Science and Religion
"... since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of
senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such
measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to
be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of
unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing."
-- Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (1273)
"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the
sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation
or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite
eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons,
about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such
things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by
experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful
and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the
non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on
these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he
might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how
totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind
constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as
I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the
meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some
one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better
explanation."
--St. Augustine (354-430 CE), De Genesi ad literam 1:19.20, Chapt. 19 [408]
"I've done everything the Bible says - even the stuff that contradicts the
other stuff! What more could I do?"
-- Ned Flanders (from the Simpsons)
Creationism
Is it possible to debunk an object, like a coffee cup?
Is it possible to debunk a story, like Goldilocks and the Three Bears?
Is it possible to debunk the story of Noah and the Flood?
Is it possible to debunk the CLAIMS of a minority that the
Flood (and everything else in the Bible including the Creation) is
literally true?
Lest you think this last point is a straw man argument, see the
Institute for Creation
Research Tenets of Creationism
The Bible can not be literally true
- It is impossible to hear or read ANYTHING literally, without
interpretation. Every language contains idioms.
- The Old Testament began as Aramaic oral tradition. It was written
in Hebrew, translated into Greek, then into Latin, then into English.
Every translator brings an interpretation to the text.
- There is no such thing as "THE" Bible.
Even in English, there are several translations.
- There are twice as many books left out of the Roman Catholic Canon
as there are books included. Were some authors inspired by God while
others were not? Who decided which books to include? When?
- The Bible is incomplete. The Book of
Jasher
is no longer extant. It is mentioned in Joshua and 2 Samuel.
- The recently digitized and reassembled Codex Sinaiticus
shows that Mark originally ended at Chapter 16, Verse 8, with the discovery that Christ's tomb was empty.
Everything after that was added by another author. How many other books of the Bible have been
edited?
- Not only do some parts of the Bible conflict with scientific evidence,
but the Bible often is in conflict with itself. It is not self-consistent.
- The famous Creation story is in Genesis Chapter 1. There is a
different account of Creation in Genesis Chapter 2. They can't both
be literally true. http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html
- Whom did Cain marry?
- "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Exodus 22:18
- Giants are mentioned 21 times in 19 verses
http://www.blueletterbible.org/
- The Earth does not move. "The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with
majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded
himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved."
Psalms 93:1 While the Sun and Moon move around the Earth.
"Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up
the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight
of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the
valley of Ajalon.
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had
avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the
book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and
hasted not to go down about a whole day." Joshua 10:12-13
- There are two genealogies of Jesus descending from David, one in the
Gospel of Matthew 1:6-16 and the other in Luke 3:21-31. They disagree
in names and number. http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/gen_ml.html
- "According to Luke Jesus was born on or before 4 BCE, during
the reign of Herod the Great. But Luke also said Joseph and the pregnant
Mary had to go to Bethlehem for a census by Quirinius. This is
reliably dated to 6 CE. Or ten years after the death of Herod."
More at: Rejection of Pascal's Wager:On Herod and Quirinius
- "It's pretty clear from the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark,
and Luke) that Jesus ate the actual Passover meal (Matthew 26:2,
17-19; Mark 14:1, 12, 14, 16; Luke 22:1, 7-8, 13, 15) with his
disciples on Thursday night. But John's Gospel seems to indicate
that Jesus was crucified right before the Jews would partake of
Passover (John 13:28; 19:14)." More at:
The Chronology of Jesus' Crucifixion
- etc., etc., etc. Find your own
contradiction; it's easy.
- There is no historical, archaeological, or geological evidence to support the
existence of Moses (or Israelites in Egypt), Noah, or Jesus.
- Misquoting Jesus:
The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why by Bart D. Ehrman
- Professor Ehrman's courses available from the Teaching Company
- Bart D. Ehrman v. William Lane Craig
-
The Contemporary Relevance of Augustine's View of Creation
-
The Literal Meaning of Genesis St. Augustine, translated by John Hammond Taylor
Why is science opposed to religion?
Science is NOT opposed to religion.
Science deals with the testable; religion deals with matters of faith.
Conflict arises only when each intrudes on the other's territory.
The idea that it is "Science vs. Religion" is due to religious folks who lack
an understanding of the scientific method. (Cf. SMU campus discussions.)
Scientists seek natural (as opposed to supernatural) explanations for
phenomena not because they are anti-God, but because a supernatural cause is
the position of last resort -- it is a "game-ender".
E.g. Why do the planets wander? Because angels push them according
to God's plan.
OK, that problem is solved. Now what shall we do?
In contrast, Kepler's, Newton's, and later Einstein's explanations for
planetary motion tell us much more about the Universe than just why the planets
move as they do.
Pierre Simon Laplace wrote Celestial Mechanics, an enormous,
five volume tome, describing the motion of the planets. When
presented with a copy of some of the initial volumes, Napoleon is said
to have remarked, "I see no mention of God in this work". Laplace is
said to have replied, "Sir, I had no need of that hypothesis."
Creationism is not Science
Why not? Creationism is not disprovable.
This sounds like an advantage, but it makes a "theory" useless.
Creationism makes no testable predictions.
Should Creationism be taught in highschools?
Should Judeo-Christian-Muslim Creationism be taught in highschools?
Absolutely!
... in a class on comparative religion.
NOT in science class.
And other creation myths should be taught as well: Native American, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.
Along with Scalise's theory of creation, which is not disprovable either.
A way to end the shouting matches
Don't ask "What really happened?" No one knows. No one was there.
Instead ask "What does the evidence suggest?" and "What do you believe?"
These are distinct questions. The evidence suggests that the Universe originated in a Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago, and that humans evolved from simpler life forms. To deny this is irrational.
You can, however, BELIEVE that the world was created 9:00am 23 October 4004 BCE, and that dinosaur fossils were created in the ground, and that trees were created with growth rings already present, ...
You can also BELIEVE that the world was created two minutes ago, in spite of the evidence. Why would a deity do this?
Miracles? Altering Physical Law?
Analogy of two clocks.
"Intervention is imperfection."
Are scientists arrogant?
Are people with no background in science whatsoever, who do not know
what evidence exists, but still claim that over one million scientists
worldwide are wrong, arrogant?
Video: Cosmos - Episode 13 - Who Speaks for Earth?,
by Carl Sagan (0:37:20)
Reason, Unfettered by Faith by Lawrence M. Krauss
Resources