Science and Theology

lunamoth

lunamoth

Episcopalian
Messages
3,915
Reaction score
4
Points
0
Location
Wild, Wild West
I grapple with the relationship between science and religion quite a bit (guess I don't have enough other things to occupy my mind :) ). Up until recently if I were to diagram the relationship between these two systems I would have probably described two non-intersecting circles, each representing a wholly different, separate way of learning about God's universe and the potential of humans. Religion, I would have said, is to help us develop spiritually, while science helps us develop materially (and humans are both spiritual and material, at least for the time being). But, because my personal experinece has been to see God in science (in the wonder of His creation), I guess would also say that science can help us develop spiritually. Finally, along this vein, I agree with Einstein's quip that science without religion is blind and religion without science is lame.

I guess I tend to be a very concrete thinker and like to put ideas into neat boxes, but the above just doesn't capture the high degree of interaction and synergy I feel exists between science and "spirituality." I missed it, but apparently one script line in the (really really bad) miniseries Revelations was the scientist saying "there's room for God in Science." I think that this is what we are trying to do when we attempt to explain Biblical miracles like Noah's Ark. I guess we don't want a God Who doesn't play by His own rules, but doesn't it also tend to limit God?

However, another way of looking at things was recently pointed out to me.
The concept is that science is a subpart of theology. Note that I'm now using the term theology, rather than religion. The diagram is now the large circle of theology with science as a circle within. I find this idea fascinating. I think it really nails how I look at science as a way of appreciating and developing our physical world, which is God's creation. And, it also puts other parts of theology, those that fall in the realm of the mystical or supernatural, outside and encompassing the natural world. The More.

I put this in the Christianity Forum but I welcome views from anyone on this topic. So what do you think, science as theology?

lunamoth
 
Always been partial to Ken Wilber's (the mega thinker of integral/transpersonal psychology) frequent mentioning of St. Bonaventure's notion that we have "three eyes:" the eye of the flesh, which sees physical facts, the eye of the mind, which sees mental truths, and the eye of the spirit, which sees transcendent wisdom. In accord with that, he and other transpersonalists speak of how one perceives the truth of each level with and only with the faculties of that particular eye. Science is fairly "fleshy," though at the furthest regions of its vision, it seems to begin to push into contemplative territiry-the "weird" truths of physics for instance.

Speaking of Einstein, like his quote: "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mystical. It is the source of all true art and science."

And to continue with my apophatic theme, also like Stephen Hawking's line: "Not only does God play dice, but he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen."

Have a good one, Earl
 
I really don't think science can be limited by theology, nor theology by science. However, I do believe they often interact and compliment one another--for instance, the efforts of some archeologists exploring in the Middle East and other places (history also plays a role.)

Sometimes science seems to clash with theology--such as the thoery of evolution and the creationist viewpoint. But when we look deeper, we find that they really do sort of interact--perhaps the former existing in purpose to attempt to disprove the latter.

Scientific experiment always begins with a theory, and seeks to prove that theory. Theology does not always do that. But there are many who look upon their science as an integral part of their theology--many New Agers and Wiccans do, among others.

Will science ever prove theology? Depends on one's theology.:)

InPeace,
InLove
 
I guess I'm just comfortable in chaotic thinking about science and religion. As a social scientist (with a heavy emphasis in ecology) and a mystic, they are both very alive and well in my life and I feel little need to separate them except when necessary for research. In my personal life there is little separation. The thoughts proposed by theoretical physicists comes close to mystical teachings, for example, and I've found them just as spiritually moving. The science of physical reality never much conflicted for me with the deeply spiritual and supernatural world I have frequently felt close to in my life. When I go out to do an environmental survey in the mountains, I am simultaneously a scientist collecting data, a Druid speaking with animals and trees, and a Christian worshipping God. Oddly enough, though I do not discuss it with academic collegues, I am frequently able to accelerate my process of scientific discovery and theory-building because of the way I interact spiritually with the world. My personal take is that most of the conflict between science and religion is due to close-mindedness on the part of individuals in each "camp." I've found little conflict between science and spirituality, and many scientists I know are very spiritual people, though many are not religious. Issues like creationism vs. evolutionary theory tend to be problems only for those who are very much stuck in a literalist world, either in religion or in science, and there are many of us who are just fundamentally more symbolic/metaphoric type folks who agree with both.
 
You know, I thought long and hard about this topic after reading these wonderful posts. They make me feel grateful for kind, thoughtful people. I wanted to respond with something that might make me seem smart and insightful, but to add to what was written by Path-Of-One, seemed moot and pale. So I walked out into the backyard and watched the sun getting lower over the snowy top of Pikes Peak.

There was a spring thunderstorm heading across the mountains face, only allowing the setting sun to filter through, occasionally allowing a sunbeam to illuminate the snow and throw a rainbow into the southern sky. I stood in the driveway, looking deeply at this spectacle thinking that I understood the dynamics of light and sound, I knew how thunderstorms developed and why light is broken into shards of color. I knew the scientific reasons for all of that, but thats not what was in my heart.

Silently I thanked the Absolute for the warmth in my heart, and thanked IT again for even a little understanding of IT'S ways.

My mind and my heart are aware, and I am so very happy that this is so. So, are science and theology separate?

Peace,

Mark
 
Great responses! You all put me to shame with your beautiful imagery and poetic words. :) But yeah, I'm finding all of what's been said resonating with my own experience. I've also never really worried about seeming contradictions between science and religion, as the saying goes, "I'm not sure if these things happened, but I know that they are True."

peace,
lunamoth
 
Scientific Facts in the Bible

1. Only in recent years has science discovered that everything we see is composed of invisible atoms. Here, Scripture tells us that the "things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

2. Medical science has only recently discovered that blood-clotting in a newborn reaches its peak on the eighth day, then drops. The Bible consistently says that a baby must be circumcised on the eighth day.

3. At a time when it was believed that the earth sat on a large animal or a giant (1500 B.C.), the Bible spoke of the earth’s free float in space: "He...hangs the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7).

4. The prophet Isaiah also tells us that the earth is round: "It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22). This is not a reference to a flat disk, as some skeptic maintain, but to a sphere. Secular man discovered this 2,400 years later. At a time when science believed that the earth was flat, is was the Scriptures that inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world (see Proverbs 3:6 footnote).

5. God told Job in 1500 B.C.: "Can you send lightnings, that they may go, and say to you, Here we are?" (Job 38:35). The Bible here is making what appears to be a scientifically ludicrous statement—that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech. But did you know that radio waves travel at the speed of light? This is why you can have instantaneous wireless communication with someone on the other side of the earth. Science didn’t discover this until 1864 when "British scientist James Clerk Maxwell suggested that electricity and light waves were two forms of the same thing" (Modern Century Illustrated Encyclopedia).

6. Job 38:19 asks, "Where is the way where light dwells?" Modern man has only recently discovered that light (electromagnetic radiation) has a "way," traveling at 186,000 miles per second.

7. Science has discovered that stars emit radio waves, which are received on earth as a high pitch. God mentioned this in Job 38:7: "When the morning stars sang together..."

8. "Most cosmologists (scientists who study the structures and evolution of the universe) agree that the Genesis account of creation, in imagining an initial void, may be uncannily close to the truth" (Time, Dec. 1976).

9. Solomon described a "cycle" of air currents two thousand years before scientists "discovered" them. "The wind goes toward the south, and turns about unto the north; it whirls about continually, and the wind returns again according to his circuits" (Ecclesiastes 1:6).

10. Science expresses the universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power, and motion. Genesis 1:1,2 revealed such truths to the Hebrews in 1450 B.C.: "In the beginning [time] God created [power] the heaven [space] and the earth [matter] . . . And the Spirit of God moved [motion] upon the face of the waters." The first thing God tells man is that He controls of all aspects of the universe.

11. The great biological truth concerning the importance of blood in our body’s mechanism has been fully comprehended only in recent years. Up until 120 years ago, sick people were "bled," and many died because of the practice. If you lose your blood, you lose your life. Yet Leviticus 17:11, written 3,000 years ago, declared that blood is the source of life: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood."

12. All things were made by Him (see John 1:3), including dinosaurs. Why then did the dinosaur disappear? The answer may be in Job 40:15–24. In this passage, God speaks about a great creature called "behemoth." Some commentators think this was a hippopotamus. However, the hippo’s tail isn’t like a large tree, but a small twig. Following are the characteristics of this huge animal: It was the largest of all the creatures God made; was plant-eating (herbivorous); had its strength in its hips and a tail like a large tree. It had very strong bones, lived among the trees, drank massive amounts of water, and was not disturbed by a raging river. He appears impervious to attack because his nose could pierce through snares, but Scripture says, "He that made him can make his sword to approach unto him." In other words, God caused this, the largest of all the creatures He had made, to become extinct.

13. Encyclopedia Britannica documents that in 1845, a young doctor in Vienna named Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis was horrified at the terrible death rate of women who gave birth in hospitals. As many as 30 percent died after giving birth. Semmelweis noted that doctors would examine the bodies of patients who died, then, without washing their hands, go straight to the next ward and examine expectant mothers. This was their normal practice, because the presence of microscopic diseases was unknown. Semmelweis insisted that doctors wash their hands before examinations, and the death rate immediately dropped to 2 percent. Look at the specific instructions God gave His people for when they encounter disease: "And when he that has an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself even days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean" (Leviticus 15:13). Until recent years, doctors washed their hands in a bowl of water, leaving invisible germs on their hands. However, the Bible says specifically to wash hands under "running water."

14. Luke 17:34–36 says the Second Coming of Jesus Christ will occur while some are asleep at night and others are working at daytime activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night at the same time.

