Mar 01 2009
God or Science?
Okay, so I’m still reading Douglas Preston’s Blasphemy. I know…I know…I’ve been reading it forever. Normally, I can devour a book in a day or a weekend, but I find myself with less and less time these days for reading - boo! - so it’s taking quite a while.
Blasphemy is a phenomenal book - at least by chapter 50 it is - so I highly recommend it to anyone looking for a well-written, suspenseful read. (Okay, I recommend it after you’ve gotten current on my book, of course.)
As awesome a read as it is, Blasphemy isn’t what I wanted to talk about. Instead, I want to talk about the God vs. Science theme that runs through the book. At one point in the story, a character says that, basically, anyone who believes God and Science can co-exist knows nothing of either. (I wish I could find the exact quote because it sounds so much smarter than I did just now.)
So here’s the question: Can God and Science co-exist in the world? Why or why not?
Here’s the thing though…Call it a ground rule for answering the question. Theists aren’t allowed to answer the question by saying “because the Bible says so” and Non-Theists aren’t allowed to treat everyone who believes in God - any god - like a moron. I usually only delete the pill company spam comments, but I will remove any comments that are derogatory to others because it’s not conducive to fostering an atmosphere of understanding and learning.
I don’t want to lead the conversation in any one direction so I won’t get into my beliefs at this point. What I will say is that I don’t agree with the above statement. I believe God and Science are but two sides of the same coin. We’re all seeking to understand things and some of us use different methods to do so. The simple fact of the matter is that we’ll never know for certain until we’re dead.
Consider this: At one point, the most brilliant scientific minds just knew the world was flat. Later, scientists knew the atom was the smallest particle out there. Way back in the day, scientists believed the universe revolved around our planet. Obviously, our scientific understanding of things changes, evolves as we learn more.
So, is it possible that perhaps our understanding of the nature of God simply hasn’t yet evolved to the point to where Science and God are able to be reconciled?
I don’t pretend to be an expert at either science or religion, but I’m sure not the mental midget I sometimes make myself out to be online. To me, I can see no evidence or reason why it wouldn’t be possible.
But that’s just me. You tell me what you think about God vs. Science.
You pose a great question…my belief is also that they can coexist. I am a theist, and I love science. My issue though, is that most people throw out the term “science” loosely. What is science? Science is anything in the natural world that is observable, testable, demostrable. When people rant on the religion vs. “science” (come on now, let’s be honest…it’s religion vs. evolution) I quite often get bored and annoyed by the atheists who rant about God being a made up superhero in the minds of intellectual children, and theists casting curses towards them about “burning in hell” and using the same old arguments to thwart atheists attacks. I think the true problem lies not in facts, but definitions. Many people who argue on either side of the fence cannot explain to me what is meant by either the terms “evolution”, “species”, “theory”, or even”science”. In essence, I do believe that creatures evolve, but I think that pure and literal “variation” (Whales to land mammals and back etc.) is just a little too much of a gross overexaggeration of the abilities of the process of “natural selection”. This is simply my belief, but that is my point. Anything having to do with origins may be somewhat satisfactorily pondered, but I would say it falls under the category of “philosophy” rather than science. For instance, I might be able to tell you how life “might” have evolved, but I cannever test and prove it in a true laboratory setting, and anyone bringing up Miller and Eury should go read about the experiment before commenting. Now, what is “evolution”? It is a process…and some also use it to explain the origins of EVERYTHING. This is great, but the process belongs to science, the theory of origins belongs to philosophy. The problem is that many theists see science as professing to be factual (which it is commonly not, since science itself has evolved from the beginning). This is why they (and I) have a problem with the “Idea of Origins” as I will now begin to call it having a place in the realm of science. The reason is that this idea is by no means a fact and it directly conflicts with the faiths of many. This is the true issue. Theists also really tend not to like the idea that their tax dollars are funding it’s teaching to their children. I agree 100% with the process of animals evolving, but I have doubts as to the extent of what evolution can do. This is the TRUE fight. It isn’t Religion Vs. Science, or even Religion Vs. Evolution. Most of use are at least smart enough to know things EVOLVE. Our question is just how much evolving can really happen. Can new limbs or new systems of transportation “evolve” or did those animals already have flight from creation? These questions cannot be answered free of doubt. Science thrives off of inquiry and conflict. It rewrites itself constantly. So what is wrong with a little inquiry into the current idea of origins? I think that this whole idea of “shoring up our defenses against the religious masses” like the National Center for Science Education like to put forth, is a bit silly. Let people ask their questions and don’t get so offended. Certainly don’t take every teacher to court who questions the idea of origins in their classroom. I’m sure people will disagree, which is okay, but I’m simply saying it’s a problem of definitions…not religion vs. science.
While I agree with thewritingguy here that religion and science are not mutually exclusive, I disagree with his stance on evolution. (After watching the changes in anatomy that show up during two years on the Galapagos in Beak of the Finch, it’s very hard to discount natural selection doing bigger things.
But that’s not part of the answer, so I’ll end digression there.
If anything, I consider science to be what gives me my religion. As a molecular biology major, I’ve had to look a lot at how the world works, from chemical interactions to the way gases behave when heated, from computer models of cellular processes to the origins of space. The world is a vast, complex, complicated place, subject to a dizzying variety of natural laws that interact in ways that even we have yet to comprehend. Can that not be a sign in itself that there’s something bigger than us setting such things in motion? Why do so many people look at this and deny it, rather than thinking “This is why our God is great; because He can create an interconnecting system that makes the people who build worlds for their stories only wish they could reach that level of complexity and consistency”?
Most of the argument, on the religious side, seems to be based from people who want to take the Bible literally. I’ve gone on entire rants as to why that doesn’t work–when I look through the Bible, I see a God who works in metaphor (what else can one conclude from all those parables?), who would rather we think our way through the answer than actually give it to us. So I can’t see the Seven Days as anything but metaphorical, and from there it isn’t too big a leap of reasoning to stretch them to encompass the history of the universe, as told to people who didn’t quite get the concept of how big earth was, let alone any of the other complicated concepts that went into the formation of the world. Simplifying the topics, as if for a child… with the end result that for all we know, it could have been a really dumbed down version of setting the rules in place, angling the development a bit, and letting the rest take care of itself.
Heh, that ended up longer than I expected it to.
See, this kind of argument is the type that I love. I respect Ravyn for her opinion because she conveys it in a respectful and intelligent manner. However I will point out that from “beak to beak” is a very modest jump compared to “fin to feet” and even back. Just like I described in my previous response, many evolutionary biologists believe that a whales pelvis is evidence that it’s ancestors emerged from the ocean and just decided to return one day. I simply believe it’s a place to hang the muscles and organs used for sex, nothing more. I know I’m only cherry picking a single situation, but it’s only to make a point. Now to move on to the topic of “dumbing down” the creation story into a metaphorical dialogue. I understand this approach. After all, if we are raised with a mindset telling us that the Earth must be millions of years old, dinosaurs must have lived before man, and Jesus was only kidding when he said the creation took six days, how is it possible to accept that this just might not have been the case? Let me talk about Genesis and the literary structure of biblical literature. Many people think that Moses wrote Genesis using purely heresay from Jewish elders. This is an incorrect notion. Genesis is a collection of previous writings which were combined by Moses into a single volume. This is evident when you read the book because the literary terminology and writing style periodically changes. There are also strange titlings throughtout the book (”This was the age of….” is mentioned at the beginning of several chapters, suggesting a separation of eras, or writings). Next, let’s examine the writing styles. There are 66 different biblical texts. Each has an individual author and each has it’s own literary style. The “metaphorical” books are not actually in the beginning of the bible. Those books are in the middle (Psalms, Proverbs, Songs of Solomon etc.,). Also, the “parables” you are speaking of are most likely the ones Jesus spoke about, which are written in a whole different testament than Genesis. The first five books that Moses wrote were purely history and law books. Genesis is not a metaphorical masterpiece, this is easy to see with just a quick read of the piece. It lacks all hints of metaphor and simile. It is a gritty, plain, blunt explanation of the creation of the Earth. May I not also say that Jesus commented on Genesis over 26 times, mentioning the six day creation literally on several occassions. This perplexes me because he does not speak of the creation in parable. He is typically speaking to the disciples in a literal context. So I don’t understand sometimes how Christians can believe Jesus to be the way, the truth, and the life…but He didn’t understand science and the Jews were like children so He was obviously just simplifying it for them. I understand what biologists are saying and I respect their viewpoint, but I hold my stance. Any talk of origins should be considered philosophy, because it escapes the reasonably testable realm. Remember I agree with the process of evolution, but to attribute it to origins is extrapolation of the process beyond what I can say is even remotely provable. Most people will bring up genetic similarity at this point, but I would argue that just because all cars have 4 wheels and an engine doesn’t mean the same company made them all, it just means the design worked well enough to be used more than once. However like I said, this is my belief and I respect the beliefs of others.
