Are religion and science interfacing?

P

pattimax

Somewhat returning
Messages
1,204
Reaction score
6
Points
0
Location
West Palm Beach, Florida
Merriam Webste defines "interfacing" as:

the place at which independent and often unrelated systems meet and act on or communicate with each other e.g. the man-machine interface.
 
Hmmmm...I don't know at what levels they are, but there is some evidence around that they are. About twenty five years ago when some pioneers advocated that this was inevitable, most of them were laughed out of discussions. But the concept took hold when very wise men and women began to see the effects that science and technology have had and were having on the Creation.

For instance, the head of the Human Genome Projrct, Francis Collins is a true believer when it coms to both science and religion, but prominent physicists are usually negative on religion. Recently evangelicals have begun to realize that the environment is important and are beginning to advocate conservation and sustainability along with conservatism. I think we've got a healthy start on it, but there's a long way to go.

flow....:)
 
As I see it hard line literalists are still distant from science.

And at the same token, scientists who are stuck on not allowing for what they do not yet know, discount religious teachings as assisting in filling the gap.

However when it comes to the quantumetaphysicians...both dance in each others camp. Seeing metaphor in both scripture and scientific data.

Just the fact that they have realized that the intention of the researchers affects the outcome has caused many to awake on the science side.

On the relgious side, many still have issues when it is shown that all religions have miracles, and prayer in any religion seems also to have an affect. This tends to upset those that feel they have the only keys to the kingdom and slows progress.
 
wil said:
As I see it hard line literalists are still distant from science.

And at the same token, scientists who are stuck on not allowing for what they do not yet know, discount religious teachings as assisting in filling the gap.

However when it comes to the quantumetaphysicians...both dance in each others camp. Seeing metaphor in both scripture and scientific data.

Just the fact that they have realized that the intention of the researchers affects the outcome has caused many to awake on the science side.

On the relgious side, many still have issues when it is shown that all religions have miracles, and prayer in any religion seems also to have an affect. This tends to upset those that feel they have the only keys to the kingdom and slows progress.
Click to expand...

Sometimes these literalists feel threatened. Though they usually relax once the truth is revealed. As long as things move ahead in a secure fashion, both sides appreciate the revelations. (things revealed)

Quantumetaphysics? Now there is a fun dance.

Just the fact that they have realized that the intention of the researchers affects the outcome has caused many to awake on the science side.
Yes, yes, yes.

Some people have a pretty strong hold on those keys to the kingdom...
 
You folk appear to be discussing one of many, many topics, and you think at that, that literalists are against the environment? If so, I don't know where you have been, but I should think it's under a shoe box the past 50 years.

Indeed this seems to be another thread simply used to bash fundimentalist beliefs...of course this isn't correct, and I am seriously mistaken, and you will show me so, in short order...right? ;)

v/r

Joshua
 
Quahom1 said:
You folk appear to be discussing one of many, many topics, and you think at that, that literalists are against the environment? If so, I don't know where you have been, but I should think it's under a shoe box the past 50 years.

Indeed this seems to be another thread simply used to bash fundimentalist beliefs...of course this isn't correct, and I am seriously mistaken, and you will show me so, in short order...right? ;)
Click to expand...
a. literalists against the environment? Where do you get that? How would one get that? Don't tell me the neocons are now using the bible to drill in ANWAR and clearcut forests? I'm confused at that one Q.

Now bash fundamentalists, I don't think so. But as far as chasms go, unless I misunderstand the literal fundamentalist publicized and posted positions they have some serious issues with science.

