Sunday, February 12, 2006
Did you get the message today?
Today, February 12 2006, is the 197th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin. (Happy Darwin Day!)
It is also Evolution Sunday, a day on which hundreds of congregations nationwide (at this writing, the page says 441 in 49 states and DC) have "... come together to discuss the compatibility of religion and science."
That's only an average of 9 congregations per state, but it's a start.
¶ 2/12/2006 12:17:00 PM
Comments:
<< Home
Interesting. I didn't know that.
Many have rightly pointed out that science and religion are two entirely different things, and are thus eminently compatible. Religious people believe in truth from an absolute source; this does not preclude us from believing truth garnered from the observations of men.
Seriously, as a religious person I find absolutely no conflict between science and religion. I personally believe that God has told us only about those things we could not find out for ourselves, and for the rest he expects us to use our minds. That's part of why we're here, after all.
Many have rightly pointed out that science and religion are two entirely different things, and are thus eminently compatible. Religious people believe in truth from an absolute source; this does not preclude us from believing truth garnered from the observations of men.
Seriously, as a religious person I find absolutely no conflict between science and religion. I personally believe that God has told us only about those things we could not find out for ourselves, and for the rest he expects us to use our minds. That's part of why we're here, after all.
" The only conflicts between science and religion are created when one needlessly provokes the other."
The problem is that some religions make claims of fact about the natural world, and science inevitably winds up covering the same areas and usually comes up with different answers; the religion's adherents then take up (usually metaphorical) arms against science.
If these conflicts are needless, I'd like to know how they can be avoided; fundamentalist religion is not about to stop making claims of fact regarding cosmology, paleontology, geology, biology and a host of other sciences, and science certainly should not cede the field.
It's a pity that we cannot, as a society, conclude that fundamentalism is false, full stop, and its adherents deserve no public accomodation. Frankly, anyone whose rationalization amounts to "the entire natural world is an extremely elaborate lie" is something close to paranoid needs counselling and perhaps medication. After all, the deity they describe is the best of liars, and the Prince of Lies is Satan, not God; by their own definition, they worship Satan.
Post a Comment
The problem is that some religions make claims of fact about the natural world, and science inevitably winds up covering the same areas and usually comes up with different answers; the religion's adherents then take up (usually metaphorical) arms against science.
If these conflicts are needless, I'd like to know how they can be avoided; fundamentalist religion is not about to stop making claims of fact regarding cosmology, paleontology, geology, biology and a host of other sciences, and science certainly should not cede the field.
It's a pity that we cannot, as a society, conclude that fundamentalism is false, full stop, and its adherents deserve no public accomodation. Frankly, anyone whose rationalization amounts to "the entire natural world is an extremely elaborate lie" is something close to paranoid needs counselling and perhaps medication. After all, the deity they describe is the best of liars, and the Prince of Lies is Satan, not God; by their own definition, they worship Satan.
<< Home
