OK, here's a question from a theist (not my own thoughts) - what do you think?

"Why isn't there room for both God and Science?

The Bible says the Lord said: "Let there be light." and all of this came into existence. Couldn't "Let there be light." be the "Big Bang?".

Scientists believe that man evolved from amoeba that became monkeys and whatever, well, the Bible says God created man from the "dust of the Earth". Couldn't that be the same primordial ooze that scientists say we came from?

Scientists believe man is far older than 6,000 years. The Bible clearly states there were other people before Adam and Eve. Cain was afraid he would be killed if he was put out of the Garden, so God marked him to protect him, also, Cain found a wife and had offspring. Clearly, that means men were around before Adam and Eve. Couldn't the creation story be that of the Jews (which follows their entire lineage from Adam to Noah to Christ) and those outside the garden be the Gentiles?

I mean, this stuff fits.

I don't see how anyone can just say "There is no God." when you have not the tiniest clue as to whether or not is correct. You say: "Prove to me there is a God." I say "Prove to me there isn't.". You can't.

As for Christians, it just doesn't make sense to say man is only 6,000 years old and started with Adam and Eve when clearly the bible states that there were men outside of the Garden. I mean, they've found an 80,000 year old human skeleton.

I believe in God. But, I also believe that Science is just the art of man putting into terms he can understand, what God did to create what we see."


In my opinion, if people must be religious, this is the best type.

How would you reply back to this man?

Tags: bang, big, science

Views: 40

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

There is room for God and Science but there is very little room left outside of the false dogmatic religions like Christianity, Islam, and Judaism for anything other than their small-minded beliefs. I have no beef with the non-denominational Pantheists and Deists. They don't generally try to force their false religion on others.
Note... I'm responding to this man, specifically... I'll address you, Perthy, after.

The Bible says the Lord said: "Let there be light." and all of this came into existence. Couldn't "Let there be light." be the "Big Bang?".

Unless I'm much mistaken, light came in on the third day. The Big Bang happened first. So no.

Scientists believe that man evolved from amoeba that became monkeys and whatever, well, the Bible says God created man from the "dust of the Earth". Couldn't that be the same primordial ooze that scientists say we came from?

It's nice that you accept evolution (does he?), but might I suggest learning something about it? It's not that simple. Especially since "primordial ooze" is an outdated concept.

Scientists believe man is far older than 6,000 years. The Bible clearly states there were other people before Adam and Eve. Cain was afraid he would be killed if he was put out of the Garden, so God marked him to protect him, also, Cain found a wife and had offspring. Clearly, that means men were around before Adam and Eve. Couldn't the creation story be that of the Jews (which follows their entire lineage from Adam to Noah to Christ) and those outside the garden be the Gentiles?

For starters, there's no evidence of any Garden of Eden. For another, the "cradle of civilization" is in Africa, not the Middle East (where the Garden supposedly was located). And finally... it is possible, yes, but evidence does not suggest this.

I don't see how anyone can just say "There is no God." when you have not the tiniest clue as to whether or not is correct. You say: "Prove to me there is a God." I say "Prove to me there isn't.". You can't.

I'm wondering how a person who seemingly accepts evolution (I'm assuming) could have such a fundamentalist mindset.

An atheist does not say "there is no God". An atheist says "there is no evidence of God". In other words... you claim that there's a god. I'm merely saying, as an atheist, that I don't believe you.

The burden of proof is on you.

As for Christians, it just doesn't make sense to say man is only 6,000 years old and started with Adam and Eve when clearly the bible states that there were men outside of the Garden. I mean, they've found an 80,000 year old human skeleton.

Well obviously, but these Christians reject the dating techniques used to determine that this human skeleton was 80,000 years old merely because it disproves their oh-so-important belief that the world is only 6000 years old and was created especially for them.

I believe in God. But, I also believe that Science is just the art of man putting into terms he can understand, what God did to create what we see."

You asked, at the beginning, why there's no room for both God and science. Take a close look at what science has discovered about the origin of existence, and what it is quite close to discovering. Spend time really reading about this stuff from the experts. Do you really, honestly, see any room for a creative higher power? I certainly don't.

Perthy...
In my opinion, if people must be religious, this is the best type.

Almost... they still have a lot to learn. I don't mean because they're religious (I don't particularly care about that), but because their understanding of scientific concepts, like evolution, is outdated.
I don't have time for a full reply but here's a starter course.

Tell this person that they are certainly on the right track as far as interpreting these bible stories as allegory or metaphor but ask him why it needs to end there? Tell him that you do not claim there is no God, simply that you (and others like you) have not seen any need for God as an explanation for anything.

