infinite variety in their actions. How do I look at my reality and discern which God is in control?
It makes no sense to point to "evidence" when you can draw an infinite variety of infinite sets of trickster type gods. In the realm of Maya, who leads who?
Maybe it will be the Antichrist. Nobody said cognition had to have a happy ending. We're ten thousand years against 10 billion years. If anything is repulsive about modern culture, it's the will to saccharine feeling.
"Aliens are smarter and will teach humanity" "Buddhism is like so cool its like pacifistic and stuff" "I'm glad this local co-op grown tomato tastes so delicious with cool whip"
It's not enough to "do things", now these faggots of humans want to feel morally and socially good about themselves while participating in the most banal shit. Fucking normies getting played by interactive media. Now everything, to them, has to be viewed as if they were looking at a picture frame.
What fucking AI would make use of a photo of some stupid bitch whoring her face, and eggs benedict, over instagram? It'd mark a bunch of garbage data for deletion....
Jordan Wilson
>Reject the nonsense that is 'evolution'. Come up with a more satisfactory account of evidence and data from the fossil record, biogeography, genetics, adaptation, observable natural selection and speciation, comparative anatomy, etc., publish your findinds for review, defend and refine them in the light of the data we have, and I might.
Until then, you cannot hold Christian revelation without implicitly calling God a liar either in his natural revelation, or in his special revelation.
Levi Collins
Christianism sure. As for "the Bible" that might be difficult.
Sebastian Wright
18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)
Luke Johnson
Easily.
Every time science agrees with the bible it is correct. Every time science disagrees with the bible it is false. And proven false, by science, within a generation or two.
Every single time.
William Morales
>10 billion years STEM meme
Hudson Collins
There's only one God. Start from there.
Justin Bell
t. redditor
Joshua Clark
Were you the faggot that kept going on about "oecology" a few threads ago?
Gavin Richardson
The bible.
Fossil record is 99% due to the Flood. 95% of the fossils are small creatures that used to live on the bottom of the ocean. Sediment/silt smothered them in place and preserved their skeletons. And now we find them on the tops of mountains. Because along with 40 days and nights of rain, all the volcanoes erupted, and all the fountains of the deep broke open.
The Flood was an ELE, not a rain event.
Chase Howard
None of that exists. It's the Antichrist and is only believed by absolute tools unable to reject something by fear of looking 'stupid'. God does not bend to your Antichrist. The Antichrist bends to Him.
Oliver King
He's 100% right.
That makes you the faggot.
Camden Parker
He'll be bending as he gets his ass cast into the lake of fire, absolutely.
Jackson Adams
t. still triggered that I decided to use nonstandard vocabulary to convey a subtlety of meaning
Adrian Gonzalez
That doesn't seem like a very valid argument.
Hudson Baker
>Either God made disease or disease is a consequence of something else and god wants to help us against it.
Entered the world after the Fall of man. Everything bad did. Death, pain, sorrow, sickness, disease, etc. It was not created in the beginning; it's things that were broken.
Liam Young
>Does the religion of Christ produce a moral-aesthetic world more valuable than that of someone who sees the universe as atoms?
Absolutely.
The man who believes he is accountable to no one, who has nothing to lose, and no meaning or purpose to his life, is very dangerous.
Julian Howard
It's been happening for thousands of years.
Scientists will say X proves the bible is wrong, the next generation of scientists proves that X was wrong all along.
Isaac Parker
Not to mention the validity of certain stroies in the Bible as proven by science itself. Such as how Sodom and Gomorrah were said to have been burned with fire and brimstone, when scientists say that it was hit by a asteroid falling from space. Sounds awfully fire and brimstone to me.
Justin Anderson
For example, the bible was "wrong" because it spoke of the Hittite people, and there was zero evidence in "science" of the Hittite people.
Lo and behold, some archaeologist with some sense dug where the bible said the Hittites were, and found remains of a massive Hittite empire.
I've been watching this drama for decades and not once, not once, has any "scientist" fan apologized for being wrong. They just switch the issue to Y, which "proves that the bible is wrong".
And when Y is proven to be wrong, they just switch the issue to Z proves the bible to be wrong.
When it happens thousands of times, you don't really see the need to "argue" about it. It's just the way things are. This generation believes that prior generations got it wrong, and they got it right.
Every single generation thinks this.
And the bible just keeps on being true.
Samuel Perry
they found the Hittite empire. They found the fallen walls of Jericho. They found the war cisterns of Jerusalem. They found Bethsaida. They found Pontius Pilate. They found two Roman censuses by Quinarius.
They keep finding things from the bible for which the lack of extra-biblical evidence had "proven that the bible was wrong".
Kayden James
Glassed, just like the bible said. The entire plain.
Owen Gomez
The Bible doesn't even attempt to address any of these questions. Moreover, catastrophist flood geology has been pretty much universally debunked by the scientific community, in no small part because it necessitates that the laws of physics and chemistry are ever-changing. This is ridiculous not only in the face of the entirety of human observation of the natural world; it is also theologically heretical and antithetical to all Christian philosophy. In other words, it is entirely inconsistent and denies not only science, but the fucking BIBLE.
