Helping Christians Reconcile God with Science

[Why Syzygy]

By Amy Sullivan Saturday, May. 02, 2009

For many young Christians, the moment they first notice discrepancies in the Biblical tales they've faithfully studied is a rite of passage: e.g., if Adam and Eve were the first humans, and they had two sons — where did Cain's wife come from? The revelation that everything in the Bible may not have happened exactly as written can be startling. And when the discovery comes along with scientific evidence of evolution and the actual age of planet Earth, it can prompt a full-blown spiritual crisis.
(...)
After his best-selling The Language of God came out three years ago, Collins began receiving thousands of e-mails — primarily from other Evangelicals — asking questions about how to reconcile scriptural teachings with scientific evidence. "Many of these Christians have been taught that evolution is wrong," Collins explains. "They go to college and get exposed to data, and then they're thrust into personal crises of great intensity. If the church was wrong about the origins of life, was it wrong about everything? Some of them walk away from science or faith — or both."
(...)
"Science can't be put together with a literalist interpretation of Genesis," he continues. "For one thing, there are two different versions of the creation story" — in Genesis 1 and 2 — "so right from the start, you're already in trouble." Christians should think of Genesis "not as a book about science but about the nature of God and the nature of humans," Collins believes. "Evolution gives us the 'how,' but we need the Bible to understand the 'why' of our creation."
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1895284,00.html

http://biologos.org/

[geckosfeet]

1. We don't try to reconcile literature and history with science. Why religion?

There are very clear boundaries.

Science addresses the physical world.

Religion addresses spiritual concerns.

Why and to what end must they be 'reconciled'?

[Why Syzygy]

5. To the end

that fundies are too ashamed to attempt re-writing text books, for example. And in Texas, they are attempting the re-write of history as well.

Some of us live in awareness and practice of both/all. I favor a grand plan to educate more believers if for no other reason than to make the fundie types obsolete and the laughing stocks they deserve to be.

eta: Furthermore, this is what the actual site has to say:

Dr. Francis Collins established The BioLogos Foundation to engage America’s escalating culture war between science and faith. On one side of the conversation, the “new atheists” argue that science removes the need for God. On the other side, religious fundamentalists argue that the Bible requires us to reject much of modern science. Many scientists, believers, and members of the general public do not find these options attractive.

There is therefore a great need to contribute to the public voice that represents the harmony of science and faith. BioLogos addresses the core themes of science and religion, and emphasizes the compatibility of Christian faith with what science has discovered about the origins of the universe and life. In order to communicate this message to the general public, The BioLogos Foundation has created BioLogos.org.

[geckosfeet]

16. Seems like some folks just can't accept a little contradiction with their coffee.

These people have minds so small that there is no room one non-conforming paradox. Anything that even remotely contradicts their own narrow view of the world must be wrong and must be eradicated.

The fact is that philosophically speaking, science has no dog in this fight. If the fundy crowd wants to believe in god and his extended family and associated tales of valor that's fine. But science MUST defend itself against any onslaught of stupidity that attempts to make it conform to the fairy tales that the fundies and christians make up.

[humblebum]

47. This is a very worthwhile endeavor. It is at least an attempt to find

some common ground because most christians do not accept the literal translation of the entire bible(ex.catholic schools teach evolution) and some atheists argue that science removes the need for God which is absurd because the Scientific Method only recognizes empirical data which does not have the capability to even evaluate anything outside of the five senses.

[skepticscott]

17. The need for reconciliation

results from the persistent need of most manifestations of religion to make historical and scientific truth claims, which cannot be insulated from criticism or rational inquiry simply by calling them "spiritual matters", because they aren't. They are matters of testable fact.

If a religion claims that its forebearers were held as slaves in Egypt for many years and then escaped, or that certain people are possessed by demons, or that prayer helps to cure sick people, or that bread turns to flesh when treated properly, they are making claims of fact, which are either true or not. They are not true for some people and not others, and they can be tested by the methods of scientific inquiry.

It is the religious, of course, who are eager to embrace such inquiry when it seems to support their claims, but who reject it as irrelevant when it doesn't.

