Announcement

Collapse

Deeper Waters Forum Guidelines

Notice – The ministries featured in this section of TheologyWeb are guests of this site and in some cases not bargaining for the rough and tumble world of debate forums, though sometimes they are. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate fora. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators and the Ministry Representative, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

Deeper Waters is founded on the belief that the Christian community has long been in the shallow end of Christianity while there are treasures of the deep waiting to be discovered. Too many in the shallow end are not prepared when they go out beyond those waters and are quickly devoured by sharks. We wish to aid Christians to equip them to navigate the deeper waters of the ocean of truth and come up with treasure in the end.

We also wish to give special aid to those often neglected, that is, the disabled community. This is especially so since our founders are both on the autism spectrum and have a special desire to reach those on that spectrum. While they are a special emphasis, we seek to help others with any disability realize that God can use them and that they are as the Psalmist says, fearfully and wonderfully made.

General TheologyWeb forum rules: here.
See more
See less

Book Plunge: Science and Religion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Book Plunge: Science and Religion

    Do science and religion contradict?

    The link can be found here.

    ------

    What do I think of Joshua Moritz’s book published by Anselm Academic? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

    A reader of Deeper Waters recommended that I look into the work of Joshua Moritz and see if I’d like to interview him on my show. The book recommended was Science and Religion. I got in touch with Moritz who got in touch with his publishers and a copy was sent my way.

    I read the book and I was in many ways, surprised. The book was extremely thorough. At times, you wouldn’t even know a Christian was behind it because very little place would be given to religion. It would be just looking at the science itself.

    Moritz starts with the obvious place in a book like this, namely Galileo. The information in here is quite good as he brings out pieces of the account that I had not read elsewhere. He does rightly show that this was never science vs. religion. Everyone in the debate held the same view of religion and would believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. Everyone also believed that science told us truth about the world and that science and Scripture would not contradict.

    Indeed, the big problem was that Galileo was speaking on areas where he was not authorized to speak and where he had even agreed to not speak. I ultimately view it as an ego conflict. It also didn’t help that he had a dialogue written depicting the pope as a simpleton. Not only that, Galileo’s case was ultimately right, but he did not at the time have the evidence for it and the church was ready to change its interpretation of Scripture if it had to, but it needed really good grounds to do that. Galileo did not have that yet.

    From there, we move on to evolution and especially a case like the Scopes trial. Again, the narrative is hardly the same as the real story. Bryan who was arguing against evolution supposedly was hardly a fundamentalist and Darrow was hardly the brilliant attorney on the other side. He had his own skeletons in his closet. As for evolution itself, a number of devout Christians at the start had no problem with it. Even Warfield, known as Mr. Inerrancy, did not have a problem with it.

    From there, we get a look at the history of the topic and look at questions like the Big Bang Theory and other such subjects. Sometimes the work can get a bit technical, but for the most part it’s easy to go through. We also look at some questions like the age of the Earth.

    There is also talk about the limits of science. Are there some things that science cannot do? Is it possible to have science without faith? Is it possible to have faith without science? Could it actually be that both need each other?

    He also goes to places many don’t go to. Miracles are somewhat understandable, but there is a different take given on them, though I do not wish to spoil for the reader. He also looks at the problem of evil, including animal suffering, and seeing if this is compatible with religion, and finally ends with a chapter more on eschatology and if there is any redemption for our world for if we all we have is science, the story does not end well.

    Moritz’s book is a good and fascinating read and worthwhile for anyone interested in this subject. I highly recommend it.

    In Christ,
    Nick Peters

  • #2
    What is the title of the book?

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #3
      Science and Religion

      Comment


      • #4
        I suppose you know that religion is composed mainly of ceremonies, rituals, incantations, dogma and that sort of thing. It does not directly approach what science is doing. The interaction you are talking about is really in the area of ethics and morality which are not exclusively religious in nature. It is true that our use of science should take ethics into account.

        The conflict between science and religion occurs because religions are dogmatic and science is exactly opposite. So far the required adjustments have always gone towards science because it deals in what may be verified.
        “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
        “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
        “not all there” - you know who you are

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
          I suppose you know that religion is composed mainly of ceremonies, rituals, incantations, dogma and that sort of thing. It does not directly approach what science is doing. The interaction you are talking about is really in the area of ethics and morality which are not exclusively religious in nature. It is true that our use of science should take ethics into account.