But I've been wrong before. But thread setup to bash?? No it is a discussion, and I for one would not have thought that was in the mind of the OPer.
 
wil said:
a. literalists against the environment? Where do you get that? How would one get that? Don't tell me the neocons are now using the bible to drill in ANWAR and clearcut forests? I'm confused at that one Q...
Click to expand...
Right wing Republicans are considered literalists...at least that is the inside joke of the reporters nowadays.

v/r

Joshua
 
Religion and Science are inter-twined with each other and cannot be separated. These are the two wings with which humanity must fly. 29 One wing is not enough. Every religion which does not concern itself with Science is mere tradition, and that is not the essential. Therefore science, education and civilization are most important necessities for the full religious life.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Abdu'l-Baha in London, p. 28)
 
Quahom1 said:
You folk appear to be discussing one of many, many topics, and you think at that, that literalists are against the environment? If so, I don't know where you have been, but I should think it's under a shoe box the past 50 years.

Indeed this seems to be another thread simply used to bash fundimentalist beliefs...of course this isn't correct, and I am seriously mistaken, and you will show me so, in short order...right? ;)

v/r

Joshua
Click to expand...

Are you nuts? That was not my intention at all. True fundamental beliefs are near and dear to my heart.

I was simply trying to show that I was not being presumptous.

What happens to this thread when relativists get a hold of it is beyond my control.
 
I think religion and science have interfaced throughout History. But at some point we become attached to the models that had been science, and that's where the separation occurs. I don't think when we see an interface today we're seeing a new trend. I think we're seeing the same thing that's happened again and again. And I don't doubt a few hundred years from now there will be those who embraced contemporary models and became so enamored with them that they just stuck, until they became canon for a particular group.

I don't, however, think there's anything wrong with using older models for religious purposes, so long as we don't neglect the new data when it comes to understanding better the world around us.

Dauer
 
dauer said:
I don't, however, think there's anything wrong with using older models for religious purposes, so long as we don't neglect the new data when it comes to understanding better the world around us.

Dauer
Click to expand...
like the teachings of jesus
 
like the teachings of jesus
Click to expand...

Right. I don't think there's anything wrong with any of the old worldviews, from back when we still understood the world in terms of myth, so long as we don't neglect the new data. For example, believing in Creationism I don't think makes a lot of sense, in light of what science has shown us. However I also think it's pretty harmless as opposed to some other doctrines.

Dauer
 
Wasn't there some quote regarding Science and Religion after Galileo was let out...Scientists control the realm of what we know and the Church controls the realm of what we don't know?... I probably butchered that. But as time goes on Science's realm increases....but interesting enough it seems so does the Church's!
 
Perhaps someone should inform science that unless a person personally repeats every single experiment, that the person has already placed Faith in 'someone' to tell him the Truth. I suggest science interfaces with religion daily.

I wonder though:
"In as much as you have placed Faith in the least of these my brothers, you have done it to me."
 
Some major denominations within organized Christianity are clearly moving toward a postion which allows a synthesis of science and religion. Notably, the Roman Catholic church has taken a clear position against the fundamentalist mindset, calling it "dangerous", and invitational to "intellectual suicide."

The church's interpretational task, as Cardinal Carlo Martini of Milan has urged, is "always to go back and forth from the biblical text to the present, and from the present day experience to the text."

In this process of living dialogue between the past and present, which theologians call "reception', the people of God, according to Cardinal Jan Willebrands, "under the direction of the Holy Spirit recognize and accept new understandings, new witness to the truth and new expressions of theology, in line with apostolic tradition and in harmony with a sense of the faithful, of the whole church."

John Paul II has called this process a "sacrament of dialogue." It clearly embraces the relationship of science and religion, as the Pope taught in 1987. "Imagine," he wrote, "if the cosmologies of the Ancient Near Eastern world could be purified and assimilated into the first chapters of Genesis? Might not contemporary cosmology have something to offer to our reflections on creation? Does our evolutionary perspective bring any light to bear on theological anthropology? On the problem of Christology, and even upon the development of doctrine itself?. What, if any, are the eschatalogical implications of contemporary cosmology, especially in the light of the vast future of our universe?"
Click to expand...
The church rejects fundamentalism Catholic New Times - Find Articles

Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top