The new Christanity and the Old Science

Disclaimer ; I understand not everyone has the time nor the desire to read a long thread that has a lot of non specific (but I feel needed) background info. So for those that would rather not read the entire thing the long version of the thread (below) is about this; How the new Christianity and spirituality squares with science, is not your fundamentalist Christian dads religion!

Google Behe PhD (a progressive creationist biologist) ‘The science of God’ Gerald Schroeder , PhD …or check out this site ; Amit Goswami Phd: A Quantum View of God [nYx64] on Veehd
veehd.com/.../4504979_Amit-Goswami-Phd-A-Quantum-View-of-G...Amit Goswami Ph.D. Theoretical Quantum Physicist - talks about quantum physics and God... There is a revolution going on in science. A genuine paradigm shift ...


The long version;




In this thread I would like to discuss science and religion trying to reconcile the two. I hope to both learn from those that normally would not read my stuff, or anything related to Christianity spirituality or religion, specifically creation science. Do I hear a collective atheist groan? Ha ha yes I think so. Changing ones dearly held grudges or ideas is painful eh? I don’t expect to convert nor attempt to influence the atheists or agnostics to change to a believer. I hope that open civil discussion will help both atheists and Christian fundamentalist Christians to understand the thinking processed of each in the hopes of toning down the mistrust and dislike that both have inherited from the middle ages.

In addition I hope that my knowledge will enrich/teach or inform those that may not be aware of the ‘new Christianity’ and it’s natural compatibility with science. I hold a couple of advanced degrees, along with a teaching certificate good in several states, so I do have some authority on the subject The name for this new Christianity or specifically the sub group that I am interested in is called progressive creation. It’s opposite from YO (young earth) creation in that we progressive creationists agree with science about most things including the age of the earth, compared to YO creationist who interpret the bible literally including believing the earth is 5000 years old. Instead of starting new threads I will post threads here that may be of interest to both the scientific positivists and those that practice religious metaphysics.

I don’t have time to write the first thread which will be about how we as sentient observers influence reality (Copenhagen interpretation of QM) by looking (measuring), and how that vindicated God destroying the world by flood the first time (the Noah Story), so does anyone have a question about science/religion that I could answer from my perspective of holding a MA in Comparative religions and Near East cultural anthropology with emphasis on ancient languages. I had dual majors in undergrad school both science related. Lastly I earned some semester hours at Milligan (Immanuel School of religion) Not bragging just background as to what I am versed in. Please be civil Please remember the bulk of my schooling was some time ago, so I make mistakes, ha ha I was a (part time) perpetual student for 15 years while my company I worked for moved me all over the country and a few international locations…

reva

 

A fair enough pursuit. I'm all for more harmony.

I just want to say from the beginning, however, that degrees dont count for anything, really. I mean you can have five degrees from Oxford on one subject and still be a clueless fool. Its the substance of your arguments themselves you should only need rely on - you should never invoke the fallacy of appealing to authority to sustain a position.

That isnt new. LOL My mum is a scientist, and she also a conservative Catholic - she has always thought evolution was entirely compatible with her religion, so I dont know why you need an entirely new philosophy, "new creationism" no less, to stick two easily compatible concepts together. Anyway...

Fair enough - just dont invoke it as a justification for a claim.

Well, I guess my only real interest in God is his ethics, since the rest seems irrelevant to daily life, imo. Whether he created the universe or not is just not known, and it doesn't make a difference if we know or not. So unless you're interested in a little discussion of ethics, I guess I'm kind of clueless as to what to ask you. I dont want to derail your thread on a topic you dont feel comfortable talking about so I'll let you tell me if you're ok with talking about religious ethics, since I think this thread is a good opportunity for open discussion of religion and science.

 

I take issue with the notion of attempting to reconcile outdated, unproven, discredited ideas with newer knowledge. It's unnecessary. The God Hypothesis is in all probability false.

Having moved from theism to atheism, I understand both views well enough and can say with confidence that an attempt to hold onto God today is simply an attempt to cling on to the false promise of life after death in spite of the "painful reality" of mortality and the mind being wholly a product of that frail, temporary, suffering-prone fleshly creature that we are. We live a while, suffer and then die. We might have high hopes in something called God, but if we are honest with ourselves, we know these to be false, an emotional crutch for an intelligent being unable to cope with its condition.

 

Scientists are all atheist and their main goal is to deny God his divinity. All you need to know about science you can find in the Bible. To use science in conjunction with christian studies is like seeking out Satan to ask him what God is like.

 

is that new Christianity or a new God Belief?

 

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+5:14-15&version=KJV

"King James Version (KJV)

14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:"


personally I call a doctor as science has shown better results then anointing someone with oil


.

