ANSWERS: 15
  • Yes, heres a link: http://www.christianity.co.nz/science.htm
  • You're standing on it. Both believe in a material world and agree on its physical properties to a very high degree. . Generally when the fighting starts it's not between general Christian belief and the body of scientific knowledge but very specific Christian beliefs held by a minority versus specific scientists who want some fame. . Science can neither confirm nor deny the existence of God. It can, in some cases contradict theories spun from the Bible and nothing else or the Bible and some science but not other science, or in rarer cases, specific events in the Bible such as the entire world being underwater or the notion that one could reintroduce all animal life into the world from one male and female per, much less stuff them all onto an ark that could be built by a single man. It would take a miracle - several in fact. . People who believe in utter Biblical inerrencey and people who insist that natural laws that operate now have always operated are just going to clash on a few Biblical stories. . Other than that we all live in the same world.
  • Science is that branch of study which seeks to observe, discover, and understand the nature and principles that govern our the universe, our world, and ourselves. The result of this process is a systematic categorization of knowledge with the goal of predicting and manipulating events according to discovered natural laws. To the Christian, science is merely that branch of discovery that categorizes, discovers, and utilizes the knowledge woven into the fabric of the universe by a Sovereign, All Powerful, and Omniscient, Creator. Science is not the end of all things, but merely one of the means by which man may glorify God. This is because God is the creator of all that is. He has hidden the treasures of his ominous glory in the very universe in which we exist. The power in the atom, momentum, energy, mass, time, etc. are all creations of God and, therefore, under his authority. The more the Christian learns of these things, the more He can glorify God. Science must be subservient to Him, not the other way around. Science is not God's replacement. Every Christian should know that. for more info: http://www.carm.org/christianity/christian-issues/christianity-and-science
  • I can't see any common ground,one is based on faith with little historical proof,and science is a study of the physical world.Science has no issue with religion,though religion has an issue with science. Scientists are not in the business of proving or disproving the existence of a creator.They do studies of the material plane of life,and not philosophy.
  • Yes. Science contradicts *only* the Book of Genesis. In the rest of the Bible, miracles happen, but they are by definition unique events which could not be explained by science, and they are sufficiently small scale, local, and long ago that science would not expect to find evidence of them. Unlike the Creation, the Flood etc, which are sufficiently colossal events that they should leave evidence accessible by modern Science. So it is entirely possible to accept Science and still believe in the preachings and salvation of Jesus Christ. You have to regard the Old Testament as historical background rather than absolute truth, but you can still follow the teachings of Jesus. Science does not say they are true, but does not say they are false either. (I think a lot of scientists would also have problems with Revelations, but since that is entirely predictive science cannot disprove it.)
  • Yes. It is a point where they both touch. Science begins where Christianity ends. * Charles Darwin sat on his theory of evolution of species by natural selection for 20 years because he was afraid of upsetting the Church with his Bible-blasting discovery. He published his 'Origin of Species' only to be the first to do so before Wallace, who had figured out 'evolution' independently!
  • I used to think so. But the more I see - especially the religious side - the more I see there is nothing relevant that I'd call common ground. I mean - sure - there's a material world and most of their teachings are taught in books and incidentals I assume we don't need to list :-) Science see things as asks how could that have gotten that way. When done correctly, the conclusions are always revisable or reversible with the introduction of new data. Religion has a set of teachings that have always been true. There is no need to supply evidence since God's truth is absolute. Any evidence that suggest otherwise is a test set up by the god(s) or a temptation introduced by the devils. The personal feeling or revelation side of religion or spirituality is something else. What people feel is their own experience that by definition can't be repeatable by someone else. Nor does it speak to any objective reality. It may be very important, life changing, moving, etc for the individual experiencing it - and it might inspire great works of art or even science. The worlds are different, have different goals - often mutually exclusive ones - and any alliances or "interdisciplinary discussions" are superficial because if get deeper than that the basic differences become overwhelming. +5
  • Yes. Those who say no either lack understanding of science, the Bible, or both.
  • Much. The Catholic Church has sponsored and supported science in the discovery of God's creation for hundreds of years. One example of this sponsorhsip and support is the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The Academy and its membership are not influenced by national, political, or religious factors and represent a valuable source of objective scientific information which is made available to the international scientific community. Today the work of the Academy covers six main areas: + Fundamental science + The science and technology of global questions and issues + Science in favor of the problems of the Third World + The ethics and politics of science + Bioethics + Epistemology And nine sub-areas: + Physics + Astronomy + Chemistry + Earth and environmental sciences + Life sciences (botany, agronomy, zoology, genetics, molecular biology, biochemistry, the neurosciences, surgery) + Mathematics + Applied sciences + The philosophy and history of sciences http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/400_ann/storia_en_qxd.pdf Another example is the theory of Evolution: Catholics can believe in the theories of the big bang or evolution or both or neither. On August 12, 1950 Pope Pius XII said in his encyclical Humani generis: The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. Here is the complete encyclical: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html And here is the Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on October 22, 1996 speaking of the Theory of Evolution: http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm At this time, the theories of the big bang and evolution are the most logical scientific explanations. However tomorrow someone may come up with better ideas. As long as we believe that God started the whole thing, both the Bible and responsible modern science can live in harmony. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein (1879-1955) With love in Christ.
  • As science begins to attempt answers to questions that use to be referred to as "philosophical questions," the findings tend to move further and further from the relm of rational thinking. By any definition of the terms rational or logic, much of what is now considered to be on the leading edge of science is "non-rational" and "non-logical." Is it logical to say that the simple fact of observing events at a quantum level changes them? Is it rational to posit some "dark energy" which pervades the universe, yet cannot be observed or measured? What is rational about "quantum entanglement?" This is where proof morphs into belief. This is the relm of non-rational science, deep philosophy, and belief. Belief is not subject to rationality, and neither is God.
  • That depends on the specific dogma and doctrine in question. Christians by no means agree upon everything. Biblical literalists have the most disagreement with science. Those who believe the Bible, at least some portions, are metaphorical tales told to illustrate a point have less problem. The Catholic Church has officially embraced evolution for a few years now, since the declaration of Pope John Paul II. I think the biggest difference between Christianity (and most religions) and science is in the world view. Christianity approaches the world through faith. Science is exactly the opposite.
  • No. Logic and knowledge are both anathema to Chr*st**ns.
  • Many. Tis only those who are assured of their pride that they're right, who do not.
  • Yeah! I'm a Roman Catholic! But until I see where God, Himself, or Jesus Christ has actually penned his name to the Bible, conjecture will be the common ground between the two!

Copyright 2020, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy