Science and Religion (CONFLICT)

The Future?

2007-06-20T17:55:00.001-07:00

MANY science-fiction enthusiasts have an inquiring mind, a desire for change in human society, and a great interest in the future. The Bible has much to say about the future, but the Bible’s view of man’s fate bears little, if any, resemblance to the speculations of science-fiction writers.
Science fiction offers many, many different versions of what the future may be like. But would you stake your life on any one of these? On what would you base your choice? These scenarios, or projected courses of events, cannot all be true. Can you confidently say that even one of them is the truth? It is far more likely that none of them are.
Already, many science-fiction scenarios are coming to nothing. In what way? In that those that deal with how science could lead the way to a better civilization here on earth have not come to pass. Far from an improved civilization, the reality of today is the opposite. German writer Karl Michael Armer notes: “The future has overwhelmed us.” He points to “global threats of atomic death, environmental disasters, hunger, poverty, energy crises, [and] state-sponsored terrorism.”
In other words, the future for the earth and for the human family described in many science-fiction stories is not moving toward realization. To the contrary, as conditions deteriorate on the earth, the human situation is going in the opposite direction. In spite of any scientific or technical advancements, throughout the world human society experiences more and more crime, violence, poverty, ethnic hatreds, and family breakdown.
Some scientific endeavors have added greatly to man’s ills. Consider just a few examples: the chemical pollution of our air, water, and food; the disaster at Bhopal in India, where an accident in an industrial plant released poison gas, causing the death of 2,000 people and injury to some 200,000; the meltdown of the nuclear power plant at Chernobyl in Ukraine, resulting in many deaths and increases in cancer and other health problems over the earth that just can’t be solved. So what is the truth? I guess Faith is the only thing that is left. We will just have to wait and see.

Advancing?

2007-06-20T17:52:00.000-07:00

The discovery of scientific truth has been a gradual process, entailing the pulling of facts from mistaken theories over a long period of time. But for this to be possible, the findings of one generation had to be accurately passed on to the next. One way of doing this, obviously, was by word of mouth, since we as humans were created with the power of speech
This method of passing on observations, however, would never have been reliable enough to provide the accuracy that scientific and technological advancement demand. There was clearly a need for preserving information in written form.
Just when humans began to write is unknown. But once they did, they had at their disposal a marvelous process by which to pass on information upon which others could build. Before paper was invented—probably in China about 105 C.E.—writing was done on such things like clay tablets, papyrus, and parchment.
Substantial scientific advancement would have been impossible without numbering and measuring systems. The importance of their development can hardly be exaggerated. Calling the applications of mathematics “universal in scope,” The Book of Popular Science reminds us that “its analyses have led to many all-important scientific advances.” Mathematics also serves “as an invaluable tool for the chemist, the physicist, the astronomer, the engineer and others.”
Over the centuries other factors have added momentum and a sort of shed light to the search for scientific truth. Travel, for example. The Book of Popular Science explains: “The man who makes his way to foreign lands is likely to find his curiosity sharpened by new sights, sounds, smells and tastes. He will be tempted to ask why things are so different in a strange land; and in his attempt to gratify his curiosity, he will acquire wisdom. So it was with the ancient Greeks.” So in a overall gleam of the situation there has been great advancement in the scientific field which has been beneficial in many findings. How would we know that the earth wasn’t flat and it was at the center of the universe and other theories? Yes, Science has done a good job in that matter.

Science is the Limit-hmm?

