Comments on: Science ≠ Atheism

By: Harry

Harry — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:20:46 +0000

I’m afraid I disagree. The creation of sun, moon and stars after the creation of plants is the worst error, but the creation of birds before land animals is also strikingly wrong. To describe it as ‘remarkably close to the scientific view’ seems like special pleading. And there’s more to Genesis than Book 1: there’s still the problem of Adam and Eve, the flood and so on.

Most modern Christians have abandoned a literal reading of Genesis and so that particular conflict is avoided. And that’s fine; you can treat it as symbolism or metaphor or folk myth or whatever.

But I don’t think you can have it both ways: Genesis is not an accurate or even approximately accurate account of the origins of the universe, Earth or living things.

By: mike

mike — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 09:25:46 +0000

I want to challenge the “Science v Genesis” assumption. If you remove the bits about “evening and the morning” then the actual sequence is remarkably close to the scientific view.
In fact if you imagine trying to explain the present-day scientific view to members of a desert tribe of (say) 3000 yeas ago, and that they then wrote down what they thought you had said, the result might be very much like Genesis.
Maybe reliigion and science are not that incompatible after all ?

By: Harry

Harry — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 11:22:35 +0000

That’s OK, old posts never die, they just drift off the front page :)

Science and faith however are directly in conflict, as they always have been.

Yes, I agree with that. As I say, I do think that science and atheism are complementary; there’s a natural sympathy between them. But they aren’t the same, I think, and it seems like an important distinction to make.

By: Brian

Brian — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 02:39:01 +0000

Wow. I just realized how long ago you wrote this. Hopefully it provides some insight on something you haven’t looked at in a while? Hopefully.

By: Brian

Brian — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 02:38:06 +0000

This peace caused me think. And what I think is simply that science is a method of thinking. Religion is not really a method. It is more of an entity. Faith on the other hand, I can see as the method with which religion, not very much like science, comes to conclusions about the cosmos. So in that sense, I agree that religion and science are not in conflict. Science and faith however are directly in conflict, as they always have been. Thank you for causing me to think.

By: Harry

Harry — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 20:33:00 +0000

Glad you all liked it :)

By: Scavella

Scavella — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 06:57:30 +0000

What they said.

I really like this post, and the one you linked to. And I agree; the big arguments about the existence of God are philosophical, rather than scientific. I don’t see much conflict between the two myself.

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:04:29 +0000

Not only sensible, but sensitive to the diversity within religious points-of-view — something I’d like to see more often in these kinds of arguments. I got very frustrated this past weekend with a friend who’s now an atheist, and who assumes that the majority of Christians subscribe to the kind of fundamentalism that he once professed.

By: Sherry Chandler

Sherry Chandler — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:15:01 +0000

A very sensible post, Harry. Thanks.