There once was a man who was caught in a horrible flood who climbed onto the roof of his house. Being a person of deep faith he prayed to God to save him and was absolutely certain that his prayer would be answered. While he was waiting, a neighbor floated by with a boat and called to the man: "Get in and I will take you to shore," to which the man replied, "No, I prayed to God who I am sure will come to save me."
Some hours later as the water continued to rise, some engineers extended a piece of equipment out to reach the man on his rooftop. But the man refused to grab hold, saying: "No, I prayed to God and I have faith that God will save me." As the water began to come up to the top of the house, a helicopter came hovering over the man, and the people inside begged him to come aboard. But the man refused saying: "No, no, no! I have faith that the Lord will provide -- this is a test! I will wait upon the Lord."
Finally, the water came and swept the man away to his death. The man was upset and reprimanding God, he said: "I had faith that you would save me, and here I am dead because I believed in you." And God, frustrated beyond belief said: "But I sent you a boat, engineers and a helicopter ... what more do you want?"
The science and religion debate has hit the news again as Gov. Rick Perry proclaimed that the scientific evidence of global warming, agreed upon by an overwhelming number of scientists, is unproven. He coupled this with a critique of evolution, also overwhelmingly accepted by scientists, as a theory that's "out there." Rep. Michelle Bachmann has also expressed her skepticism on evolution and supports the religiously based 'intelligent design' being taught in schools as an alternative. That two deeply religious front runners for the United States presidency are using their pulpit (literally) to undermine the validity and importance of science is deeply problematic not only for science, but also for religion.
Religious attempts to influence, denigrate, or undermine science is a cause for serious concern. Good science is good because it is based on results and evidence, not because it supports a pre-existing belief -- theological or any other. You cannot start with the Biblically inspired idea that the sun revolves around the earth, or that the earth was formed in six days, or that there is a Creator and use science merely as a foil to back up your claims. Science is not structured this way and such pseudo-science only embarrasses the pseudo-scientist, religious person or tradition that employs it.
Religion does have an important conversation to have with science when it comes to the moral implications and applications of scientific discovery. At their best, religion and science share a sense of wonder and awe at the beauty and complexity of this world. The religious and scientific minds are best joined by a sense of honest humility about what we don't know, an excitement about what is yet to be revealed through deep examination, and an abiding hope in the potential of these discoveries for making life on this earth better for all.
The ability to think rationally, to examine critically, to doubt and to test should be understood by the religious as a God-given endowment that can, should, and is being put to use in the realm of science. As the Sunday school parable above teaches -- you can be a person of faith and still value the role that science plays as a blessing from God. If we consider the story from the view of the believer, it was through the advances in science that God sent the boat, the engineers, and the helicopter -- science was the means for God to act.
Similarly, we have been given the tools to learn how our environment is being degraded, and more about how we evolved as human beings. If we ignore or ridicule this knowledge, and don't act to save the planet, we are not only making a mockery of science, but also of the Divine. Gov. Perry and Rep. Bachmann should stop their misguided rhetoric as it is unbecoming to serious politicians, poor science, bad faith, and counter-productive to the continued health and prosperity of the United States of America.
Follow Paul Brandeis Raushenbush on Twitter: www.twitter.com/raushenbush
Adam Frank: Can Science Be Sacred?
Another fallacy in the article is the idea that "religion and science" can't co-exist, when in reality, science wouldn't exist without religion. All major faiths have as one of their basic tenets is the acquistion of knowledge. Even Islam has a deep reverence for the acquision of knowledge.
Bottom line is: The religious outlook of a candidate should not be deconstructed to be more than what it is. President Obama professes faith in christ, does he not? So, whatever Perry or anyone else who professes to be a christian believes, they share the same tenets, so whatever beef you have with Perry would be the same beef you have with Obama or the other 83% of America's that profess faith in Christ.
Approx. 96% of the universe is unknown. We cannot account for this so called "dark matter". There-in lies GOD, in my humble opinion..
We will be able to create self-replicating life forms from raw molecules within a generation. In May of last year, The Venter Institute came very close to creating life from scratch - now that is the ultimate example of evolution.
1. how old do you think the earth is?
2. did humans evolve from earlier hominid forms, or did God create them and place them on the planet?
and I agree that we each make a choice to believe or not to... I chose to not believe in Miracles or god. and that is my choice and because if this it should not be in our schools or in our government. religion needs to stay in people’s homes not preaching in our communal space
Where is the scientific proof that he is real? And if you do concede he is real what was his relation to things that exist? It is your view on science that is intolerable (cant you see that??). It is science that wont make room for God. God makes room for science. Evolutionists hijack science and add to it things that are not real and then when a Christian says that part of science isnt true he gets villified for hating for denying science.
You don't even have proof of this "god" you speak of.
The "Evolutionists" that you vilify for claiming they "Hijacked science" are using science to prove the evolutionary process. There's no "Hijacking" involved. The genetic proof alone is proof enough of common origin and evolution. The fossils we have are just icing on the cake.
So, you're upset that Evolutionists (ridiculous name, by the way. Like it's a religion or something) are using science to actually prove their reasons for accepting the fact that Evolution occurs.
Show us scientific proof of this god of yours. Go ahead. You'd be the first person who could do it.
The first Ever.
God does not make room for science. The scientific process is the exact opposite of religious belief. Science is a process of acquiring, testing and applying knowledge.
Religion is Faith. That's it. Nothing more than a claim, and the insistence that people must believe that claim... without proof.
Stop trying to confuse the two.
i do not think you are a villian unless you are purposely lying about science.
if you honestly don't understand it, keep reading and it will become clear.
evolution is the same science that describes the universe, that designs your computer, that brings you medicine.
if you don't see that, then you are the man who rode to safety in a boat and then claimed to walk on water.
I just felt like pointing that out to you. Look it up sometime.
Hate, indeed.
What would stand up in an independent venue, such as a courtroom? There are eye witness reports of miracles and healings in the bible, which would be difficult to ignore in a trial. That they still occur today tends to confirm the bible accounts. However, The Pharisees and others of Jesus' day wanted to destroy the evidence, because people were changing their allegiances; they killed Jesus and wanted to kill Lazarus, as well. So, nothing's changed.
It may be that Science and not Christianity has a better claim to being today's 'flat earth society', as it rationalizes that what cannot be scientifically understood, cannot be; that is illogical.
relationship with him. Todays politics takes personal to a new level. Especially with these tea partiers!
They are so hipocratical, and I think it is only serving themselves, forgive me for judging! That is what I see. I don't see these tea partiers caring about anything they should, or why did immigration status come out. Then the dems took ahold and did the right thing for them that have a good intention. Reps don't care! But they will pray in public for everyone to see! hipocrits!!
It would only be fair, no?
There are literally mega-churches that are tens of thousands of square feet, the size of malls, that cost multi-millions to build. That much disposable income at their fingertips and they're STILL tax-exempt??
Science is not optional, and not selectively-applicable. If you accept the scientific method, you, Mr. Raushenbush, must apply it to everything - including your most warm and fuzzy notions of a possible god. Why do we accept evolution? Science tells us so. Why do we accept there's no god? Science tells us so. It's very simple.
In the effort at "making life on this earth better for all", science seems to be doing all the heavy lifting, and god just says 'keep praying'.
Why do we accept evolution? "Science TELLS us so."
Why reason for yourself? If "science" says something is true it would be almost impossible, with that frame of mind, to do anything but repeat whatever mantra is proposed. Well said.
Therefore, as I cannot accept them all, I must reject them all.