|
DanJames -> RE: Science and Religion and Calculus (10/14/2008 4:50:09 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: abraxas
I'm pulling this from the Science Contributes Only Atheism thread---first my thoughts about the differing funnel shapes of science and religion as they span over time--
quote:
ORIGINAL: abraxas
quote:
I'm not of the opinion that science can provide for all human needs. But, I do see one big difference between science and faith. They both (roughly) take the shape of a funnel, but science gradually moves people towards consensus (large end to small end), and faith is small end to large end. 2,000 years ago there was probably a time with a single Christian church. But today there are thousands, so they have moved away from consensus.
This was a reply from DanJames:
quote:
Well, there are a lot of divisions in science as well. All (I hope) scientists are seeking the truth, and there is one truth, so eventually there should be a consensus, but there are a lot of divisions on how to interpret some facts. You mentioned faith, but you focused on Christianity, so I will as well. We of all people should not be divided because of our common belief that there is ONLY one truth in the Bible, and it has been revealed to us. For the most part, denominations are separated based on style with very few differences in beliefs. The church is united in its faith in Christ, and we are separated based on how we act it out, just like the cells on our body are united in the fact that they are all "us", but they are separated in their roles and locations. As much as I would like to see more unity between the churches, it would seem that these styles are enough to keep us from unity.
I know there are divisions in science, and I know there are commonalities in religion (Christianity in particular). But if I imagine a calculus of the two over large amounts of time, I still see the funnels I described above. Science has been a gradual (and messy) move towards consensus, while Christianity has been a gradual move away from consensus. Yes, I did single Christianity out, but if we move further back to include all the Abrahamic languages we see a larger funnel but pretty much the same shape. Further back to include all religious belief systems, again the same thing.
Some things that I don't think we can consider stylistic differences are:
Calvinism vs. Arminianism
OEC vs. YEC
age of accountability
The nature of the godhead (yes the flesh-and-bone God of Mormonism is part of the Christian funnel)
literal worldwide flood vs. local flood
Gay pastors
Sabbath: Saturday or Sunday?
There are many more.
Since the time when Jesus personally established his church, the number of denominations and above differing claims about how things are have multiplied.
The scientific method has, over the same time span, moved us closer to agreement about a great many aspects of reality. (I s'pose whether it's moved us closer to the truth is another topic--for another thread. [;)])
I don't think we can automatically say that just because the funnel of religious paradigms is facing the way it is a strike against religion. Though as a method for pinning down "how things in the physical world are" I don't think it's very effective. Feel free to poke holes in my idea, I'm interested to see what others think.
abraxas
Since my statement is in the OP, I'll try to clarify:
I suppose you may be right, there are some divisions in Christianity (even if you don't count Mormonism and the Watchtower Society), and there is an amount of unity in the Sciences. In fact, the first step in doing a study is to look up what the rest of the people in your field have done on the topic. If I want to study a particular gene in Arabadopsis, I'll go to the various journals to see what work has been done on that gene or gene family, if for nothing else but to make sure that I'm not doing work that has already been done. So unity is assumed, though as we expound upon what we can draw from a datum, divisions become more expected, but as you say, as we understand these topics, unity is expected.
Contrast this with Christianity. It is basically expected that if you know how protein A interacts with protein B, and the other guy disagrees, you will beat him over the head with your data until he either agrees or becomes unconscious. It is not expected that you would disagree with an article in a journal because the response to disagreement in the scientific realm is not to share the truth with love. In Christianity, we tolerate differences. I went to a church service that was on saturday evening, and if you say that I'm a sinner for doing so, it would be unusual, and frowned upon. Most disagreements are petty ones that don't amount to much, so they are ignored because the church would not be edified by dividing over them.
It's only when a disagreement arises over the core tenants of Christ's saving work do disagreements become serious. This is why the teachings of Mormonism, the Watchtower Society, and sometimes the Catholic Church (to a somewhat lesser extent) are thought by many to be outside of the "Pale of orthodoxy". It's not because they aren't Calvinists or because they think that God should be called "Jehovah", but because they teach that God's salvation is not "by grace through faith and this not of yourselves it is a gift of God, not by works."
Because the ministry that I am in is interdenominational, we disagree, but we do not divide. We worship the same Christ despite our differences. The same thing happens in the scientific realm, but the general expectation is that you will either discover the truth or fall behind. As a Christian, you're free to believe whatever you want, never pursue the truth, and still be loved. Like I said, a serious student of the Bible, and someone that is seeking God, should want to discover the truth, but not all who are saved are serious students of the Bible.
|
|
|
|