God-fearing Scientists — 5 Comments

  1. I would say that a sufficient explanation would require a little more than a few posts on this forum.

    And yes, I am surprised that more people don’t state their position with a detailed explanation, but this does not mean I feel the need to do so. It is a challenge to have a fair discussion on a forum, and any issue such as the one mentioned would benefit from closer communication. I do believe that anyone with a sincere interest in someone elses view will approach them to talk about it. This is because I make that personal approach when I feel that desire to enquire further.

  2. Warren, you wrote, “why people who have asked these questions and found answers don’t put them forward more readily in such forums as we find here.” Yes, why don’t you put forth your answer on the question “why does God allow suffering”?

  3. There seem to be many contradictions within confined passages of Biblical text. however, it would be dangerous to suggest that they are contradictions without taking the book as a whole. Many apparent contradictions are answered by further reading of surrounding verses, chapters and other books. Context alone can answer so many apparent inconsistencies. e.g. why does God allow suffering for example. I’m surprised how frequently this point is raised (quite reasonably) and yet is rarely countered directly from the source. It is not hard to find a response and answer to this valid question from the Bible. Whether or not you believe in the answer or not is another matter, but a reasoned response is to be found there.
    This is common to many criticisms that are levelled against Biblical accounts and leads me to believe that people tend to make the criticism and then let it settle in their mind as though it were indisputable. Which is fine, but again that leads me to question why people who have asked these questions and found answers don’t put them forward more readily in such forums as we find here. At this point, I would also stress that the answers I describe are not to do with “inscrutable will” or “mystery”, but cross referenced, well supported Biblical testimony. In fact, many who follow the Catholic Faith actually object to the use of reason in answering such issues, viewing faith as a gift. Well, I don’t know why we have been endowed with a degree of intelligence if we are not supposed to use it in searching out truth and falsehood.

  4. One of the problems I see, though, with using this definition would be that we might stop exploring. Science happens at the margins of our knowledge. If we simply move things into religion that we don’t yet know, we would not find answers. Even when we change your definition to “can’t know,” it might be a show-stopper. I agree with you that science would have a hard time answering things like meaning questions. Science is good with answering how questions (i.e., how did this happen) but not why questions. So, maybe that’s the delineation of knowledge between science and religion.

  5. There’s a definition of religion I really like. Religion is how we think about what we don’t know. Looked at that way, there’s nothing incompatible about religion and science. Science is how we think about what we know,and can know – religion is how we think about what we don’t and can’t know. The great sceintists who were blessed with perspective and humility know that science is scratching the surface of reality. And while it gives answers, it does not give meaning. There are historical reasons why science and religion are antagonistic in the early 21st century. but it certainly doesn’t need to be the case – and probably won’t remain so.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>