tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10335778.post6242142094799780131..comments2023-10-26T09:51:07.401-06:00Comments on Stimulation: Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, book summaryArnie Adkisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01846687068106003647noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10335778.post-53965796813560565292011-02-05T13:00:09.589-06:002011-02-05T13:00:09.589-06:00El Guille, thanks for the comment. I had forgotten...El Guille, thanks for the comment. I had forgotten about this book! I think sometimes we forget that once we blog something, it's out there forever.<br /><br />I do disagree with your initial statement, if you're equating "religion" with a relationship with God through the redemption accomplished in Jesus. I believe that truth is knowable, including scientific truth, and that both "religious" truth and "scientific" truth can be reconciled. That's not to say they will be reconciled by us right now--we're not anywhere near omniscient. And the whole thing requires serious humility, for the very reason that we do not know the facts. Just because truth is knowable doesn't mean we know it all.<br /><br />So, a big part of this discussion between science and religion surrounds the first 11 chapters of Genesis. I have personally come to believe that much of the story in these chapters is poetic imagery to teach a truth (or collection of truths). This doesn't take away from their value, their revelation of God or any other aspect of the Bible being God-breathed. I believe that's what he intended those stories to be. So if scientifically the emergence of animals in a particular order is proven to be different than the list of created order in Genesis 1, that does not shake my faith. (I'm not saying that it has been proven, I think we're still a long ways away from proving much, only "if" it was proven.)<br /><br />Anyway, I think if you start with the premise, as you did, that "you just can't talk about science and religion at the same time" you will miss dialogue that can point us closer to God and to the truth that he reveals.<br /><br />Thanks for the comment.Arnie Adkisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01846687068106003647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10335778.post-36874170845014361812011-02-05T09:36:29.248-06:002011-02-05T09:36:29.248-06:00You just cant talk about science and religion at t...You just cant talk about science and religion at the same time . At least not if you wanna take bible for granted ( for example the first chapters of genesis talk about the order of creation of animals and elements of earth and the space "above earth" and all that is totally incompatible with biology and astronomy ) Also science doesnt really denies religion as many think ( or try to probe ) <br /><br />those tries of justifying religious interpretations of science ( like the randomness of quantum physics or the interpretations of the big bang ) end up bad, getting scientists confused about what do religious people want to probe . Scientists really dont want to convince anyone (at least objective scientists) and they dont really know whether big bang happened . but they are based in theories and a whole set of ethic rules with respect to observation of nature and that is what makes them able to talk firmly about their beliefs ( theories and laws ) Of couse, pseudoscience is apart <br /><br />If you really want to take this issues further and understand more about science then study physics and biology . You ll enjoy it a lot because that understanding of nature increases the astonishment about god s creation . and also makes really really question your faith ( in an objective way . a reasonable way which only makes it stronger if it was a real activity of yours or makes it weak if it was some passive justification to personal issues)<br /><br />Science and religions arent really in a versus position simply because they talk about different stuffGuillermohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06972164522574561134noreply@blogger.com