Thanks for the tips, RAZD.
RAZD writes:
So it’s a matter of interpretation.
Yes. The Bible itself says interpretation is required. (Dan 2:45; Luke 24:27). Clues to an accurate interpretation are found in nature and within the Bible itself. Wherever clues to a specific point are found in both, the two must agree.
Reality does not play favorites for science or religion.
This was the point I hoped to make. Science and religion are human enterprises and are subject to limited human perception. It is here that we find contradictions, not between those which are the subjects of science and religion”nature and the Bible (the common source of revealed knowledge referenced in these forums), because nature and the Bible arise from one undifferentiated Source beyond human perception. Yet, as you say about natural history,
quote:
it is our understanding that may be incomplete.
JungEinstein writes:
Science and religion contradict each other.
This wasn’t intended as a general statement, but one with the qualification I hoped would be evident by its position before the statement, “Nature and the Bible do not.” I’ll try to be more precise in the future.
cherished or theorized beliefs
I was refering to concepts we hold to be true (“beliefs”), whether we hold them because they are the product of scientific research (“theorized”) or because they “bring us closer” to God (“cherished”). I didn’t allude to scientific fact as part of my meaning because I don’t wish that anyone should let go of facts.
But I suspect agreement between science and religion will be never happen.
Again, this was not intended as a general statement. I hoped my meaning would be evident from the context.
I’ll confess, I’m a creative writer first (which, of course, is debatable), and then a critical thinker. This means I have a bad habit of leaving my meaning open to interpretation, even when I have a specific point.
RAZD writes:
And what you are willing to test against reality, what you are willing to see falsified.
Exactly.
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?
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.
The other method I’m suggesting is a validation test of scientific theory against the Bible, and religious belief against nature, being careful not to attempt validation of scientific theory against religious belief. You said
quote:
In science these theories are always held as tentative explanations, works in progress, always challenged by reality.
In fact, religious beliefs were also intended to be tested continually. (Acts 17:11; 2 Cor 13:5).
Interpretations of the Bible can be revised, just as scientific theories can be revised. I don’t believe it’s a far stretch to suggest that religious belief is the side that needs to do the most revision, because, as we’ve said, it’s open to much interpretation. The point is to find agreement, not argument. Is there room on these forums for agreement?
™ Version 4.2