 

God help us all. I assume you've never been to a doctor, never had medicine, never been to a hospital, never used an electrical appliance? All of this came from scientists and is practiced by scientists.

 

There can not be any reconciling of "fundamentalist christianity' and science ,<<<Mod edit: Insult removed>>>


Simply ,God thinking is Faith Based ,whereas science attacks and disproves any thinking based on "faith" and bases itself On evidence based so provable thinking .Science rejects that anything other then the Knowable universe exists ,sorry no room for a totally subjectively based 6000 year old Idea not theory.

 

There can not be any reconciling of "fundamentalist christianity' and science ,are you insane ,oh sorry you believe in a God don't you so i answered my own Question.


Simply ,God thinking is Faith Based ,whereas science attacks and disproves any thinking based on "faith" and bases itself On evidence based so provable thinking .Science rejects that anything other then the Knowable universe exists ,sorry no room for a totally subjectively based 6000 year old Idea not theory.

 

But everyone here, today, agrees with the bible's first claim,... that the Universe had a beginning and wasn't always there as many people argued until 1940, when Hubble found the evidence for the Big Bang beginning,... right?

I mean, in spite of all the above statements: that it is impossible to defend the Bible, Gen 1:1 does seem scientiifically correct.

 

Yes, that Law of Probability is found in the Bible in the form of "With God, all things are possible."

So even if it is a long shot, the Bible may be compatible with Science.
The Bible may even be a little helpful, in sending us searching for concrete evidence to support things it says, but which do not seem "possible."
The possiblities of a time when "all the waters under heaven were collected together into one place" seemed nearly impossible until 1920, when Wegener discovered the idea of Pangea.


Gen 1:9

 

I don't see how this is possible. You can talk about agreeing with "with science about most things" (how gracious of you ) but that doesn't reconcile your religious beliefs with science any more than guessing the answer to a sum reconciles guesswork with maths. As long as your opinions are based on faith rather than evidence they're not scientific, even if you happen to come to the same conclusion. If you're actually following the scientific method, it's just science and has nothing to do with religion.

 

You forget that Sociology is a science and the Bible is about Human Behavior.


When we examine the Sociology we see that two types of Societies stand out clearly, one is like the patriarchies we see in Islam, while the other is Western like in America, where women have at least equal rights and power PLUS the complete control over distribution of Sexual Favors.
This ought be what we call a matriarchy, as women are clear the boss at home and now, very very often, even our boss at work, now.


When we are empirical about sociology it becomes clear that matriarchies are sexually promiscuous, while patriarchies are prudent sexually and repressive to th extent that women are chattels.

 

Here is the reason the republican party is doomed.

 

How are we doomed we will be the only people saved. I feel sorry for all the people who have been mislead by the temptations of science. They will not receive their reward in Heaven.

 

It aint necessarily so.

THe question is :

What Happened Before the Big Bang?

I'm prepared to go along with the theory that our universe is the offspring &#8211; via a black hole &#8211; of another former galaxy, far away in another universe.

see

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vdkmj


Black holes begats Big Bangs which begats Black Holes - which begats big bangs - ad infinitum Its how gas works .



Biblical theories like Genesis + others can IMO - be safely be discarded. Its bunkum.


......

 

If you are to love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, why have you decided to reject the mind?

 

OMG - Where did you learn that nonsense ? Where's the evidence that anyone - all the millions - billions - beings who've existed + died , having received any rewards or the existence of a "heaven " or a Hell ?

 

Pangea is land! Does the bible say all the land was gathered together?

Nope.

It says that water was collected together before the first land formed.

Pangea aint the first land so Pangea aint got nothin to do with it.

 

Exactly, bro.

 

who is leading the republican party... Romney?


.

 

What happened before God?

 

Go read up on the definition of God and his attributes and then you'd know your question don't make sense.

By definition, God don't have a beginning, so there aint nothing that happened before something without a beginning.

 

Sure there. Does depends on the premise of god.

God needs a beginning just as much as the universe and the universe needs a beginning just as much as god.

 

When all tyhe water is collected together in one place there can not be land separated from other land or there would be an ocean between the two.
The definition of Panthalassic Ocean means only one Ocean surrounding one gaint continent.




Gen. 1:9 And (Father Nature, almighty Reality), “God,” said, Let, (Panthalassa), the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let (Pangea/Rodinia), the dry land appear:

(composed of the Seven Large Tectonic Plates:


1. North American Plate,
2. Pacific Plate,
3. South American Plate,
4. African Plate,
5. Eurasian Plate,
6. Antartic Plate,
7. Australian Plate
i.e., favored number of God),...


...and it was so.