Brody Allen
The bible said there was a global flood.
This global flood can be seen in the layers of sedimentary (sediment) rock that covers the planet. By fossils in hardened mud (sediment) that are now on the tops of mountains, that contain creatures that lived in the bottom of the oceans.
Actually, incremental evolution has been debunked, by Stephen Gould, and he is attempting to crowbar evolution into punctuated evolution, where catastrophic and virtually instant changes take place without leaving any fossil records.
Because there are no transitional fossils, and at least one evolutionist is brave enough to say so.
Every ancient civilization writes of the catastrophe that is the Flood, and any decent scientist could examine Mt. St. Helen's and get a much better grasp on how sedimentary rock is formed.
Protip: mudslides.
Xavier Edwards
So you still refuse to answer the objections. Welp, until you can do you're still stuck with this choice: are you calling God a liar in his general revelation, or in his natural revelation? It's one or the other.
Juan Phillips
You must be kidding.
Kind begets kind, always. It has always been this way.
One verse in the bible explains that. You're looking at variations within kinds, that robust DNA provides.
Your silly there was nothing then there was an infinite pinhead then the infinite pinhead exploded and all of this order came from chaos and life came from gasses nonsense is sheer rubbish.
Without a single shred of evidence.
Jose Hughes
Symbolism. God didn't actually mean the ENTIRE Earth, just what Noah and the Levantine people would think was the Earth. If God were to say to Noah, "I will wipe out all the people of the Earth, including those that are far off in other lands", Noah wouldn't have gone along with it so easily, because Noah didn't know the other peoples, and wouldn't have known of their evil. He would have questioned God's decision.
Bentley Thomas
Bible says that the water covered the highest mountains, and then went much higher.
I'll show you how high.
As high as the single sheet layer of ice covering Antarctica.
Ryder Howard
>He would have questioned God's decision.
You don't know Noah.
Gabriel Stewart
Of the Levant. Or the Earth as the Israelites saw it.
Ryan Adams
Anyone would have questioned it, even the most wise. Solomon, the wisest man in the Bible, not counting God himself, went away from God later in his life. No human is perfect.
James Rivera
If the water rose above the highest mountain, and kept going
and remained for over one year
(Do you know how water works?)
David King
Noah didn't give it a second thought. Neither would Abraham.
Leo Jenkins
He didn't, because he wasn't told of the other people inhabiting the Earth. Which is a lie by omission, and a sin. Unless of course, he didn't mean the whole Earth, which is what I've been saying. It would have formed rivers, and lakes, and such. A flood going well over Mt. Sinai, would not have reached China.
Carson Williams
Science is garbage. The scientific community is a load of circle-jerking atheists. Science is anything but empirical.
Ian Reed
Science is wrong, that is the lie. Stop sucking off to Hegelian lies and read some fucking contemporary philosophy
Kayden Robinson
No, it wasn't symbolism. It was literal. Fuck off.
Michael Garcia
>ignores
Jordan Sanchez
>tried to start this thread off with good information to get a solid discussion going >thread went entirely to shit
Robert Butler
>much rationalization Fuck off, idiot.
Charles Jenkins
>discussion and advancement of religion >shit
Jeremiah Johnson
This board is almost entirely capable of discussing anything related to religion. Honestly, you could even remove the "related to religion" bit and it'd still be correct.
There were some good threads when this board was new, but no one who knows shit is left. Just trolls and dumbass LARPers and LARPers LARPing as LARPers.
Jayden Walker
>capable incapable*
Adrian Price
Exactly what about the legitimate arguments and learning in this thread is shit?
Joshua Butler
Nobody cares what you think, redditor. Go back. Just because a board doesn't cling to your /r/askhistorians redditmodel doesn't mean it is 'bad'. Knowledge also doesn't exist.
Henry Long
>Can Christianity and science be reconciled? >I don't mean only dude god did evolution but also why didn't he mention anything about the issues between science and religion in the bible
If you accept the gospels as containing white lies you can reconcile Christianity and science. A trinitarian church isn't Christian (though it may have some Christians in it) so such a thing can never be reconciled with Christianity or science.
It comes down to two terms: "King of the Jews" and "Son of God."
2 Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.
Henry Gonzalez
>conform to the pattern >don't be the same as everyone else this doesn't mean science is bad dipshit
Isaiah Hall
the harmony of religon and science, they are supposed to be reconciled. All magic is science
James Powell
The Conflict thesis is a meme started.by fedoras and Protestants
Logan Moore
Protestants and the fedora they spawned.
Sebastian Nguyen
Catholics aren't Christian
Colton Cooper
>this user again
Ethan Bennett
I find the reconciliation of both science and religion is ultimately a red herring made by people with concordist views of the scriptures and bad experiences with the fundamentalist churches.
