Can you be scientific and spiritual?

[jollyroger]

Interesting.

https://bigthink.com/13-8/spiritual-atheism?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1

 

[jollyroger]

And as a supplement to the article.

https://www.giffordlectures.org/overview/natural-theology

"A more modern view of natural theology suggests that reason does not so much seek to supply a proof for the existence of God as to provide a coherent form drawn from the insights of religion to pull together the best of human knowledge from all areas of human activity. In this understanding natural theology attempts to relate science, history, morality and the arts in an integrating vision of the place of humanity in the universe. This vision, an integrating activity of reason, is religious to the extent it refers to an encompassing reality that is transcendent in power and value. Natural theology is thus not a prelude to faith but a general worldview within which faith can have an intelligible place."

 

[WaltL1]

Before I read the article my answer to the subject line -
Can you be scientific and spiritual?
was absolutely, based on the fact that "spiritual" doesnt equal "religious". The article seems to confirm that.
I also think you can be religious and scientific. Just requires more discipline to not let your religious beliefs over ride the science.

 

[Spotlite]

I’ve always said yes. For me, science doesn’t rule out religion.

 

[hummerpoo]

Interesting.

https://bigthink.com/13-8/spiritual-atheism?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1

Translation: Man-centered thinking is compatible with man-centered thinking.

And as a supplement to the article.

https://www.giffordlectures.org/overview/natural-theology

"A more modern view of natural theology suggests that reason does not so much seek to supply a proof for the existence of God as to provide a coherent form drawn from the insights of religion to pull together the best of human knowledge from all areas of human activity. In this understanding natural theology attempts to relate science, history, morality and the arts in an integrating vision of the place of humanity in the universe. This vision, an integrating activity of reason, is religious to the extent it refers to an encompassing reality that is transcendent in power and value. Natural theology is thus not a prelude to faith but a general worldview within which faith can have an intelligible place."

A somewhat more sophisticated presentation of the same thing.

 

[WaltL1]

Translation: Man-centered thinking is compatible with man-centered thinking.



A somewhat more sophisticated presentation of the same thing.

If man is doing the thinking, can it be anything else?

 

[jollyroger]

Translation: Man-centered thinking is compatible with man-centered thinking.



A somewhat more sophisticated presentation of the same thing.

And when we find Truth, or when we fall from grace, are we not just coming around full circle, ad infinitum forevermore?

Are we not just going up and down and around as everything in nature does, from the physical to the metaphysical, from the tides to the rise and fall of empires, the birth and death of a star?

Do we not require man-centered thinking to acheive Christ-centered thinking?

Without one the other does not exist?

How could it?

I do not view them as exclusive, but rather a neccesary part of the other, one doesn't exist without the other; it is a great unbroken circle.

This cycle (circle) is in everything, it is the very fabric of nature (God).

 

[hummerpoo]

If man is doing the thinking, can it be anything else?

I suppose that depends upon whether there is an "else".
And that takes us right back to the "same old thing".

 

[hummerpoo]

Do we not require man-centered thinking to acheive Christ-centered thinking?

"For I do not seek to understand that I may believe. but I believe in order to understand. For this also I believe,—that unless I believed, I should not understand."
(Anselm, Proslogium, Ch. 1, last sentence; a restatement from Augustine)

This cycle (circle) is in everything, it is the very fabric of nature (God).

Skepticism or Pantheism? Maybe both?

 

[jollyroger]

"For I do not seek to understand that I may believe. but I believe in order to understand. For this also I believe,—that unless I believed, I should not understand."
(Anselm, Proslogium, Ch. 1, last sentence; a restatement from Augustine)



Skepticism or Pantheism? Maybe both?

"For I do not seek to understand that I may believe. but I believe in order to understand. For this also I believe,—that unless I believed, I should not understand."

I like this a lot.

Not sure about the second part, are you asking me if I'm a skeptic or a pantheist?

I don't consider myself much of anything really.

I'm sometimes a skeptic, I use Christianity as my spiritual vehicle and a means to explain nature but I think that's only because that is what is most familiar to me.

I suppose if I were born in the far East I might use the Hindu or Buddhist vehicle, I tend to see most all of the ancient teachings as teying to acheive the same thing but with different "skins" so to speak.

I hope I understood you correctly

 

[hummerpoo]

"For I do not seek to understand that I may believe. but I believe in order to understand. For this also I believe,—that unless I believed, I should not understand."

I like this a lot.

Not sure about the second part, are you asking me if I'm a skeptic or a pantheist?

I don't consider myself much of anything really.

I'm sometimes a skeptic, I use Christianity as my spiritual vehicle and a means to explain nature but I think that's only because that is what is most familiar to me.

I suppose if I were born in the far East I might use the Hindu or Buddhist vehicle, I tend to see most all of the ancient teachings as teying to acheive the same thing but with different "skins" so to speak.

I hope I understood you correctly

Thanks. I was really just trying to figure out what I was seeing: Skepticism — we can never know; or Pantheism — All that exists is god. Your appear to be a curious guy, don't let go of that.

 

[Israel]

How finite is finite?

Infinitely so?

 

[Spotlite]

Saw a couple interesting comments concerning the film Is Genesis History. These probably describe my thoughts the most and the reason I believe you can be both scientific and spiritual.

1. The Bible is not a science textbook. Who would have understood that God took 2,678,453 molecules of carbon & reacted them with 5,789,453 molecules of hydrogen & chemically combined them with 4,512,984 molecules of oxygen using 6,415,915 hertz frequency of ultraviolet light. The Bible is not a how book. It’s a book designed to tell us who was responsible for all of it.


2. Before writing my comment I will say I have not seen this film. That being said, in this post is framed as biblical creation VS evolution. I know some christians oppose evolution but I am not one of them. I 100% believe God created all things, but also that evolution is a possible process by which His living creations have been shaped and formed. God as a creator of nature and evolution as a natural process within His creation do not appear to be contradictory or incompatible. Just something I thought I’d throw out there.

 

[bullethead]

Saw a couple interesting comments concerning the film Is Genesis History. These probably describe my thoughts the most and the reason I believe you can be both scientific and spiritual.

1. The Bible is not a science textbook. Who would have understood that God took 2,678,453 molecules of carbon & reacted them with 5,789,453 molecules of hydrogen & chemically combined them with 4,512,984 molecules of oxygen using 6,415,915 hertz frequency of ultraviolet light. The Bible is not a how book. It’s a book designed to tell us who was responsible for all of it.


2. Before writing my comment I will say I have not seen this film. That being said, in this post is framed as biblical creation VS evolution. I know some christians oppose evolution but I am not one of them. I 100% believe God created all things, but also that evolution is a possible process by which His living creations have been shaped and formed. God as a creator of nature and evolution as a natural process within His creation do not appear to be contradictory or incompatible. Just something I thought I’d throw out there.

Think about who figured out those numbers and then think about what is written in the bible that is just plain inaccurate and flat out wrong.
One source seems more god like

 

[SemperFiDawg]

Can you be scientific and spiritual?

Are they mutually exclusive? I guess that's the question. I'm not sure which way to go with this. So if I'm a Nobel prize winning scientist and I come to believe in God, am I suddenly stupid? Conversely, if I believe in God, can I not hold the belief that 2+2=4? You really need to think these questions out more thoroughly. Religion is only a belief, in most cases, in the "super" natural. It's doesn't deny the natural. Atheism is a denial(in most cases) in the "super" natural. Atheism is more exclusive than Theism in that sense.

 

[jollyroger]

Are they mutually exclusive? I guess that's the question. I'm not sure which way to go with this. So if I'm a Nobel prize winning scientist and I come to believe in God, am I suddenly stupid? Conversely, if I believe in God, can I not hold the belief that 2+2=4? You really need to think these questions out more thoroughly. Religion is only a belief, in most cases, in the "super" natural. It's doesn't deny the natural. Atheism is a denial(in most cases) in the "super" natural. Atheism is more exclusive than Theism in that sense.

