Partners not Antagonists

"Scientists who deny the existence of God have a right to their opinions, but they are not speaking as scientists but as philosophers. Likewise, theologians have no expertise in estimating the age of the earth."

False dichotomy and tortured equivalency.

It's like saying, "while Democrats often go overboard in seeing that the poor get an even break, Republics would do well to impose limits on the number of innocents who die in their wars."

Here's what Rev Reese should have said:

"Scientists who deny the existence of God and religionists who aver that there is a god have a right to their opinions, but both are speaking as philosophers who are interpreting a total lack of evidence for god's existence in diametrically opposed ways. Likewise, theologians have no expertise in estimating the age of the earth while scientists do, so the age of the Earth cannot possibly stand as a legitimate issue in matters material and/or philosophical."

the Good Father Mixes Apples and Oranges

Absolutely, Christians and Environmentalists should collaborate on being environmentally responsible.

So should convicted Felons and Environmentalilsts.

HOWever,
that says Nothing about the validity of the Catholic/Christian approach to Truth and Morality.

Believers and non-Believers agree that one should be moral.

But they have fundamental and conflicting approaches to evaluating Truth Claims.

Believers say Prayer Works because they have faith.

Scientists say: we will accept the statement "Prayer Works" when there is Some Evidence that it does. So far the evidence is all the other way.

Believers say "God exists and cares about us." based on Faith.
Scientists say: "if your God has any effect on the world, there will be evidence of that effect, and that evidence can be evaluated scientifically."
A scientist is free to believe in God based on no evidence, but she is not acting as a scientist when she does so.

BGone:"I guess this week's question is should theology be a part of discussions like global warming."
If the question was phrased that way the answer would have to be a resounding "NO."
There are those who use their religious faith as an excuse to abuse G-d's creation. Is it worthwhile to argue with them? More and more I think it is not.

Viejita del Oeste:

I've actually said all I have to say but I will notice the notion of "Christian virtue" - as virtuous as a Roman emperor I'd say, selectively virtuous. And, science is without virtue. The two, religion and science have no common ground.

Ted chittenden kind of points that out. In the ancient world science and religion were the same thing. Gods are invisible forces that explain the things science explains other ways today, what makes dead things move for example.

It was a significant gear shift to get from the priest being the scientist, explaining the obvious disconnects between observation, (dead things can't move on their own) and reality with theology to get to where we are today. That's a giant step.

I guess this weeks question is should theology be a part of discussions like global warming. At the time of St Augustine such issues were exclusively theological. Has theology served it's practical useless purpose yet, satisfy people minds with nonsense, is the question.

My answer to that question is a question. Has theology gotten anything straight? If they can't separate God and Devil they're not very well qualified to make any kind of judgment, in my opinion of course. However, lacking any other explanation Devil will serve us well in that department, when the wind blows, the water rises and the dust refuses to settle.

God may well be everywhere but Devil is the one that gets all the attention, being there at the time or not. Global warming is a disaster in the making that's a Devil all on it's own. So the real question is, who will be sacrificed to the global warming god? Hopefully, not us all. But Devil is never satisfied so keep head down.

I'm not so sure I agree that the "proper" boundaries between religion and science were placed during St. Augustine's lifetime. Keep in mind that at that time (the 5th century per the Gregorian Calendar), science wasn't really science--it was more a set of philosophies that dated back to Aristotle and Plato. It wasn't until 1275 A.D. when Roger Bacon proved that only through repeated experimentation with the same results could science be certain that modern science as we know it was born--and the Church of Rome did not welcome this with open arms.

One should also keep in mind the strong reactions the Roman Church had to Father Copernickus's (yes, he was a priest) and Galileo's work indicating that (1) the earth revolved around the sun; and (2) the stars were much further away from us than we actually thought. In Galileo's case, he was actually tried and excommunicated for heresy for publishing his work, and the Roman Church did not restore his good standing until the 1970's.

Can religion and science be allies? Well, maybe in a limited way. One has to keep in mind that religion at its very core is centered on beliefs that cannot be proven (the existance of a God, Devil, etc.). Some of the values taught by religion have been shown by science to be worthwhile--but science needs repeated experimentation with the same results to prove certainty, a need that is definitely not a requirement for religion.

There is one other thing that religion does that science tries very hard not to do (especially if evidence is lacking): judgment. Science is more about trying to provide factual information (based on repeated experimentation) so that others can make their own judgments. This contrasts with religion which makes judgments about right and wrong for you, based upon myths handed down through the centuries.

I therefore find myself believing that an alliance between religion and science can, and should, only be reserved for those areas where the two are in agreement.

BGone
It isn't ordinary believers like me who are trying to create a theocracy. Maybe just maybe we are even more upset about the conflation of religion and politics than a straightforward nonbeliever like yourself. The human ego and lust for power are profoundly un-Christlike forces.
The so-called religious right's interpretation of religious texts is a powerful force in the spread of atheism.
Basically, you and I agree more than we disagree. I would never shove anything down your throat, and I appreciate your deep study of religious history and its link with majoritarian prejudices. I just sometimes feel like reminding you that not all who call themselves Christians are that -- well, to you I can say it -- stupid.
Maybe it's cultural. I was raised to believe that the Almighty gave us rational brains because he wanted us to use them. Narrowmindedness is not a Christian virtue.

Viejita del Oeste, first, nothing about G-d scares me because I have faith.

One thing that is being shoved down, not my throat in particular but the country as a whole is the 10 commandments. No! I don't have a problem with 5, 6, 7 and 8. In fact, they are already implemented in the law in one form or the other and should be.

If 9 were actually honored no one would ever marry or have sex and the human race would end.

If 10 were honored the economy would instantly collapse.

1, 2, 3, and 4 turns the society over to the ministry to run, puts it at the mercy of the "church." "Who will run the kingdom of God while we wait for Jesus to return" says it all.

4 - "honor thy father and thy mother" is not about our biological parents. It's the king and queen, our "spiritual parents." Began as Pharaoh alone, just "thy father." Womens lib is very old. The original Christian church began as a return to the bare roots, Pharaoh's original claim to the keys to heaven transfered to the pope, "holy" everyone's "father" but in the beginning was held by the emperor of Rome. Constantine was the "father" of all mankind during his life and created the office of pope, (so he could "take it with him"?).

1, 2, and 3 transfer the power of God to the ministry. Faith is not in God but in the ministry, (Billy Graham saves people, not God unless Billy IS God). Faith in the ministry has it's foundation resting on the validity of the Bible. You have but one question to answer, and, yes you have already answered it - Is the Bible the word of God? And of course, how sure are you about that? Maybe the Devil makes people do things like that?

Concerned - It's not my web site. It's a gift to all, (from God?) to give you an opportunity to save yourself. I doubt that you'll make it but hope springs eternal.

BGone
First, you know perfectly well that I believe it was G-d in the burning bush. If I call myself Christian, certain things are a given. I know you don't agree, and I respect your view. I'm not sure what it was that you think I have personally tried to shove down your throat, but if I've scared you I sincerely apologize.
Faith is not evidence, nor is it political hegemony (render unto Caesar etc) and it pains me to see so many so-called Christians who misunderstand. You, I think, do not misunderstand.

Viejita del oeste:

You're the pot calling the kettle black. It's religion imposing the "law of God" on non believers with an "everybody knows that's so" attitude.

Stop dodging the and answer the challenge. Was that God in the burning bush? Before you shove your form of morality down anyone's throat let's see some foundation for your morality.

Faith is not evidence. Faith is stupid, what the con man uses to rip you off.

Devil worshipers!!! http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul

Bgone,

Again, you make many good points but your webpage still has no citations listed and to be perfectly honest appears to have been put together by some "demon of the demented".

The early and rather recent Catholic Church and subsequent Christian subsets suffered as did all of humankind from superstitions especially the belief in an active underworld filled with satans and devils who visited us in the night and in our consciences. Most of these superstitions have been eradicated by science, reason and education.

Unfortunately, the Catholic Church still holds onto significantly stupid superstitions like 24/7 blood sacrifices, heaven locks and keys, filicide, "pwtfft"s, miracles, exorcisms and limbo. Science, reason and education will also eventually eradicate these as the world's religions will converge into some form of basic human morality, ethics, and laws.

Some scientists believe in God, and some Christians trust science. What's so hard about that? Why does it have to be so bitter for so many people?
It seems to me that there are some believers and some rationalists who desperately need for everything they disagree with to be proved wrong. Why? Is your faith, whether in God or in the findings of men (God included) so weak that it must be constantly reinforced by a majority? If you know you are right, why do you care if I don't see things the same way?

I think you're in the right ball park for global warming. About all that can be done is pray. If CO2 is the real culprit then it's too late now.

Methane, natural gas, another hot house agent is 50 times more potent than CO2 and it's bubbling up from ocean floors all over the world. Oil companies that catch and sell it or burn it may well be contributing to a slow down of global warming. But there's something that is never mentioned, two more things in reality one of which stretches the imagination.

Did you know that as the earth orbit the sun, the sun orbits a center of the milky way galaxy. Yes it does and it passes through the plane of the galaxy about every 35,000 years. Next time the plane is reached comes in the year 2012. You don't suppose? I guess not.

Then there are all those pesky UFOs. Their number seems to have increased dramatically in recent years. You don't suppose the little rascals are melting the polar ice caps, not both poles just the north pole. Wonder what they have in mind?

I know. UFOs are a matter of faith, like God. No one believes they are real, because the government says they're not real. Does the government ever lie? Is the Bible the word of God? Do bears go --- in the woods? Are there moral lies?

Bad things happen when good people do nothing. Disasters happen when misguided people do the wrong thing. The latter usually happens in the name of God. It's easy to detect. People cry out to God and Devil shows up.

Do scientists not believe in God or could it be they don't believe the Bible is God's word? That's a question that will take a bit of doing to resolve "the apparent conflict." Don't you think?

"Scientists who deny the existence of God have a right to their opinions, but they are not speaking as scientists but as philosophers. Likewise, theologians have no expertise in estimating the age of the earth."

Are you sure scientists don't simply deny that no one has actually spoken to god? Of course there are supernatural beings and then there are supernatural beings. So how is one to know which variety one is conversing with at any conversing time?

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul warns us to beware of Devil(s) claiming to be God. How sure are you the supernatural being in the burning bush was God and not Devil?

"For Catholics, the apparent conflict between Genesis and contemporary science was resolved by improvements in biblical theology, which respects the literary form and cultural context of scripture."

A good hoax is flexible. Don't you agree?

How many witnesses were there when God said, "let there be light?" Did Adam and Eve write down what happened in the garden of Eden? Do you know where I can get a copy of the original, one that hasn't had "the apparent conflict between Genesis and contemporary science resolved"? I wonder how such conflicts are resolved?

I agree with much of what Fr. Reese writes. In particular, I would refer interested readers to John Paul II's "Fides et Ratio," available in English at

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html

As a point of theological clarity, I would like to discuss Fr. Reese's statement that, "Conflict between science and religion is so 19th century. Today there must be a partnership if we are to save our world." This statement articulates a view that is diametrically opposed to Christianity. We do not save our world in any way, shape, or form. That is not the purpose of Christianity and it is not the doctrine of Christianity. The doctrine of Christianity is precisely the opposite, and the experience of anyone who will stop and think about life or history: that we CANNOT save our world. The purpose of Christianity is to introduce us to our Savior.

No serious thinking Christian has ever thought that conflicted with the right aim of science, which is to acquire knowledge about the natural, material world. It is not (presumably recent) "improvements in biblical theology" that have resolved the "apparent conflict between Genesis and contemporary science." St. Augustine and his contemporaries noted all sorts of discrepencies between the Revelation ("the Bible") and human experience (often termed "science" or "reason"). They came up with more or less adequate solutions. Certainly by St. Thomas Aquinas' day, the quest and method for integrating all different sorts of knowledge with faith was in full progress.