T
Origin of Big Bang
- Thread starter Nothingtoknow
- Start date
Gordian Knot
Being Deviant IS My Art.
I understand your frustration Thomas. And I'm probably going to add to it! Apologies.
There have been great thinkers who have managed to find common ground between science and religion. They are in the minority though compared to the whack jobs who have attempted the same thing. When one includes those with a political agenda (or the like) the number grows exponentially.
This is the problem in a nutshell why I believe science and religion should stick to their own corners, as it were. Humanity taken as a whole cannot seem to distinguish the genuine thinkers from the hucksters.
And once we accept Polkinghorne, we have to accept the possibility that all the rest might be right. After all, to the uneducated, they are all equal because they are all giving opinions about how the two come together. Once we open this door we get into trouble. Case in point, the asinine idea that we should be teaching creationism in our public schools.
There have been great thinkers who have managed to find common ground between science and religion. They are in the minority though compared to the whack jobs who have attempted the same thing. When one includes those with a political agenda (or the like) the number grows exponentially.
This is the problem in a nutshell why I believe science and religion should stick to their own corners, as it were. Humanity taken as a whole cannot seem to distinguish the genuine thinkers from the hucksters.
And once we accept Polkinghorne, we have to accept the possibility that all the rest might be right. After all, to the uneducated, they are all equal because they are all giving opinions about how the two come together. Once we open this door we get into trouble. Case in point, the asinine idea that we should be teaching creationism in our public schools.
Q
Quirkybird
Guest
Can of worms anyone? Get 'em while they're hot!
Funny, when they began teaching evolutionary theory in my Grand Nephew's 4th grade class, he told his mother he was learning about religion in school. I nor his parents told him that, he reached that conclusion on his own.
Just to follow up. I get what you're saying GK. Even though I subscribe to the concept of creation, I don't think of it in the traditional sense. For that reason, I too have reservations about creationism being taught in schools. Especially the notion that the earth is only 6000 years old. So, until there's a general consensus on the two ideas, perhaps it would be best if they remain separate. Let the schools teach the mechanics and let the parents handle the spiritual side of things.
Gordian Knot
Being Deviant IS My Art.
NJ, you hit it right on the head in that last comment. Specifically, let science be taught in public schools and let religion by taught in churches, mosques, etc. This seems extraordinarily sensible to me.
After all nobody is demanding that churches teach evolution along with their theology. And just imagine the outcry if anyone even suggested it!!!!!!
Tea, thanks for the kudos. Always appreciated. And I congratulate you on attaining the two greenies. I know how closely you watch that stuff.
After all nobody is demanding that churches teach evolution along with their theology. And just imagine the outcry if anyone even suggested it!!!!!!
Tea, thanks for the kudos. Always appreciated. And I congratulate you on attaining the two greenies. I know how closely you watch that stuff.
No problem. Nothing personal, just an observation.
I know ... ever the case, in everything. My gripe is not with theologians or scientists per se, rather the 'blind faith' assumptions by some atheists who seem to trust in science holding the answer to everything ... very different to the informed belief of scientists who believe science can answer the problems that fall within its parameters.
Quite right. As ever I defer to Paul Ricoeur (one of the greatest philosophers of the last century) on the topic. The two pursuits are quite distinct.
I'm not so sure about that. I accept all of what some theologians say, and none of what other theologians say, and in between, a vast range of theologians of whom I find some agreement on some things, total agreement on others, and absolutely disagree on others.
Well at least their opinions sometimes have a sound basis. Of course, the classic example is Richard Dawkins, a scientist who makes preposterous statements about the nature of God, and then sets out to demonstrate how foolish they are.
But this is all pandering to the secular agenda, and has made him, and those of his ilk in both camps, a lot of money ...
Well, a creationist doctrine that absolutely rules out nature is ridiculous, and it's a sad statement of the state of thought in the US that such an agenda should get so much credence.
The simple and evident truth is that there are those with strong religious convictions who have made considerable contributions to science, and I would count Kant and Darwin in that camp — and those who are recognised scientists, and leaders in their fields, who hold a religious conviction.
What I think is naive is the assumption that one precludes the other.
I agree, with reservations. I do not accept the secular notion that religion should be removed from the public sphere and be regarded as a purely private and personal affair. That's censorship. It's 'new-think' a la Orwell.
The problem with secularism is that whilst it purports to me 'multi-cultural', 'egalitarian', 'inclusive' and so on, it actually only allies to those who 'think like us'. If you're going to defend multi-culturalism, you're obliged to defend the rights of others to do and act as they see fit, which is nonsense.
Whoa, hang on! Sound theology includes evolution.
T
Tadashi
Guest
Yep.
