Science and Faith in bed together? Sorry, not a chance in Hades ….

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/sep/24/big-issue-no-mystery-science-and-religion-cannot-be-reconciled

*The Apostles’ Creed (which is still regularly recited in church on Sunday) appears to require the faithful to believe that Christ died and was physically resurrected, that in turn our bodies will be resurrected and that we will have eternal life (“the life everlasting”).

If we take these injunctions literally, I would expect that many, if not most, scientists would find difficulty in accepting them. If they are not to be taken literally (and why not?), then their acceptance by the majority of scientists would depend crucially on how they are to be interpreted. The same observation could be made about other religious concepts, including that of miracles. Unless the church can clarify just what is meant by these important elements of religious faith (are they literally true or, if not, what do they mean?) it would appear that the “war” is emphatically not fiction.

Nod to Victoria for the Heads Up, Bless her (sic)  🙂  for leaving this link in a comment. I thought it good enough for a post.
*My emphasis.
Dedicated to Mel Wild. (who probably thinks John, Tildeb, Scottie and I will be converting any moment now.
No Mystery: Return to Forever.

12 thoughts on “Science and Faith in bed together? Sorry, not a chance in Hades ….

  1. I love the appeals to “modern theology.” These attempts to fit the square peg of first century Christianity onto a round hole of reality lead to only one point: a point at which the religious agree with the science and thereby have very little left for the supernatural, which of course is stuffed in an impossible corner of “outside of space and time” where it cannot be found … ever.

    And as a side note the Apostle’s Creed also requires a great many things unspoken. If Jesus were not the actual “son” of god instead of being just an ordinary “son of god,” (aka a man) then his sacrifice would have been very ineffective, so toss that in, too (there’s a lot more).

    Liked by 4 people

  2. When this creed was debated over and developing c. 390 to 600’s, Rome’s then “official” religion was having to address a litany of serious contentions about WHO Yeshua was and was not, was he a failed Jewish Messiah or a more relateable Hellenistic Pauline Christology Gentiles favored and better understood in Roman traditions like Mithra? Unfortunately, at that time NO ONE had opposed Rome’s authority and won, most definitely the Jews and reforming Judeo-Christians.

    Ancient societies [in Syriac, Judea, Palestina] did not make modern distinctions between religion, politics, or economics. “Religion” was imbedded with politics and economics in the concrete social forms of family, local community, and authority structures. The Temple, for example, was both the religious center, a military fortress, and the economic heart of Jerusalem.</em"

    — Boston College online courses, Boston, Mass. Link provided at bottom

    Therefore, for the sake of loyalty to the death, to Rome, and to the Emperor, an oath, a CREED was required to either better insure obedience or be legally put to death, executed for high treason or apostacy. As a result, we had a progression of creeds which ends with today’s Apostle’s Creed from c. 650 CE Roman (Catholic) rule. Nothing more, nothing less.

    https://www.bc.edu/schools/stm/crossroads/resources/birthofjesus/intro/the_three_stagesofgospeldevelopment.html

    Liked by 4 people

    1. “Therefore, for the sake of loyalty to the death, to Rome, and to the Emperor, an oath, a CREED was required to either better insure obedience or be legally put to death, executed for high treason or apostacy.”
      Well, if it were put to me this way, I’d say I believed the bloody (word chosen on purpose) creed too. “Oh, you betcha, Mr. Constantine, Sir. I completely believe every word of this fine, fine creed you’ve given me to say. Now, if it’s not too much of a problem, could you please have my testicles removed from this vice and stop readying that wood pile to burn me alive in?”

      Liked by 2 people

          1. King Charlemagne was later involved in drawing a FINER-LINE to distinguish between loyalists, wavering or weak-willed members, and flat-out enemies within (spies?) like those tricky devils, ala InspiredByTheDivineness, that could blend in among the ranks. 😉

            Liked by 2 people

    2. So as I understand your comment, the creed was more of a legal document for the state to level punishment if you broke it, than it was a statement of personal faith? Hugs

      Liked by 1 person

    1. You are a constant source of inspirational material!
      I posted this on Pastor Mel’s blog. This was his response ….

      If we take these injunctions literally, I would expect that many, if not most, scientists would find difficulty in accepting them.

      Of course, these injunctions in the Apostles Creed would not be compatible with science because it’s making statements about miraculous events. Science does not have the ability to deal with the miraculous because science only deals with the normal way the natural world works according to natural laws. So, really, what they’re saying is irrelevant. But that’s not what I mean by compatibility (any more than why I love my wife is not compatible with the scientific method.)

      He included a video but i can be bothered to post that link.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s