For the most part, I’ve been staying out of this, but I felt the need to point out the issue is not Evolution vs Creation. That is not what is set forward in Blasphemy, not the question I posed and is not the issue I see debated most frequently. The issue is that the very existence of God is denied. That is the heart of the issue in this discussion.
As for the matter of whether the 7 days are really 7 days…Frankly, I think that if God said He took 6 days and rested on the 7th day then that is precisely what He did. What I think is madness is the fact we assume the way in which we measure time is the same way in which He would.
Then one must also keep in mind that the the books included into the Bible were decided by Constantine, I believe. And since he was trying to keep his subjects appeased, there was much left out during the Bible’s editing. To take a Fundamentalist view of a document that wavers back and forth between metaphorical and factual would be a mistake…in my little opinion.
I haven’t gotten an opportunity to read the book. However if the question is truely “Does science deny the very existence of God?” then I would say absolutely not. the mechanisms and processes by which this existence is governed I would say give much more creedence to the existence of a God. I have to say, after following the debate for many years, I don’t see many debates between religion and science as a whole. Most of the time it’s Christian fundamentalism vs. Evolutionary biology. So I apologize if I misinterpreted the question. Many scientists are turning towards the idea of a creator simply because there are so many uneblievable and amazing aspects of this world, even science as a whole.
Just to shed some light on the subject of selection of biblical texts, the orientation and selection of books was decided on by a large panel of Roman Catholic elders. The selection was based on several things. These include: Timeframe from event to text, confirmation of validity of the author, confirmation of the events and likelihood of the events contained actually occurring. The text that were excluded can still be accessed by cruising down to your local bookstore and looking up “Gnostic Gospels”. You’ll see what I mean if you check a few of them out…some of them were just out there.
But in any case, that would have to be my answer…full blown science vs. religion? Nah, science gives me more proof that there is a God than anything else.
Once again…sorry!
No worries. I was actually enjoying your line of thought; just wanted to make sure the initial questions was clear for anyone jumping in late.
Thanks for clearing that up about the Roman Catholic elders. I knew it was during the reign of Constantine, but couldn’t remember exactly who was pouring through the texts. Of course, Catholicism is a Pagan-Christian hybrid so it seems odd that these are the people we’ve allowed to shape the bounds of the spiritual text for Christians…especially if we’re going to consider Gnosticism to be “out there.” (I really wish the ‘God Bless America?’ thread were here instead of Dark Passenger because you and David would probably be having some very interesting conversations about this…Oh well.)
I hate to say it, but I’m not sure you’re in the majority. Most people I hear tend to say the more they learn about science, the less they believe in God. Personally, I tend to agree with you. The more I learn about science, the more questions I find it cannot answer…
Speaking as both a biochemist and life-long Roman Catholic, I can say that I have no problems reconciling the two.
I look at science as the way to explain the world around us (the “how” everything works) and my religion provides an underlying philosophy and context (the “why” in this case).
The religion helps me to keep perspective, as well. It’s easy for scientists to aggrandize themselves as the ultimate purveyers and keepers of knowledge, but weekly focus on the mysteries that remain to be solved helps me to remember that we don’t know 1/10 of 1% about anything (to paraphrase Einstein himself).
I can understand the mechanism of a complex metabolic process and also appreciate that there are a very elegant set of rules that define the behaviors involved and this gives me appreciation for whomever wrote those rules.
As a final word, I read blasphemy about a year ago and I really loved it. I won’t spoil the ending, but it fed weeks worth of philosophical debates with friends.
The council of Nicea met in the 430s AD (I believe) and it was there that the final Bible was put together. Thus the Nicean crede in the middle of mass (RC mass anyway)
Actually all things do co-exist maybe not harmonously but…
We had a discussion recently where I post about religion that took some over the edge with their denial that God exists. One guy was guided by science and science alone - to him that was the one and only thing that mattered.
I tried to explain that while science was just that, a study based on assumption, theory and the like - that changed as new information was gained. I mentioned how “God’s Word” had been around for a while and that it was relevent back when Jesus walked the earth and was still relevent today - but he was not having it and took to calling the beliefs ignorant, among other things.
I respect science and all it has brought to the world but I know that God “is” and Jesus is my King!!!
Thought provoking post!!!