The Unnecessary Controversy of Science and Religion

[Alex314]

Alex, what I mean is that most people think the words "separation of church and state" occur in the US Constitution. The first amendment was meant to protect the people from the government,

Yes, I understand that.

not the other way around.

I don't really understand how that would be feasible, but ok.

It specifically protects the people of the United States from the government espablishing a national religion (as had been done in Europe). And it specifically prohibits the government from making any law that would prevent the people's ability to exercise their faith. Period.

Yes. So, no state-sponsored religion (unless they sponsored all religions equally) and no laws banning religions. Ok. Additionally, there should be no laws promoting a certain religion, or discriminating against a certain religion. I think we agree so far. What I understand it to mean also is that the church cannot make the state pass a religious law, nor can the state pass laws that would dictate a church's doctrine. Do we still agree?

The words "separation of church and state" occur in a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802, years after the Constitution had been ratified. They wanted him, as the President, to liberate them from the religious constraints they found themselves under in Connecticut. His response was to quote the first amendment to them, and he used the metaphor of a wall of separation between church and state to show them that as the President and a government official, he could not interfere in their internal, state, religious affairs. He was, in essence, saying that the government must stay out of church business. His metaphor was not a demand for the separation of religion and politics; rather it addressed the principle of federalism. He was saying that the federal government has no right to interfere in what was state of Connecticut business.

I'm not demanding for the separation of religion and politics, as in people should leave their religious convictions aside when passing laws, I'm saying that faith should be a private matter that cannot be enforced on others.
I'm not sure anymore on what exactly we are disagreeing.
Also, I am not familiar with the US law system. It seems there were religious laws in Connecticut, but the federal government couldn't interfere? Does it mean state laws overcome national amendments? I really have no idea.

The Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist papers are excellent resources for this sort of information. Sorry- I know this is off topic, but I thought a clearer explanation of what you challenged was needed.

~ellie

No problem. I think however I'm more confused now than before

 

[frankleespeaking]

To some, it may be obvious. But you might be surprised how many people think that it must be one way or the other. That science disproves religion, or religion discredits science.

They are one and the same.

There are more things in science that are only theoretical than there are facts. Whether they are correct or not, doesn't change the point. God is behind all science and nature, down to the widely accepted theory of the big bang.

A good example; Evolution. I did a speech about teaching evolution and creationism in public schools (I believe either they both should be taught as optional courses, or neither. All or nothing).

What it came down to was people misunderstanding what religion is. Being religious doesn't mean you believe in God. It means you believe SOMETHING. Even if that something is evolution. Evolution is a religion. So the controversy is not between evolution and religion, it's between religion and religion.

I see God as the founder of all science and nature. If the big bang theory is correct, it didn't happen for no reason. It didn't happen by itself and out of nowhere, it was caused by God.

What are your thoughts?

my thoughts are God's ways are not our ways, and most everything He does does not add up or it breaks all laws of physics and time, just trying to wrap your head around the concept that time isn't even relevant for God is just way out there. I don't look to science to confirm or dismiss anything when it comes to God and creation, for even when we consider Adams first moment and breath of life, he was a grown man, he had no history yet science would prevail that as an impossibilty

 

[Alex314]

my thoughts are God's ways are not our ways, and most everything He does does not add up or it breaks all laws of physics and time, just trying to wrap your head around the concept that time isn't even relevant for God is just way out there. I don't look to science to confirm or dismiss anything when it comes to God and creation, for even when we consider Adams first moment and breath of life, he was a grown man, he had no history yet science would prevail that as an impossibilty

And yet, pictures show Adam with a bellybutton...

 

[frankleespeaking]

And yet, pictures show Adam with a bellybutton...

I've never seen the photos, my bible just says in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, there is no description of the matter He used, from the bible we see He likes to use whats on hand, such as all creation is made from elements of the earth, there is no reference to when these first words happened. Since God has no beginning the words are only relative of our beginning. this also makes it very possible that this was not the only time God had created, since we see God was not alone during creation. I've always wondered about possibilities that God may have created on the earth before, and unlike the days of Noah simply destroyed everything and everyone

 

[jimmydiggs]

A straight-forward reading of Genesis 1-3 which speak on the topic of Creation "as it happened", leaves one either having to hold to a non-evolutionary view of origins, or trying to work around the text and deny the essential truths of it.

Colossians 2:8
See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.


Ephesians 5:6
Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient.

 

[rainacorn]

A straight-forward reading of Genesis 1-3 which speak on the topic of Creation "as it happened", leaves one either having to hold to a non-evolutionary view of origins, or trying to work around the text and deny the essential truths of it.

I absolutely disagree.

What is the 'truth' of the Creation account?

I believe it is that God created all things, through and for Christ. God has power and providence over all things. Human beings are special in His eyes and inextricably linked forever to the Father and the spiritual realm.

If you thought it was a science textbook, I fear you may have missed the point, brother.

 

[Alex314]

I've never seen the photos, my bible just says in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, there is no description of the matter He used, from the bible we see He likes to use whats on hand, such as all creation is made from elements of the earth,

What I meant was that all the religious artwork depicts Adam and Eve with a belly button, which is kind of odd as a belly button is the result of having one's umbilical cord cut off. But of course, neither Adam nor Eve were born, so they wouldn't need a belly button. Anyways.

The thing is though, if God used what was on hand to make the earth, where did that 'stuff' come from?

there is no reference to when these first words happened. Since God has no beginning the words are only relative of our beginning. this also makes it very possible that this was not the only time God had created, since we see God was not alone during creation. I've always wondered about possibilities that God may have created on the earth before, and unlike the days of Noah simply destroyed everything and everyone

Ummm, that would leave traces in the geologic record you know. There is a reason that scientists have traced back the age of some fossils 3 billion years old, and yet there is not a single hominid or vaguely man-shaped fossil in the record anywhere past 5 million years ago (BTW, 5 million is 5 000 000 and 3 billion is 3 000 000 000, so for more than 2 995 000 000 years that the earth existed, there were no humans on it of any kind.)
I mean, it's a very nice idea and all, but it's only about as true as the Flintstones cartoon.

 

[Wesley]

I'm glad this subject keeps coming up, but I hate being repetitive.

I'll just add that while I have no difficulty accepting the reality of evolution, it is often treated as an explanation for the origin of life and the origin of consciousness, when it really doesn't speak to such things at all. Understanding how life persisted and changed over time is not necessarily understanding how it first started or why humans are so unique.

I will also say that science at this depth is relatively new. Biblical literalists often mock and marginalize science and scientists for not having all the answers, but they really haven't been at it that long. We need to keep learning and not presume to know everything about everything, regardless of what positions you're taking. Whether you worship God or worship science, you have not unlocked all of the secrets of the Universe. Tone it down.

A little humility goes an awful long way. Unless you're me, of course, in which case you need a lot.

 

[Wesley]

And I would rather evolution be taught as t-h-e-o-r-y, not as fact. It's part of the secular humanists' religion, but either they don't get that, or don't want to admit it. (probably both?)

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. In science, a theory is an explanation for observed fact that has been tested and found to not only explain what has been observed, but also make predictions.

What's that old saying about no intelligent design in the universe is like a printing press exploding and ending as Encyclopedia Britannica? (maybe someone will articulate it better--help!?!) lol

Imperfect design is the hallmark of our physiology, whether it's our retinæ, appendix, Tay-Sachs disease, or any other of a number of deficiencies which result in discomfort, disease, or death.