[geckosfeet]

18. Rational inquiry into spiritual matters never fails to the pull back curtain on religion.

That is why relgionists and fundies strive so hard to discredit science and rational inquiry.

[skepticscott]

19. Of course, there are plenty of spiritual matters

which have nothing to do with questions of objective fact, and about which science has nothing to say. Questions like, "what constitutes a mortal sin?" or "should only adults be baptisted?" are just two of many examples. The problem is, what is left of most religions if you strip away everything but these things, everything that is in conflict with scientific and historical fact? The answer, for most flavors of religions, seems to be " not enough", which is why they find it necessary to stray from the spiritual into the scientific.

[geckosfeet]

20. There is a difference between simple religious ritual and spritual matters.

The richest and most spiritual aspects of religion do not need science.

[skepticscott]

21. They shouldn't, but the problem is

that so many of the fundamental foundations of religion are based on factual, rather than spiritual questions. If there was no actual captivity in Egypt and Exodus for the Jews, that would certainty change the basis for the Passover feast. If there was never a real person Jesus who was actually crucified, that does somewhat alter the basis for Easter and the entire concept of salvation from sin, as most Christians understand it.

[geckosfeet]

22. There is archelogical evidence that those things you mention have been

embellished upon by various authors over the years.

For example, there is no evidence that demonstrates that Jesus ever lived.

Much biblical 'fact' evaporates when one looks for evidence.

[humblebum]

35. There is also no archeological evidence that Socrates ever lived

so obviously he never existed.

[stopbush]

41. Nobody is sugesting that Socrates was god incarnate,

that he rose from the dead and is the "savior" of mankind (as if mankind needs a savior from anything).

The words and philosophy of Socrates - whether he existed or not - are not dependent upon supernatural "truths" or invented history to make their effect. They stand or fall as products of the human mind, and his words are good words, instructive words whether he exited or not.

Christianity, on the other hand, is TOTALLY dependent on Jesus being god incarnate, in his actually existing as a corporeal being, in his performing miracles while he lived, in his being crucified and dying to redeem man, in his being resurrected, in his ascending to heaven and in his eventual return to Earth to fulfill his promise. Without all of the events being "facts," the words of Jesus are - for the most part - maniacal idiocies that have no place whatsoever influencing the human condition.

Take away the THREATS Jesus makes against man if we don't bow down to him, take away his existence and see that nothing about him need be feared or believed, and Jesus as a historic figure becomes an insignificant, self-aggrandizing moron who is ignorant not only about how the natural world operates, but what actually lives in the hearts of the majority of men.

That's the difference.

[uberllama42]

49. It's not obvious whether he lived or not

No one is saying that the lack of evidence proves that Jesus never existed. We are saying that there is a lack of solid evidence and therefore no good reason to believe that he did. Many of the most important spiritual claims of Christianity are based on the premise that Jesus lived and died as described in the Gospels.

No one makes similar claims about Socrates. It doesn't much matter to us whether Socrates actually lived or not. The major implications that rest on the question of Jesus's existence do not apply to the question about Socrates.

[humblebum]

50. You are reading more into the question than is necessary. Also,

The bible consists of more than the gospels. For example, 1st Peter and James were reportedly written by eyewitnesses. Skeptics generally tend to discount those specimens that run contrary to their arguments but the veracity of those letters has never been disproved. The age of writings really has no automatic bearing on pertinence.

[trotsky]

36. ...

The problem is, what is left of most religions if you strip away everything but these things, everything that is in conflict with scientific and historical fact? The answer, for most flavors of religions, seems to be "not enough", which is why they find it necessary to stray from the spiritual into the scientific.

Damn, that's good.

[Deep13]

52. Those are theological matters concerning the ...

...mechanics of ones own belief system. In the modern sense of the word, spirituality as envisioned by Spinoza has nothing to do with those kinds of parochial questions and can be sought and found by the most atheisitic of thinkers.

[Deep13]

51. First of all, religion claims authority over scientific questions.

Granted, that authority has been steadily pushed back as our knowledge grows and the need to resort to made-up supernatural explanations diminishes. Questions like the one presented in the OP is an example. Once Biblical creation was a perfectly acceptable explanation of how the universe came into existence. It is only scientific theories based on compelling evidence that have created the need to read these stories as metaphorical. By the way, saying the Bible answers "why" is not only completely unjustified, it is an a priori argument that assumes that the universe has purpose, which is what the question "why?" presupposes. It doesn't. Second, history does reconcile itself to science. Where the study of history was once limited to the written word and, therefore, to the credibility of the one writing it, it is not far more reliant on physical, linguistic and biological evidence. If the physical evidence shows that there are no encampments in or around Egypt or on the Sinai that are devoid of pig bones during time of Exodus; then the story of Exodus must be disregarded as myth.

Religion purports to address both physical and spiritual concerns and has been ineffective in both. Since our "spirituality" (using the term in the modern sense) is the product of our physical brains, then what seperation can their be? Sorry, but the wall DesCartes put between the theological and the physical has no basis in fact. I wonder to what degree he constructed that wall to protect his own religious views from his own critical review on the one hand and his neck from the Inquisition on the other.

[msongs]

2. justifying superstitions from an ignorant past - "..we need the bible to understand the"why'..." nt

[cosmik debris]

3. There is nothing to reconcile.

Science deals with testable evidence.

God offers no testable evidence so science has no dealings with god.

In science, the evidence has to come first.

So no matter how much one tries to force god into science, it is never going to work.

[humblebum]

33. Science doesn't even have the capability to prove/disprove diety

simply because empiricism only input from the five senses. "I can't see,smell,taste,hear,or feel it. Therefore, it doesn't exist". That's empiricism.

[AlinPA]

4. It's not so much reconciling with science, often it's just facts. The story of Noah

and the flood and all the animals in the world on a 353 foot boat is one.

[rrneck]

6. but we need the Bible to understand the 'why' of our creation

A lot of people need the Bible for a lot of things. It's just not the only source for meaning. Far from it.

The only connection between God/transcedence/faith/hope/spirit/content/the heebie jeebies or whatever and the evidence of science is people. Sometimes they do some pretty amazing stuff with the relationship. Sometimes it makes them pretty weird. Welcome to the human condition.

[stopbush]

7. Unless you can allow that there may be no why to our existence

you are limiting yourself to finding confirmation for your pre-existing beliefs, rather than searching for truth.

Th religious mind seeks to prove how a religious belief is true, rather than asking whether it is true.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

8. I call that intellectual laziness

and it is taught, respected, and even applauded by the pastors, parents, and others who perform the religious indoctrination.

As I like to tell people Christians who question my atheism: "I've spent far more time pondering the idea of a God than you have thinking about the idea that God may not exist." They don't usually get it.

[rrneck]

10. They don't get it

because they have let somebody else do their thinking for them. They have bought a product. As far as I am concerned, they have been sold something they've already got.

[stopbush]

14. Yes. Ever notice how the churchgoing wear as a badge of honor something that "tests their faith,"

while never entertaining the idea that it is OK for such a test to cause them to lose their faith?

What they call tests, I call inoculations, ie: an inoculation against free thought. Their tests are allowed to go only so far as it's comfortable to yank the person back into the faith, and hopefully with renewed vigor in the faith. That's like getting a vaccine against a disease - you never give the person enough of the disease to kill them.

So, for example, the religious "debate" evolution to the extent that they use the terminology of science, but the make their arguments to the faithful based on lies, misrepresentations and pseudo-science.

It's a charade.

The same charade goes on in the various JFK CT threads, where the tinfoilers spout all kinds of unsourced "truths" that they heard "somewhere," evidence be damned.

[rrneck]

9. I miss George Carlin

I'll have to paraphrase. When commenting on the danger to the planet from human activity he simply responded, "maybe the planet needed Styrofoam".

The only why there is to our existence is the one we give to it. But if we don't check our why against what our senses tell us about the real world, it always gets us into trouble.

[Deep13]

53. 1. "Why" presupposes purpose when there probably isn't any.

2. If there is a "why," what makes you think the Bible is even remotely equipped to answer that question? I have to think something said since the ink dried at Nicea in the 4th century CE might be a little more advanced. We have learned a lot since Constantine's propaganda book was first attached to a collection of iron age Jewish myths.

[The River]

11. Science Is Still

in it's infancy. Religion is dying of old age.
As long as they keep their beliefs out of government
I don't give a sh*t what they think.
In another few thousand years they will probably reconcile
in a way we can't even imagine now.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

12. Why is it even necessary?

Why can't people just accept that myths aren't true? I'm baffled that people take so much effort even in this modern day to glean some kind of meaning out of the myths written by a tiny tribal people that lived 3000 years ago on the opposite side of the Earth. It is only by the merest accident that these myths even survive to this day, as opposed to any other cultural myths believed by any other desert nomads.

[stopbush]

15. Especially when those myths teach "truths" that are based in prejudice

and inequality. These are manmade "truths" posing as divinely issued edicts, and they are used by men to enslave other men. But they only have power as long as men refuse to take ownership of the original ideas that they themselves fomented, and cast off those primitive ideas as having been bad ideas to begin with.

Man is allowed and EXPECTED to discard bad ideas that man acknowledges he erred in devising. Toss a divine being into the equation - ie: a super-intelligent being who gave us "laws" for own our good, even though we may never know what good is being served - and we cede control and with it, our development and our very future.

Religion really needs to go away.

[Jim__]

13. Good for Francis Collins.

If he can help the religious people of this country come to terms with science so that most of them do not oppose the teaching of science in our schools he does a great service to this country.

[Why Syzygy]

23. I agree

This is about bringing Christians up to speed. If some of them lose their faith along the way, it was misplaced to begin with. I even have visions of real sex education being taught to our younger fellow citizens so they have the knowledge and tools to make successful futures for themselves.

I'm picking up a vibe, however, that the 'new atheists' feel that a reconciliation would somehow taint their concept of science. A smell of woo is upon the breeze.

[Evoman]

28. No, all we heh..."new atheists" are saying is that you don't need to reconcile science with bullshit

Science is fine the way it is.

If religionists want to learn about science, that's cool beans. They should learn about science, and the scientific method.

Reconciling makes it seem like there is some back and forth. But there is no back and forth.

[struggle4progress]

24. Nonliteral readings of GENESIS are nothing new: very old examples can be found.

There are many possible approaches to the text. One can try to date the composition and can ask exactly what political-social interests it originally served. One can search for traces of the psychological aims of the author(s). One can read the text as a metaphor about individual enlightenment. One can consider how various interpretations of the text inform us about the worldview of various commentators. There are also a variety of genuinely theological readings of the text, that are more interesting and thought-provoking than the literal reading

ADAM, WHERE ARE YOU? The question is asked for Adam's benefit: he is not in a good place but he is unready to face that reality truthfully. Not finding himself in Paradise, he blames others

[Silent3]

25. If you get rid of the portions of the Bible that conflict with science...

...and verifiable history, or keep those portions but search for allegorical and symbolic "interpretations", what's left of specific value in the Bible, to recommend it over other books? I'm not saying there's nothing left of value at all, but I don't see where there's anything left to recommend great devotion to the book. There's a fair amount of material in the Bible which is pretty morally reprehensible. (Although, of course, people can always create incredibly creative and generous "interpretations" of almost anything.)

Even for the limited claim, "we need the Bible to understand the 'why' of our creation", there's no proof that there even is a "why", at least any ultimate or emotionally satisfying "why", or that if there is such a "why", that's it's going to be found somewhere in the Bible.

[Why Syzygy]

26. It is really of no

concern to me that atheists would diss this effort. You're not going to get rid of all religion or Christians. Keep hoping. Meanwhile, community minded Christians have an abiding interest in reconciling our faith with scientific evidence so the results of education and policy make sense and work in the *real* world.

Personally, I am able to suspend All Knowing, and allow a bit of ambiguity in my world view. Rather than cast one out as the demon offering, I wonder what is all means.