2007-06-20T17:48:00.000-07:00

Many scientists of the 19th century . . . often felt that they would someday achieve absolute truth and ultimate understanding,” says the book The Scientist. “Their successors,” the book continues, “speak only of reaching ‘partial understanding’, of continually approaching truth but never grasping it completely.” This lack of absolute knowledge seriously limits what science can do.
Scientific facts have never changed over the years, whereas scientific theories have—and this repeatedly. In fact, at times theories have lurched from one extreme to the other. Medical scientists once thought, for example, that withdrawing blood from the body of a seriously ill person was the scientific thing to do. Later they thought that infusing blood was the answer. Now some are beginning to recognize the wisdom of not doing either and of searching for less dangerous alternative treatments.
Obviously, what scientists know is far less than what they do not know. The World Book Encyclopedia notes: “Botanists still do not know exactly how the process of photosynthesis works. Biologists and biochemists have not yet found the answer to the question of how life originated. Astronomers have not yet developed a satisfactory explanation of the origin of the universe. Medical scientists and physiologists do not know the cause or cure of cancer or how to cure the various virus diseases. . . . Psychologists do not know all the causes of mental illness.”
Science is also limited in the sense that it can be no better than the people who pursue it. In other words, a scientist’s lack of knowledge is compounded by his imperfection. The authors of 5000 Days to Save the Planet discovered that “time and again . . . special-purpose organizations have manipulated research, distorted cost-benefit analyses and suppressed information in order to sell harmful products or to continue activities which are detrimental to the environment.”
Even if the majority of scientists are honest, this is still no reason to place them or their activity upon a pedestal. “They are just like everybody else,” argues British-born Edward Bowen, himself a scientist. “They all have their failings. Some are dedicated, some unscrupulous, some sharp as a whip, others dull as dishwater. I’ve known some of the great names of science, men who have done tremendous good for the world. And while I’ve known no scientist who’s been in jail, I’ve known some who richly deserved to be.”
Clearly, because of its many limitations, modern-day science is not up to meeting the challenges of the 21st century. Especially has it failed to protect the environment, and rather than help rid the earth of war, it has helped create weapons of mass destruction. So really, I question if you can confide in such ones?

Who to blame?

2007-06-20T17:46:00.000-07:00

Some people are so impressed by scientific accomplishments that they elevate science to virtual godship. Scientist Anthony Standen discussed this in his 1950 book Science Is a Sacred Cow. Even if we allow for possible exaggeration, Standen has a point: “When a white-robed scientist . . . makes some pronouncement for the general public, he may not be understood, but at least he is certain to be believed. . . . Statesmen, industrialists, ministers of religion, civic leaders, philosophers, all are questioned and criticized, but scientists—never. Scientists are exalted beings who stand at the very topmost pinnacle of popular prestige, for they have the monopoly of the formula ‘It has been scientifically proved . . . ’ which appears to rule out all possibility of disagreement.”
Because of this wrong mode of thinking, some people seize upon seeming contradictions between science and the Bible as proof of scientific “wisdom” in contrast with religious “superstition.” Some even see in these so-called contradictions a proof of God’s nonexistence. However, in reality it is not God who is nonexistent but rather the imagined contradictions that clergymen have created by misinterpreting his Word. They thereby insult the Bible’s divine Author and at the same time do a disservice to mankind’s ongoing search for scientific truth.
Additionally, by failing to train their parishioners to exercise the fruitage of God’s spirit, these religious leaders foster an atmosphere of selfishness that causes people to think mainly of their own desires for personal comfort and convenience. This is often at the expense of others, even to the point of misusing scientific knowledge to slaughter fellow humans.—Galatians 5:19-23 from Holy Word.
False religion, imperfect human politics, and greedy commerce have shaped people into what they now are, “lovers of themselves, . . . unthankful, . . . without self-control,” egoists who are driven by a wrong mode of thinking.—2 Timothy 3:1-3 I quote from the Holy Word.
These are the people and organizations that have created the challenges of the 21st century that science is now being called upon to meet. Will it succeed?

