Yes.

Sure of course you can. Science is an extension of gods knowlage. The only times when we have disagreement is when it comes to ethical issues that cross the boundries of religion. Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be.

Yes, of course one has to know when to rely on faith and not always accept everything science is telling us today.

Remember at one time science told us the earth was flat and that the sun went around the earth.

There's also the matter of interpreting the Bible properly. The most obvious mistake many interpreters make is the "7 LITERAL days" thing. Once we realize that the text there is poetic in style, we realize that these "days" don't have to be literal at all.

There's also the matter of interpreting the Bible properly. The most obvious mistake many interpreters make is the "7 LITERAL days" thing. Once we realize that the text there is poetic in style, we realize that these "days" don't have to be literal at all.

Hi Dave,

Yes, I agree with that.

This may be of interest. God took 6 days to do his work and rested on the 7th. In the ancient world the number 6 was said to have special significance for mathematicians.

In 'The City of God' St. Augustine argues that although God could have done what ever he wanted when he decided to create the world, Instead choose 6 days. Why did he do this? Supposably because he wanted to reflect the universes perfection which is contain within the number 6. From my point of view I see this as adding to the NON LITERAL debate.

Regards

Tut

Of course. God loves science. He created it.

Yes, of course one has to know when to rely on faith and not always accept everything science is telling us today.

Remember at one time science told us the earth was flat and that the sun went around the earth.

I would put it the other way - One has to know when to rely on science and not always accept everything faith is telling us today. At least, that has been historically true.

The flat earth and the sun going around the earth originate in faith, not science. As long as 2500 years ago, the Greeks knew the earth was round, not flat. It took faith a long time to catch up.

I would put it the other way - One has to know when to rely on science and not always accept everything faith is telling us today. At least, that has been historically true.

The flat earth and the sun going around the earth originate in faith, not science. As long as 2500 years ago, the Greeks knew the earth was round, not flat. It took faith a long time to catch up.

Athos,

The book of Job is the first to record the earth was in fact round and not flat... check out Job 26:7,10. Incidentally, the book o Job was written way before the Greeks came along. It also says in Isaiah 40:22 " It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth"...

I'm just saying... you are wrong.

Athos,

The book of Job is the first to record the earth was in fact round and not flat....check out Job 26:7,10. Incidently, the book o Job was written way before the Greeks came along. It also says in Isaiah 40:22 " It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth".....

I'm just sayin....you are wrong.

Hi classy T,

The problem is that a circle isn't a sphere.

Regards


Tut

I'm just sayin....you are wrong.
Did Athos say the Bible was wrong? No. Reread his answer. In fact, read Fr_Chuck's first, then Athos'.

Did Athos say the Bible was wrong? No. Reread his answer. In fact, read Fr_Chuck's first, then Athos'.

I tried to give you a "helpful", but it wouldn't let me.

So, here's a "helpful".

Btw, that Bible quote may or may not have been accurate, but Pythagoras definitely wrote about a round earth in the 6th century BC. Is it possible the writer of Job took the idea from Pythagoras? Just asking.

(Not suggesting you were the one who gave the quote).

You guys all seem to be in violent agreement. Yes, some educated ancients knew that the earth is round. Yes, educated Greeks knew the earth is round, and actually calculated its size reasonably accurately. I challenge anyone here to cite a source that shows that any "scientist" ever thought the earth is flat, or for that matter any church authority who ever said the earth is flat.

Of course there are plenty of examples of both "scientists" and religious authorities insisting that the earth is at the center of the solar system. The interesting thing is how the two camps varied in their process for finally accepting the new theory that put the sun at the center. Some church authorities - not all - branded the theory as heritical (based on a rather twisted interpretation of one obscure passage in the bible, and on the tradition of accepting Aristotle's philosophies without question). Unfortunately for Galileo one of those authorities happened to be the Pope.

I put the word "scientist" in quotes here because the scientific method was not codified until the 1600's. Galileo and Descartes are generally recognized as the fathers of modern science, and they lived in the 1600's. The ancient Greeks (Aristotle and the like) were not scientists - they were philosophers. So to say that "scientists" believed the earth is flat is false.

But to answer the OP's question - yes, of course you can believe in the scientific method and have religious faith. In fact, some of the greatest scientists have been church leaders. One of the finest astronomy observatories in the world in the 1700's was located at the Vatican.

For me science is a baby of Lord God. If HE has not given humans understanding, how could a man find out how far is the sun, or deep is the ocean, or how can we take care of our health and do more work for HIM. Even though the medical science is so advanced yet when HE calls an individual home, no money, no technology can hold the person back. Check out Francis Colins on Youtube. You will get more understanding about relation between God and science.

how could a man find out how far is the sun
How do astronomers measure the distance to stars? Is it accurate? (http://www.windows2universe.org/kids_space/star_dist.html)


, or deep is the ocean,
Sonar Mapping (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/eng99/eng99279.htm)


how can we take care of our healthThousands of years of experimentation: History of medicine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_medicine)

How do astronomers measure the distance to stars? Is it accurate? (http://www.windows2universe.org/kids_space/star_dist.html)


Sonar Mapping (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/eng99/eng99279.htm)

Thousands of years of experimentation: History of medicine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_medicine)

I have often said, if you're going to miss the point, miss it big! :D

Ok I'll bite, how did I miss it big?