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. ~ Albert Einstein
I like that quote very much and wholeheartedly agree. Problem is, not everyone does and among those that do, opinions vary widely regarding what roll each plays and to what degree. Meanwhile the kids get caught in the middle while the adults argue. That's why I thought perhaps it would be best if the schools taught the science aspect of things and the parents and religious leaders handle the spiritual side. Not a perfect solution by a long shot, but it may be the best we can do.
I think the theory of intelligent design should be taught in schools. They teach Darwin and that is just a theory. Just because the theory leads to the acknowledgement of an intelligence that always existed that intelligence came from is no reason not to teach it. Its just atheist's that do not want any material taught that may lead to a conclusion that there is a creator. To me that inhibits the student from exploring other theories that may be true and keeps them learning false ones.
S
sonictemple
Guest
Even mundane science states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed but only transformed, as per Sir Isaac Newton. Atoms are also considered eternal, i.e. not produced and not subject to destruction. So, why should Bhagavan (God), conceived as the possessor of all shaktis (energies), not also be without a beginning? According to theistic Vedanta philosophy (Vaishnavism), all things are eternal including the material world, which is a form of energy in an eternal state of flux.
Last edited by a moderator:
On the surface, I see no harm with the idea of teaching intelligent design. I'm sure however that not all will share that view and that's the problem. Until everyone can agree on what's acceptable, we're at a crossroads. Like it or not, atheist's have rights too. Their taxes support our schools as well as anybody elses. Thus their opinion matters. I think it would be best if the schools were charged with just teaching the basics and it were left up to the parents to teach their children how religion fits into the picture.
Gordian Knot
Being Deviant IS My Art.
Donnann I am so in disagreement with your statement here. You statements are based on misinformation.
1. Evolution is just a theory? Yes. And no. All of science works on a set of theories because all theories are open to alteration if new evidence comes along.
But it is not just a theory. Science has amassed enough evidence over the last 200 years that science considers evolution a fact. With all the proof we have at this point, the theory of evolution is a fact. But it still is called a theory, because science never pretends we know everything. If scientific proof were to be substantiated to cause doubt about evolution, the theory would be altered accordingly.
Too many people are ignorant of what a scientific theory is. Scientific Theories range from the wildly speculative to proven fact. This is one of my gripes with science. They should have a different term for a theory that has substantial evidence - enough to be considered fact from those theories that have little to no actual proof yet. Not having these differing terms causes a lot of confusion in people.
2. It's just the atheists? No. Not so. There are plenty of agnostics and plenty of religious folk who agree creationism has no place in a public school. Creationism is based on faith, not on facts. That is why it doesn't belong in schools. One cannot set up tests to prove or disprove a theory of creationism. It is therefor not science.
Nobody has a problem with creationism being taught in religious institutions, or at home, etc. But to pretend that it is a science is simply not true. There is no bias against creationism because of what it teaches. There is a bias against it because it is not science.
As I mentioned in another thread, no-one is suggesting that churches be forced to teach evolution. So why should public schools be forced to teach creationism.
Might I point out here that 'Intelligent Design' is not a traditional Christian doctrine, nor is it supported, I believe, by the other Ancient Traditions East and West.
I wouldn't teach it in the school, the home, or anywhere else.
Nor is 'Creationism'.
They both originate from the same place: the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States.
Heaven knows what their actual political stance is, but their theological stance with regard to 'Intelligent Design' lacks ... insight, to put it politely.
I wouldn't teach it in the school, the home, or anywhere else.
Nor is 'Creationism'.
They both originate from the same place: the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States.
Heaven knows what their actual political stance is, but their theological stance with regard to 'Intelligent Design' lacks ... insight, to put it politely.
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 579
- Points
- 108
For donnann: Theory - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
In every day terms theory is "an unproved assumption"
Theory implies in the context of Theory of Evolution "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena"
The word have several meanings.
In every day terms theory is "an unproved assumption"
Theory implies in the context of Theory of Evolution "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena"
The word have several meanings.
Thanks, man, I dressed up and everything. A great day.Tea, thanks for the kudos. Always appreciated. And I congratulate you on attaining the two greenies. I know how closely you watch that stuff.
It starts with the concept that something cannot be created from nothing. To me intelligent design makes sense and its so simple. Its the one theory that creates scientific proof of a creator. The only people I have come across that does not want it investigated more is atheists.
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 579
- Points
- 108
Well it's a really interesting wording there. Science doesn't create proof, but you kind of hit the the nail there, in creationism, proofs are created to fit the theory, and not the other way around. That I think is the key point that will always keep faith and science apart. And that's fine with me.
There's your problem, right from the start. Why can God not bring forth existence?
God did bring forth existence be speaking it. I just saw a good movie called god is not dead. In the movie was a good scientific argument as to how god created the universe and all that exists in it by saying let there be light.