          The conflict between science and religion occurs because religions are dogmatic and science is exactly opposite. So far the required adjustments have always gone towards science because it deals in what may be verified.
          Not all religions are dogmatic when it comes to science. The Baha'i Faith acknowledges that science is the interpreter of the nature of our physical existence, and not in conflict with the spiritual nature of our existence Revealed in religions. The conflict comes when one believes in the literal dogmatic interpretation of scripture concerning the physical nature of our existence.

          This includes the writings of the Baha'i Faith, which should be understood in terms of describing the spiritual nature of our existence and human spiritual evolution and not necessarily descriptive of the physical nature of our existence.
          Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-25-2017, 08:45 PM.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #6
            There are precious few historians of science in academic postings who hold to the conflict thesis.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by psstein View Post
              There are precious few historians of science in academic postings who hold to the conflict thesis.
              That depends on who you consider 'historians of science,' because the 'conflict thesis' requires a Theist perspective. I agree that by far the majority of 'historians of science' and scientists who are Theists do not believe in the 'conflict thesis,' and believe in Theistic Evolution, and other concepts that harmonize religion and science. The 'historians of science' and scientists who are non-Theist believe science is the standard, and are not concerned about, or reject the 'conflict thesis' and the desire to harmonize science and religion.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                That depends on who you consider 'historians of science,' because the 'conflict thesis' requires a Theist perspective. I agree that by far the majority of 'historians of science' and scientists who are Theists do not believe in the 'conflict thesis,' and believe in Theistic Evolution, and other concepts that harmonize religion and science. The 'historians of science' and scientists who are non-Theist believe science is the standard, and are not concerned about, or reject the 'conflict thesis' and the desire to harmonize science and religion.
                That's not true either. The origins of the conflict thesis are not in atheistic/freethought of the late 19th/early 20th century, but in anti-Catholic thought of the 19th/20th century. Ronald Numbers and David Lindberg are/were both agnostics who did a lot to damage the conflict thesis in the late 20th century.

                The vast majority of working historians of science (that is, people with PhDs in the subject who publish via recognized scholarly channels) hold to a complex relationship between the two.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by psstein View Post
                  That's not true either. The origins of the conflict thesis are not in atheistic/freethought of the late 19th/early 20th century, but in anti-Catholic thought of the 19th/20th century. Ronald Numbers and David Lindberg are/were both agnostics who did a lot to damage the conflict thesis in the late 20th century.
                  Being agnostics, clearly justifies my original assertion that pressure from agnostics (basically philosophically naturalists) not significantly different than 19th and 20th century free thought atheist/free thought. They were well justified in anti-Roman Church views.

                  The vast majority of working historians of science (that is, people with PhDs in the subject who publish via recognized scholarly channels) hold to a complex relationship between the two.
                  Disagree without citations, this assertion has too high a fog index to be real.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    Being agnostics, clearly justifies my original assertion that pressure from agnostics (basically philosophically naturalists) not significantly different than 19th and 20th century free thought atheist/free thought. They were well justified in anti-Roman Church views.
                    You either misread or ignored what I said: Numbers and Lindberg were agnostics who strongly rejected the conflict thesis. Their work did much to damage the conflict thesis' standing among professional historians of science in the 20th century. Seeing as how the Roman Catholic Church was the biggest patron of science in the medieval/early modern period, no, White and Draper's criticisms are nowhere near justified.

                    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    Disagree without citations, this assertion has too high a fog index to be real.
                    From John Hedley Brooke's Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives, p. 5

                    Serious scholarship in the history of science has revealed so extraordinarily rich and complex a relationship between science and religion in the past that general theses are difficult to explain. The real lesson turns out to be the complexity... Conflicts allegedly between science and religion may turn out to be between rival scientific interests, or conversely between rival theological factions.
                    Hedley Brooke's book is a standard text in the field. Alternatively, see Numbers' When Science and Christianity Meet or Numbers' and Lindberg's edited volume God in Nature.

                    Comment

                    Related Threads

                    Collapse

                    Topics Statistics Last Post
                    Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-15-2024, 10:19 PM
                    14 responses
                    75 views
                    1 like
                    Last Post rogue06
                    by rogue06
                     
                    Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-13-2024, 10:13 PM
                    6 responses
                    61 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                    Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-12-2024, 09:36 PM
                    1 response
                    23 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post rogue06
                    by rogue06
                     
                    Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-11-2024, 10:19 PM
                    0 responses
                    22 views
                    2 likes
                    Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                    Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-08-2024, 11:59 AM
                    7 responses
                    54 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post whag
                    by whag
                     
                    Working...
                    X