Ok I'll bite, how did I miss it big?

Reread this part of the post:

"For me science is a baby of Lord God. If HE has not given humans understanding,"

Reread this part of the post:

"For me science is a baby of Lord God. If HE has not given humans understanding,"I think that does a disservice to man's use of free will to be ingenious and have a quest for better understanding his environment. It reduces every single argument to "God did it".

I think that does a disservice to man's use of free will to be ingenious and have a quest for better understanding his environment. It reduces every single argument to "God did it".

No, this statement shows that you still don't understand what the poster was saying. God giving us the gift of reason is why we are able to discover those things, that's the point. And you still missed it.

I think you missed my point. But we can agree to disagree.

I think you missed my point. But we can agree to disagree.

Triund said this:


For me science is a baby of Lord God. If HE has not given humans understanding, how could a man find out how far is the sun, or deep is the ocean, or how can we take care of our health and do more work for HIM.

In other words, the fact that we have the capability to reason (understanding) has led to all these discoveries. For some reason, you draw this conclusion about that idea:


I think that does a disservice to man's use of free will to be ingenious and have a quest for better understanding his environment. It reduces every single argument to "God did it".

But Triund's statement says nothing about man's use of free will; in fact it says that very "free will to be ingenious and have a quest for better understanding" is a gift of God. It most certainly does not lead to the idea that "God did" all of it. God made it possible, yes. But your conclusion does not follow from that. The ability to reason is indeed a gift; in fact, the development of reason from non-reason is one of the major conundrums for naturalistic philosophy, because the odds of it happening without some kind of outside guidance are so astronomical as to be impossible. We are free and responsible to make use of that reasoning ability, and that's where man's part comes in. Hence, your statement that "It reduces every single argument to 'God did it'" is a non-sequitur.

Hence, your statement that "It reduces every single argument to 'God did it'" is a non-sequitur.Not at all. If your answer to man's ability to understand his environment is simply that "it's a gift from God" with no supporting evidence then you can say that about pretty anything since you are not obligated to offer any supported evidence as I have.

Not at all. If your answer to man's ability to understand his environment is simply that "it's a gift from God" with no supporting evidence then you can say that about pretty anything since you are not obligated to offer any supported evidence as I have.

You haven't offered any "evidence" any more than I have. All you did was give examples of it at work. That's not any kind of evidence of how it came about. Nice try, though. You say I call it a gift from God "with no supporting evidence" and suggest I can't legitimately do that, yet you can say "it just happened" with no supporting evidence and that's supposed to be okay. Wrong. There's no actual "supporting evidence" either way, at least not the kind you claim, so you're making a faith statement just as much as anybody else is.

... yet you can say "it just happened" with no supporting evidence and that's supposed to be okay. Could you kindly point to where I said that?

Could you kindly point to where I said that?

"you are not obligated to offer any supported evidence as I have." What evidence? Evidence of what? You appear to be denying that reason/intelligence is a gift from God, which doesn't leave many alternatives. If you're not saying it came about by chance ("just happened") then what exactly are you saying?

circle is closer than the square that the world was thought to be. And I didn't learn that a ball was the same thing as a sphere until grade three. :P

Anyway, my thinking is... science was originally done to try and understand God's Creation. You can't be a christian and refuse to go to science class because you don't believe in it... (I wish that could be an excuse though. :P ) I agree with the comments above however, when science is opposing what the bible says, like God is the creator of everything, yadda yadda, that's when you start raising questions. Like the Big Bang theory... where random things in the universe collided together to create the world that we live in now... sounds very iffy to me... So pray, and use your judgement on whether the science is truthful in God's eyes or not. Hope that helps!

Muslims have no problem with this question. God created everything, to include the laws of nature, to teach us about his mercy, and the real believers recognize that the mercy, the guidance, and the senses are one in the same type of reminder.

I hope that you find your way.

Reasons To Believe: Hugh Ross, Fazale Rana, Kenneth Samples, David Rogstad, Jeff Zweerink (http://www.reasons.org) is written by an astronomer and Christian. He believes the universe is 1 billion years old and the 6 days of creation were 6 "Yom" (hebrew for an era of time) The actual text is Yom not Day...

Reasons To Believe: Hugh Ross, Fazale Rana, Kenneth Samples, David Rogstad, Jeff Zweerink (http://www.reasons.org) is written by an astronomer and Christian. he believes the universe is 1 billion years old and the 6 days of creation were 6 "Yom" (hebrew for an era of time) The actual text is Yom not Day...

Hi Bob,

An interesting idea but I don't see any real advantage in this type of analysis.

In the end I think only science can tell us how old the earth is or how old the universe is. Otherwise we are faced with the impossible task of deciding when a day is not a day.

The earth was created in 6 days and nothing seems clearer. Anyone who suggests differently is putting forward the possibility of a marginal explanation. In other words, 6 days of creation may not be a totally acceptable explanation given what we know about science. To say that one day is really a thousand years is to create another marginal explanation.This requires a further refinement and a different time proposal as an explanation and so on. It is pretty much an exercise in futility. I don't think we will find the answer in this type of analysis.

Regards

Tut