The Conflict

2007-06-20T16:51:00.000-07:00

“Is religion best understood as an infectious disease of the mind? —that is a quote by Biologist Richard Dawkings.
RELIGION and science are sometimes assumed to be enemies. To some they appear locked in a struggle of such it may seem that one will triumph only by the death of the other.
In one camp are some scientists, such as chemist Peter Atkins, who feel that reconciling religion and science is “impossible.” Atkins says that to believe “that God is an explanation (of anything, let alone everything) is intellectually contemptible.”
In another side religious people who blame science for the destruction of faith. Such individuals hold to the opinion that science as practiced today is a deception; its facts may be correct, but the misinterpretation of those facts undermines the beliefs of the faithful. For instance, biologist William Provine says that Darwinism means “no ultimate foundation for ethics; no ultimate meaning for life.”
However, some of the conflict has developed because of false or unprovable assertions originating from both sides. For centuries, religious leaders have taught mythical legends that are at odds with modern scientific findings and not based on inspired Scripture. For example, the Roman Catholic Church condemned Galileo because he concluded, correctly, that the earth revolves around the sun. Galileo’s view in no way contradicted the Bible, but it was contrary to what the church taught at the time. On the other hand, scientists are at fault when they teach as fact the unprovable theory that life evolved from inanimate matter independent of God. They ridicule religious faith as unscientific.
Is it possible, then, to reconcile science and religion? Yes, it is. Actually, proven science and true religion complement rather than contradict each other.

The new Age

2007-06-20T16:47:00.000-07:00

WE LIVE in a crucial age. Traditional values and life-styles are constantly being questioned. The volatile mix of religion and politics propels us from one crisis to another. Science and technology have brought no permanent solutions to mankind’s problems. Many are convinced that such a state of affairs cannot be resolved unless a completely new world system is ushered in.
But how will such an era come about? By God’s intervention? If so, must we continue to wait? Or can we do something about it ourselves? Can we bring in the desperately needed new age? Millions of people around the world from every walk of life believe that they can play an active role in bringing about a new age of peace and brotherhood. They belong to the revolutionary New Age movement.
Have you heard about the New Age movement? In many countries the term “New Age” has been applied to some popular forms of literature, music, and art. There are even New Age restaurants! Sports heroes and Hollywood stars promote the movement. Members hold regular conventions and expositions. The term “New Age” has also been widely attached to consumer goods, such as cosmetics, beauty products, vitamins, and health-care items. New Age books are sold by the millions. Some stores have a separate section for them. Many of these books have a strong religious influence on readers.
In his book The Cosmic Self—A Penetrating Look at Today’s New Age Movements, author Ted Peters refers to the movement as “the equivalent of a religious H-bomb in sustained explosion for nearly three decades now.” He adds that “new age prophets are making converts; and their teachings are being adopted . . . by Protestants, Roman Catholics, Jews, atheists, as well as the growing number of Buddhists and Hindus in North America.”
The Times of London reports that “New Ageism . . . is probably now the fastest growing faith in the West. Soon, it is estimated, 25 per cent of Americans will admit to some degree of New Ageism.” The Swiss magazine Fundamentum observed that, in the Netherlands, about a hundred theologians were meeting regularly “to discuss how New Age thinking can be introduced into church life and also into the sermon.” Another magazine proclaims that “countries around the world have their different approaches to New Age, but the appeal is universal.”
Business corporations have spent millions of dollars on New Age consultants and in enrolling their employees in New Age programs. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “New Age thinking has permeated the highest bastions of America’s business institutions.” The newspaper adds that one survey of 500 companies revealed that more than 50 percent had some involvement with New Age thinking. So I just ask myself is this the cause for confusion and chaos within the world in connection with science and religion?

Can they co-exist

2007-03-07T19:28:00.000-08:00

The million dollar question is can science and religion co-exist. History has proven that the answer to be "yes". Though, in recent years science and religion has created a sort of rivalry so to speak. Science is continually trying to disclaim the truths that are found in the Bible. Thorough and multiple research have been used to try and discover the truthfulness and validity of the Bible. Archeologists have been uncovering areas or things of ancient history that relates to religious beliefs. The question is why?