15. "During the devastating Black Death of the fourteenth century, patients who were sick or dead were kept in the same rooms as the rest of the family. People often wondered why the disease was affecting so many people at one time. They attributed these epidemics to ‘bad air’ or ‘evil spirits.’ However, careful attention to the medical commands of God as revealed in Leviticus would have saved untold millions of lives. Arturo Castiglione wrote about the overwhelming importance of this biblical medical law: ‘The laws against leprosyin Leviticus 13 may be regarded as the first model of sanitary legislation’ (A History of Medicine)." Grant R. Jeffery, The Signature of God With all these truths revealed in Scripture,how could a thinking person deny that the Bible is supernatural in origin? There is no other book in any of the world’s religions (Vedas, Bhagavad-Gita, Koran, Book of Mormon, etc.) that contains scientific truth. In fact, they contain statements that are clearly unscientific. Hank Hanegraaff said, "Faith in Christ is not some blind leap into a dark chasm, but a faith based on established evidence." (11:3 continued)
 
And there is a lot more in the Bible pre-dating modern science that hasn't been touched yet. But I still have problems with rectifying the first six "days" of creation in the OT with the Lord's comments in the NT about God's days not being our days, His ways not being our ways, and His thoughts not being our thoughts...

A moment of His time could be a thousand of our years, and a moment of our time could be a thousand of God's years...?

v/r

Q
 
In Genesis 1, God, through the ‘pen’ of Moses, is going out of His way to tell us that the ‘days’ of creation were literal earth-rotation days. To do this, He used the Hebrew word yôm, combined with a number and the words ‘evening and morning’. If God had wanted to tell us it was an ancient creation, then there were several good ways He could have done this. If theistic evolution had been intended, then there were several constructions He could have used. If the time factor had been meant to be ambiguous, then the Hebrew language had ways of saying this. However, God chose not to use any construction which would have communicated a meaning other than a literal solar day.

The only meaning which is possible from the Hebrew words used is that the ‘days’ of creation were 24-hour days. God could not have communicated this meaning more clearly than He did in Genesis 1. The divine confirmation of this, if any is needed, is Exodus 20:9–11, where the same word ‘days’ is used throughout.
 
Again, God's day is not man's day, and it is stated so. Likewise man's day is not God's day. There was no man, and there was no "Terran day" in the beginning, since there was no earth. A "solar day" is much longer than a "Terran day". A Lunar day is longer than a "Terran day". A Martian day is longer than a Terran day. Yom means day. I agree.

I'm not convinced that the "day" was 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds. But I could be wrong...wouldn't be the first time. We may still be in the "seventh day" of God ;)

BTW, why didn't God make it a perfect 24? Unless our timing is off...

v/r

Q
 
Last edited:
Kindest Regards, mynameisstephen, and welcome to CR!

At a time when science believed that the earth was flat, is was the Scriptures that inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure I agree with this assessment. I am pretty well convinced at this point Columbus was looking for the "philosopher's stone." Likewise, Ponce deLeon was looking for the fountain of youth, which was rumored to have similar attributes. Gold, and immortal life in the flesh, are what drove the Spanish/Italian/Portuguese explorers early on, for king and country (and the treasury). In certain circles, it is pretty well accepted now that educated people circa 1500 a.d. knew the world was round, a sphere. The myth of a flat earth was perpetuated among the uneducated. Besides, "science" in the formal sense we know it now, was in its infancy. The science of the time of Columbus was more alchemical, the art of the alchemists (which supports my supposition about the philosopher's stone). Isaac Newton was not yet on the scene, nor was Paracelsus.

(I could even add that as early as 1300 a.d. Dante Aleghieri suggested a spherical world in his "Divine Comedy," usually referred to as Dante's Inferno)
 
Last edited:
Just as a quick aside, all indigenous religions (animistic and nature-oriented) contain lots and lots of scientific truths. They were just oral traditions, so they weren't written down. In many areas of the third world you can still go and talk with shamans whose "religious" knowledge includes vast quantities of information about medicinal plants, ecology, astronomy, etc. The Inca performed brain surgery and their patients lived. The Aztec and Maya understood astronomy and mathematics exceptionally well. So did the Druids and Egyptians. The Chinese had (and still have) excellent ecological management and medical systems built on philosophic/spiritual systems of chi and heating/cooling (and they work!). Scientific knowledge combined with religion abounds all over the world and is not unique to the Bible. Take any class in cultural anthropology, especially medical anthropology, indigenous religions, or ecological anthropology/ethnobiology and you'll hear about hundreds of cultures with scientific knowledge framed in a religious context. It is only very recently that science and religion were considered two separate ways of inquiring into the universe. Previously, all ancient cultures combined the two, generally also incorporating some kind of magic.

It is cultural and religious bias that causes people to think their book or religion is the only one that contains scientific truth, and the others are superstitious. The objective truth, coming from the cross-cultural comparative studies of anthropology, is that pretty much all ancient religions contain scientific truth, and they all frame these truths in supernatural/superstitious contexts (whether we're talking about beliefs about flows of chi or laws given by God). The reason for this is that people remember rules and information better when it is given in a mythic context, and they are more likely to adhere to it if it is framed supernaturally.
So yes, the Bible contains lots of great advice that is backed up by science. So does nearly every other religion on earth, and it has from the earliest records of animistic nature-based religions of hunter-gatherers. Furthermore, a lot of these polytheistic, animistic religions were much farther ahead scientifically than the Middle East. I think the overlap of science and religion in ancient cultures is certainly interesting, but I would say it's dangerous to base one's faith in any particular religion on such claims, since it is such a universal feature of human culture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top