Welcome to the fray JungEinstein, love the name.
The fact is, every account recorded in the Scriptures has multiple levels of meaning in some combination of the literal, figurative, physical, spiritual, physiological, and psychological”with the spiritual facet being by far the most critical to an understanding of God’s purpose.
So it's a matter of interpretation.
If we insist on a religious belief that contradicts nature, or if we insist on a scientific theory that contradicts the Bible, we insist on a version of “truth” that is found neither in the Bible nor in nature.
Reality does not play favorites for science or religion. What has occurred in the past is fact, it is our understanding that may be incomplete, and an open minded skeptic will consider any reasonable concept as a tentative model with reservations.
Science and religion contradict each other.
Not necessarily. The sun rises, the sun sets. Not all religions are at odds with science, just some beliefs.
If we really want the truth, we need to find an interpretation of the Bible and a theory about nature that agree, even if it means letting go of some cherished ... beliefs.
Agreed, no matter what those beliefs involve. The question left then is how do you test for the truth of the truth? Do you use the scientific method? What do you do outside the realm of science? Is there another method? If you have an interest in pursuing this question see
Perceptions of Reality
... or theorized beliefs.
What is a "theorized belief"? In science a theory is a much more defined concept than general usage. In science a theory is based on evidence and logic, and it is critically developed to achieve two goals: (1) explain all the evidence known, and (2) make testable predictions. The theory is then tested to see if it stands up, and it is quickly discarded if invalidated by new evidence discovered either through the outcome of the predictions of found through other means. In science these theories are always held as tentative explanations, works in progress, always challenged by reality.
But I suspect agreement between science and religion will be never happen. Scientists make little room for God because He doesn’t always practice what they consider to be logic or science, and religionists make little room for theories that suggest God is not the person they have always believed Him to be.
It may not happen for some people, but that does not rule out the possibility for others. There are many scientists that are religious, from Ken Miller (catholic, biologist) to Robert Bakker (evangelical, paleontologist) to many others.
If we find ourselves in a debate over evidence and faith, it is not a debate between nature and the Bible, because these are always in agreement. At least one side of the debate is over what we perceive to be evidence, or over what we are personally willing to accept.
And what you are willing to test against reality, what you are willing to see falsified.
Enjoy
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type
[qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type
[quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out
(help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.
For other formating tips see
Posting Tips
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •