First of all, since The Pope himself - spiritual leader for overwhelmingly the largest sect of Christianity on the planet - said that nothing that is taught in science classes goes against Catholicism, that’s a good sign right there that a decent number of Christians (a majority, I would think) think so.
I always posted this site of different looks at Genesis Interpretations during my LBMB daze (not a typo), and I think that this Christian page explains how it is VERY possible to reconcile the scientific findings of HOW we got to where we are with spiritual teachings which proposes WHY we’re here to begin with.
*TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Five months, two weeks, four days, 1 hour, 39 minutes and 52 seconds.
6842 cigarettes not smoked, saving $855.34.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 2 days, 18 hours, 10 minutes.
*“I’m a big Genesis fan.”-David B. (Amen, brother!)
Answer-Absolutely incompatible.Christianity and all other organised and unorganised religions never prepared for the advent of science and rational thinking.After all,they are only inventions of our very imaginative ancestors.Religion and the theory of God does have its usefulness but its time we even stopped asking questions like this.
Lets stick with the truth.ie.Religion is about faith.Faith does not include logic.Science goes with logic and rationality.
BUT,if have faith,it doesn’t mean you are stupid.It only means that you have faith.Perhaps they should only withdraw your right to vote a leader.
That appaling story of the New Jersey Mary vision is the reason for my aggravation.Apologies.Since this is a hijack,carry on,dont mind me.
Except that Jesus referred to the creation story (Adam & Eve in particular) a time or two, implying that He believed it happened exactly as it was written. If He said the Earth was made in six days, who are we to argue with Him? If He said He was going to spend three days in Hell because Jonah spent three days in the belly of a whale, then the Jonah story must’ve been true, too. (Actual argument made over at Left Behind.)
Me too. But not since I was about eleven years old. But I was bright for my age. (“Hey, how come the Bible doesn’t have dinosaurs in it? How come Noah didn’t save any of them? Hmmmm…”)
I would argue that if you don’t know exactly how it happened, you can’t understand the underlying truth. It begs the question(s) “What is God hiding from us and why is He hiding it?”
Even I, Hell-spawn atheist that I am ;), couldn’t agree more.
A lot of people reject science when it tells them that the Earth wasn’t made for humans, that humans aren’t the center (purpose) of creation. Religion tells them the Universe is ours, all ours, and people don’t want to give that up. It also tells them they can have eternal life and that is VERY hard for some to turn down. The Bible teaches that we were made with skill, love and care by a Being who wants the very best for us, but we have to earn it. Science teaches that that we were made by an unintelligent, indifferent universe that doesn’t care one whit whether we live or go extinct like dinosaurs.
Which has more appeal? Which is more comforting? I think the answer is obvious. However, it behooves every one of us to accept the story which is factually correct, whether it is appealing or not, whether we find it uncomfortable or not.
But it would be a good reminder of Who’s in charge.
Could not agree more. I get this wonderful feeling of JOY and delight when I learn something. It’s one of the things that keep me going and why I continue to hang around here.
Er, well, it could also imply that he was using what was then a very well known story as a frame of reference to which to make a comparison or to use to illustrate a point. Though I don’t have a Bible handy, I seem to recall that Jesus was referring to the whole Genesis story of the Fall of man. Similarly, evolutionary scientist tend to refer to the theoretical first *Homo sapiens * as “Eve”. Is this because they believe in the creation story? {Snerk} Yeah, right. No, it’s because the names “Adam” and “Eve” are ingrained in the Western psyche as referring to the first humans. Most everyone knows or at least is aware of the story. Therefore, it’s convenient to use the names because of the symbolism they evoke. It’s a sociological shorthand. If Jesus had not been talking to a Jewish audience that was familiar with the Genesis story, he probably would’ve had to have repeated the story (or at least its concepts) to make the point.
Again, use of a familiar story/context in order to make your point. Did you ever see the Star Trek: Next Generation episode where they run across an alien species that speaks entirely in metaphors? The Federation can’t quite understand the aliens because they lack the cultural context to understand their references. It’s like that.
In fact, in bringing up the ST:TNG episodes, I have just provided an example of exactly what I’m talking about.
Okay, by “underlying truth”, I’m basically referring to the “moral” or “point” of the Genesis story. Think of it as sort of like one of Jesus’s parables. When he talks about the sower and his seed or the Prodigal Son or any one of a number of his stories, you don’t actually have to assume these people were real and that these events actually happened in order to get the point of the story. The use of a story in order to illustrate or explain a concept is a long-standing tradition in MANY cultures.
It also helps to keep in mind that “facts” and “Truth” are not necessarily the same thing. You can use the facts to tell a lie. You can also use “lies” (i.e. a fictional story) to explain a Truth.
As for what is God hiding, who’s to say He’s hiding anything? Remember the Genesis story is based on a long, ORAL tradition. It existed in oral form long before it was written down (which makes sense for a culture that was originally nomadic) Do you think the early Hebrews could have passed on for generations a detailed account of the evolution of man, especially since they didn’t have the informational background to even understand it? That’s absurd. Besides, as I said, the point of the Genesis story is not to give us the HOW of human origin; it’s to provide a WHY of human origin. And WHY is a question that is simply beyond the capability of science to answer.
Ah, ah…your terminology is getting sloppy. Remember, not ALL religions are Christianity. You’ll find that there are many religions that do emphasize the capricious nature of the universe.
AND, further, I don’t recall any passage in the Bible that says anything like what you’re saying. Remember that not all Christians extrapolate the same view about their relative position in the universe from the Bible. In fact, we know the universe is NOT all ours… there are other powers greater than ourselves. Most notably God, but also Satan, demons, and angels. The arrogance about our place in the universe that some people display is not something that is explicitely stated or even strongly implied in the Scriptures, especially as taken as a whole; it is an arrogance that existed before the Bible was ever opened and would probably exist regardless of whether or not Christianity did. Some secular evolutionists are the same way (man is the epitome of evolution, therefore we have the right to do whatever we want to the earth).
Now you’re demonstrating that fundamental misunderstanding about the different purposes of science and religion that I mentioned in my last post. Specifically, you’re extrapolating a religious/philosophical assertion (mankind was created by an indifferent universe] from evolution. For many years that was my major gripe with evolution…that people were extracting answers to the meaning of life from a theory describing a process. It’s like trying to extrapolate an understanding of Bill Gates (and whether he exists or not) from the Windows 98 manual. Evolution describes a process. It does not say anything about who or what initiated the process, who is (or is not) guiding that process, and what the goal is (if there is one) of undertaking the process in the first place.
Science can answer a LOT of questions. It cannot, however, answer EVERY question. It cannot be used as a moral guide. It cannot describe the purpose of existence. Unless you really think the be all and end all of your existance is to pass on your genes. In which case you probably COULD morally justify things like rape (impregnating as many women as possible to pass on your genes) and murder (eliminating the competition for resources and mates)…and our conscience (at least the consciences of those of us who have one that works) tells us that these things are very wrong. Religion, in contrast, does provide us with a moral framework and an answer to the questions of purpose. Whether you agree with the answers provided by a given religious tradition, however, is totally up to you.
As long as there are itchy gaps in our understanding, there will be god(s), myths and just so stories. Christianity is just one dealer of these goods.
Some people enjoy speculation, some people stick to the facts and little else. No fact short of “we know everything” will make religion obselete or “incompatible.”