[Silent3]

27. Given a choice between anti-scientific Christians and Christians who...

...get along a bit better with science, I'll gladly take the latter. I'm not imagining that I'll be "getting rid" of anyone. I can hope, however, for a world where the influence of Christianity and other religions is greatly reduced. Such cultural shifts are certainly possible. Apart from any desire I have for cultural change, however, I can certainly comment on my perception of the merits of this project, and that's all I intended to do.

My feeling about reconciling Christians with science, on very Christian and Bible-centric terms designed to be non-threatening and faith-affirming, is to view it as nothing more than a politically savvy strategy. It's more about trying to stay inside people's comfort zones than about fully, honestly challenging their thinking on religion matters.

[heidler1]

30. If your saying that we need to give some myths more credence in exchange for peace I for one say no.

The only give that I would favor would be to agree that much pure fiction is entertaining and a pleasure to read about or see acted out, but this pleasure should be done while knowing full well it is just fiction. Letting ones mind slip over to the dark side of believing that BS is true and good, is destructive in my opinion. Sure humans are not capable of knowing all truths, but using that for an excuse to spread BS sucks.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

29. I don't have a problem, and neither do many other people.

Geometry existed before the creation; it is co-eternal with the mind of God. -- Johannes Kepler


We do not ask for what useful purpose the birds do sing, for song is their pleasure since they were created for singing. Similarly, we ought not to ask why the human mind troubles to fathom the secrets of the heavens. The diversity of the phenomena of nature is so great and the treasures hidden in the heavens so rich precisely in order that the human mind shall never be lacking in fresh enrichment.
Johannes Kepler, As quoted in Cosmos (1980) by Carl Sagan.


Also read up on Einstein and Spinoza.

Many scientists embrace Deism.

[edhopper]

32. Actually,

ornithologist have a pretty good idea of why the birds do sing. It has to do with mating, territory and evolution. And they weren't "created" for singing, it's a result of natural selection. They really don't care if man finds pleasure in it.

[moobu2]

31. Just another version of‘ 'god of the gaps’ theology

[Deep13]

54. Indeed.

Science has removed god from essentially everything physical and most things mental. So now let's reinterperate what we once took literally so it is not completely irrelevent to the world. We'll stick god safely behind DesCartes' wall where we assume (without any real reason) that science has no business looking.

[gcomeau]

34. That's not really "helping".

There is no reconciling God with science. The two concepts are incompatible. Science relies on objective , verifiable, falsifiable observations and testing to reach reliable conclusions about the state of the world around us. God is defined as something magically immune to objective observation, testing, or falsification.

You do not "reconcile" those two things. In my experience, what actually happens is people who try to make them work together decide to compartmentalize the two ideas and say "The scientific approach is valid and valuable... but when it comes to God I'm turning that part of my brain that realizes that off and ignoring it so I can keep believing". They just create a special exception to the rules for God, otherwise known as special pleading, a textbook logical fallacy. Collins clearly falls into that category.

While I prefer that approach to the fundamentalist idiots who decide that if it's a choice between science and God they're going with God and screw science... to be bluntly honest the fundamentalists are at least taking an internally consistent position on that particular point. Even if it is moronic.

[Why Syzygy]

38. If you put

Primary Cause as God, there is no problem. The only problem I see at this point is the jealously guarded "science". It isn't OWNED by anyone. It can't be guarded as some kind of secret weapon or hidden away from anyone with an interest. How silly.

[gcomeau]

40. Actually, there's a rather giant glaring problem.

That being that you can't just "put" God as "Primary Cause". That's what is also known as an unsupported, unverifiable bald faced assertion. It has no explanatory value. It has no predictive power. It has no method by which it can be tested or falsified. In other words, it has no place in a scientific worldview. None. It is the antithesis of scientific thought. It is a completely meaningless empty statement. Say "God is Primary Cause" all you want, it accomplishes exactly zip.

[Why Syzygy]

42. It does nothing for science

other than put a name behind an already existing concept. It may not be your lump of clay, but it is for some believers. You have no better answer for the Primary. We go from there.