Can you be scientific and spiritual is a different question than can you be scientific and religious.

One can certainly be all of these things.

I personally find that the pursuit of knowledge can be a spiritual endeavor, and vice versa.

Many fall into the trap of treating science as a religion for sure.

Many fall into the trap of treating religion as the end all be all in the pursuit of truth as well.

I agree they are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Spotlite]

Think about who figured out those numbers and then think about what is written in the bible that is just plain inaccurate and flat out wrong.
One source seems more god like

My thoughts aren’t necessarily the accuracy of the numbers - The key portions are “The Bible is not a science textbook, not a how book. It’s a book designed to tell us who was responsible for all of it”

And primarily “I 100% believe God created all things, but also that evolution is a possible process by which His living creations have been shaped and formed”

I don’t really have that much heart burn with science and evolution, it’s the origin of life and it’s based on my spiritual belief as described in red above.

 

[jollyroger]

Saw a couple interesting comments concerning the film Is Genesis History. These probably describe my thoughts the most and the reason I believe you can be both scientific and spiritual.

1. The Bible is not a science textbook. Who would have understood that God took 2,678,453 molecules of carbon & reacted them with 5,789,453 molecules of hydrogen & chemically combined them with 4,512,984 molecules of oxygen using 6,415,915 hertz frequency of ultraviolet light. The Bible is not a how book. It’s a book designed to tell us who was responsible for all of it.


2. Before writing my comment I will say I have not seen this film. That being said, in this post is framed as biblical creation VS evolution. I know some christians oppose evolution but I am not one of them. I 100% believe God created all things, but also that evolution is a possible process by which His living creations have been shaped and formed. God as a creator of nature and evolution as a natural process within His creation do not appear to be contradictory or incompatible. Just something I thought I’d throw out there.

Evolution, or more specifically Darwinian Evolution is riddled with holes. Darwin had great answers to important questions of his time, but he has not been able to explain the why.

Also he kinda started somewhere in the middle and went forward, he (and still nobody to date) can explain the genesis and subsequent evolution of life at the fundamental level.

We appear to have reached the fundamental building blocks of life via biochemistry, the very amino acids that create proteins that create larger mechanisms all the way up to complete complex organisms like us.

Darwin did not account for this, because he knew nothing of this.

Why is it that these fundamental building blocks themselves do not evolve and what makes them behave the way they do, connect and link in such a manner to make complex chains that make animals?

Science is still unable to explain this.

 

[Spotlite]

Are they mutually exclusive? I guess that's the question. I'm not sure which way to go with this. So if I'm a Nobel prize winning scientist and I come to believe in God, am I suddenly stupid? Conversely, if I believe in God, can I not hold the belief that 2+2=4? You really need to think these questions out more thoroughly. Religion is only a belief, in most cases, in the "super" natural. It's doesn't deny the natural. Atheism is a denial(in most cases) in the "super" natural. Atheism is more exclusive than Theism in that sense.

No.

 

[bullethead]

My thoughts aren’t necessarily the accuracy of the numbers - The key portions are “The Bible is not a science textbook, not a how book. It’s a book designed to tell us who was responsible for all of it”

And primarily “I 100% believe God created all things, but also that evolution is a possible process by which His living creations have been shaped and formed”

I don’t really have that much heart burn with science and evolution, it’s the origin of life and it’s based on my spiritual belief as described in red above.

I would think the bible should be 100% accurate regarding the information contained within it's text.
I agree it is not a science book, but it does contain some science and much of the science in it is incorrect. Even though it tells who is responsible there are examples of those methods used by the responsible party which are inaccurate.
There is an extremely wide gap of accuracy between the inspired words of a god and actual words of a god. In much of life people who are inspired by others to do things, say things, write things happens without any actual involvement with who ever or what ever inspired the people to do it.

In the case of the bible , to me the flow feels more like the people were inspired by their beliefs to write their own versions of what they think happened as a way to honor their god rather than any actual god's involvement directing them what to say, how it was to be said and making sure it was to the infallible quality as a god would naturally produce.