Ask them how they feel about [insert X biblical contradiction here], but don't point out the obvious answer yourself. Get them to do the thinking.

You also need to ask yourself whether you want to go all in for a deconversion. If this person is not suffering from any of the dangerous religious delusions and is otherwise a decent person, why fix what ain't broke?
I think this guy is probably doing enough thinking without anyone trying to 'deconvert' him. My feeling is that if someone is already on this track, any interruption saying "well, you don't really know that much. THIS is how it really is," might just scare him back onto the 'straight and narrow' and cause him to stop thinking, out of defense.

I could be wrong, but that's the impression I get.
Quite so. What I was trying to convey, unlike many of the other responses, would be to hold back on correcting the false assumptions and errors in his post.

The idea would be to subtly keep him thinking about this sort of thing, introduce the concepts of critical thinking and allow him to reach his own conclusions. Keep asking questions and have him find the answers.

If you go for the easy "intellectual fix" of pointing out the flaws in his reasoning it will, as you said, more than likely push him back into the ever-loving arms of religious dogma.
A good contradiction is that God promised his people he would not hold them accountable for the sins of their fathers, yet we're all being held accountable for the "sin" of Adam and Eve (if curiosity is actually a sin).

"The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him." Ezekial 18:20

"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me." Exodus 20:5

Like I said, we're ALL held responsible for "Original Sin", which is absurd. And this is just ONE contradiction, and it actually stumped my mother. Of course, she defaulted to the "I don't understand the mind of God" comeback and said she was not a Bible scholar. *sigh*
Good post Perthy. I think this guy is a future atheist. He's doing exactly what I did at the start of my search for truth. Trying to hold on to his religion and follow science too. Trying to find a way so both can be true.
I wonder. Is this post to you perthy? Did you talk to him? If so he sounds like he hasn't read much of the bible or is missing the good parts like beating your slave, 30 pieces of silver for a rape.
All in all I think if he keeps looking (and it sounds like he will because he like science) he'll reach the right conclusions.
Thanks for posting this.
Thanks Bryan. No, the post wasn't to me. It was a comment made on an article regarding an ancient galaxy. I thought it brought up some points that we as atheist don't often hear, such as there being people around before Adam and Eve.

While I agree he still has a LOT to learn, I think he's on the right track.
The problem is that religion is staunchly conservative. They don't like to back-pedal and take back what they've already claimed. But when you make your claims 2,3, or 5 thousand years ago, you can expect to have to take almost everything back.

Unlike religions, science makes no claims to certainty. Everything's open for discussion and revision. That's why science grows and religion stagnates. It's curiosity and evidence versus dogma and certainty. Everybody knows science works (although technology can be mismanaged). We trust it with our lives. But what about religion? It can be reasonably claimed that the Abrahamic religions have been THE most persistently divisive influence in the history of mankind.

Just turn on CNN and, within half an hour, you'll see why science, not religion, makes the world go 'round . . . and how religion is stomping on the brakes.
I know it's all in how you interpret it...but the big bang was not from "let there be light"...it happened in six days in the bible. the big bang would have taken longer.

dust of the earth...um, that's still not close to evolution. they came out of nowhere right after each other.

the bible does NOT clearly state that there were other people before Adam and Eve....it's all in how you interpret it, and if you twist it this way in order to fit in with science, it's not going to work.

let me ask this...if the bible is in terms that is apparently harder for us to understand, then how do you explain the "divine inspiration part". an all knowing God wouldn't have this problem.

Also, we don't all say there is no god, we say we don't think that there is a god. also, you cant prove a negative.
the burden of proof is on you, not us.
"I don't see how anyone can just say "There is no God." when you have not the tiniest clue as to whether or not is correct. You say: "Prove to me there is a God." I say "Prove to me there isn't.". You can't."

Like people said, the burden of proof is on you. Think about it : do we have to prove that the earth was not built by a giant bunny, that we don't live in a Matrix world and every extravagant possibilities that are not backed-up by at least one small fact ?
Religion and science are incompatible; however, it is not the task of science to prove or disprove the existence of god (any god). Science seeks answers to mankind's puzzles and mysteries and if any of these overlap with religious beliefs or contradict them, so be it...another nail in the coffin of mysticism.

The beliefs of this man are erroneous as many responses have already pointed out, but at least he's asking questions and seeking the truth. My answer to him is to read up on the history of how the bible was put together, who wrote it, when etc. A good reference I found easy to read was Karen Armstrong's "The Bible... the Biography" 2007.

RSS

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service