(October 4, 2011 at 10:29 am)Rhythm Wrote: When religious beliefs are codified by a text and almost entirely devoted to the subject of the interaction of the divine with the material, they have most certainly stepped into the realm of the explainable. No magic required.
Okay, so you're looking for material records of this interaction. With the exception of a few events there really isn't much to measure. Usually the narrative is more about the communication between God and humanity, and conversations don't leave any traces, except for written text (i.e. Bible). Nevertheless the Bible and whatever few archeological pieces you can find are a starting point for investigation, that's certainly fair. The problem is that you're dealing with something that is going to continue to be hard to measure. You can measure whether or not an author or scribe made a typo, but you can't measure whether there was a supernatural force present in human history. It might seem that way to you, but that's your interpretation and not a scientific conclusion. Science may be able to evaluate certain claims of religion, but it really is limited to that. There is no God-O-meter and no way to quantify things outside of the objective.
(October 4, 2011 at 10:29 am)Rhythm Wrote: The only people, for example, who want to believe that archaeology and geology cannot make a comment on a global flood are those that have a vested interest in the narrative.
Oh, that's totally fair, I wouldn't argue against that. Of course there are those who argue that archeology and geology show precisely that there was a global flood, but you won't find me trying to argue that one. As far as I'm concerned this is a case where science is useful for evaluating how exactly things played out. However things happened is how they happened, I see no need to argue otherwise.
So science might be troubling for those who believe in young earth creationism or a literal flood, but not all Christians believe that. I myself am interested to see what science shows about the universe, because however the universe is, is how it was created. I of course deny science the authority to make any value judgements or comment on religious beliefs, but that is primarily because those roles are not what science is for.
(October 4, 2011 at 10:29 am)Rhythm Wrote: It is at this point exactly that any principles or comprehension of scientific understanding fails for these people. Would that stop an engineer from being able to do his work? No. Would it be an irreconcilable notion for a geologist? Yes.
I can totally see this one. I would be a little worried too if my professor of geology was teaching that the earth was literally 6,000 years old. But like you said, this only applies to certain fields. It wouldn't really affect and engineer either way to be a YEC. When it comes to fields directly related to evolution I find that most Christians working in them believe in evolution. Keep in mind that among Christian leaders about half of them recognize evolution as being solid science (Pew Forum). This number is actually higher than the general population.
(October 4, 2011 at 10:29 am)Rhythm Wrote: Strip religion of the demonstrably false and what do you have left? Just as the op is an if-by-whiskey argument, so is the position that science and religion are compatible. One must bend the principles of the other to breaking to make them remotely concordant. The trouble is that one of these things is not like the other. One can be demonstrated.
Science is good at evaluating certain claims, but if someone doesn't believe in young earth creationism, a literal flood, or total Biblical inerrancy, like the majority of Christians in the upcoming generation, than what exactly is incompatible? Why can't someone accept all scientific findings as they are but also believe there is something beyond science? Determining that we live in an atheistic universe is an interpretation of data, not something scientifically binding.