[gcomeau]

46. What it does...

...is put a name on a state of ignorance, then pretend it's been explained by the simple act of naming it. Declaring "It was God" without being able to say how, or why, has exactly as much value as if I declared "That was Snuffalupagus" then walked away with a smug smile on my face like I'd just settled the issue somehow. It's slapping a nonsense title on something you can't explain at all then pretending that's an answer. It's the equivalent of when screenwriters insert a bit of technobabble like "the Heisenberg Compensator" that somehow fixes all the quantum uncertainty problems with Star Trek transporters. Oh, well... the Heisenburg Compensator does it... there's an answer !!!

Ummm, no. No it is not an answer. Not unless they explain HOW it does what they're saying it's responsible for doing... which obviously they can't since there's no possible way they could know that. And your "If you just put God as the Primary" statement is doing exactly the same thing. Only you take it seriously!

Your assertion that "you have no better answer for the Primary" is making the total misrepresentation that just naming it "God" is any answer at all. Which it is not. And when you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about "I don't know" is the superior answer, because it has the virtue of being accurate. So yes, I DO in fact have a better answer.

Your response here actually perfectly illustrates the effect of employing that kind of thinking... here you are deluding yourself into thinking an explanation has been presented when nothing of the kind has occurred. And if you make people think something has already been explained they stop trying to really explain it. It is encouraging extending a state of ignorance.

[charlie]

43. Science is "owned" by its principles

Have you ever said "that's not Christianity"? Would that mean you "own" Christianity? Or that you recognize something that violates or lies outside its principles?

As for Collins, he does much more than just posit a Primary Cause.

[DeSwiss]

37. The statement:

"Science can't be put together with a literalist (sic) interpretation of Genesis," is an absolute load. Because science is "put together" through the use of the scientific method. And only through the use of the scientific method. Period. It is a means by which religion could never be understood, nor reconciled. It is a waste of time and energy to attempt it.

It is religion, however, now constantly flailing about and failing to meet the intelligent inquires of modern humanity and which it now finds itself confronted with, attempting (and failing miserly) to be "put together" using the words of science and reason where possible, and glossing over and/or omitting them altogether, when necessary. Which is quite often. Almost always.

As for there being two versions of the creation story, that would be true only if one is only counting those found within the bible in Genesis. But the bible's stories themselves are ripoffs of older mythical creation stories. Not to mention other aspects of these Kabbalic texts http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Myths-their-parallels-religions/dp/1440489858/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242062234&sr=1-1">which were omitted from the modern "accepted versions" that are in use today.

[uberllama42]

48. I think you're misreading the sentence

I think it means "science can't coexist with" rather than "science cannot be compiled from". It's not that anyone is trying to use the bible as a source of scientific knowledge (not in this discussion, anyway). You're quite right that when people try to do that, they end up with a shitshow. But what we're saying here is that science and a literal interpretation of the bible are mutually contradictory. You can't have both in your head at the same time without some severe cognitive dissonance going on.

[morgan2]

39. What is mental gymnastics?

we're playing jeopardy right?

[moobu2]

44. More Christians Reconcileing God with Science (r.e. Texas School Board)

The Texas School Board recently voted to to drop mention that the universe is some 14 billion years old (after all, most christians believe it's only 6,000 years old and we live in a democracy :eyes:) and also voted on whether or not evolution is a fact and hired a “Christian historian” named David Barton to evaluate Texas proposed history curriculum.

The Texas State Board of Education is set to appoint a social studies curriculum “expert” panel that includes absurdly unqualified ideologues who are hostile to public education and argue that laws and public policies should be based on their narrow interpretations of the Bible.

TFN has obtained the names of “experts” appointed by far-right state board members. Those panelists will guide the revision of social studies curriculum standards for Texas public schools. They include David Barton of the fundamentalist, Texas-based group WallBuilders, whose degree is in religious education, not the social sciences, and the Rev. Peter Marshall of Peter Marshall Ministries in Massachusetts, who suggests that California wildfires and Hurricane Katrina were divine punishments for tolerance of homosexuality.




The Texas Freedom Network

[cosmik debris]

45. It reminds me of the Downing Street Memo

Where they were trying to fix the facts to fit the policy.

:rofl: