Science Within The Church Setting (Part 1)
A Topics Of Spiritual Irrelevance Is Resulting In Unnecessary Hostility Against Science
This topic is
referenced constantly in sermons. One can make the safe assumption it's
the same at various other congregations nationwide. Despite it's brief
appearance, the point is made. Why though? Where we descended from
biologically eons ago is irrelevant to our spiritual walk with God.
Despite of whether chooses secular/theological evolution or the literal
interpretation, evolution isn't a threat to God's word, so why should it
be treated as one? Why is this idea was treated as the boogeyman for
many spiritual leaders to tread on.
Some could argue that it's inclusion at all can seem inappropriate for a topic that's spiritually irrelevant. This topic is a wasteland from a spiritual perspective and serves as a distraction to topics of much more importance, like spiritual outreach.
Some could argue that it's inclusion at all can seem inappropriate for a topic that's spiritually irrelevant. This topic is a wasteland from a spiritual perspective and serves as a distraction to topics of much more importance, like spiritual outreach.
The Topic of Evolution Within The Church Setting
If one wants to
hears that the Earth was a recent creation, go to a church that promotes
this idea. Otherwise, don't try to force science or civic institutions
to conform to your personal views
There isn't any
reason why the topic of evolution needs to be brought up, other than
when a spiritual leader wanting to establish there personal opinion. As
annoying as that it, this is acceptable as long as there is s disclaimer
declaring that this view is personal opinion and not church doctrine.
Otherwise, there is a massive danger that there passing off there own
personal views as Biblical teaching. Unfortunately, this only seldom
happens, as it's common practice for those in prominent positions to
pass off there views as validated facts.
Both faith and fact are essential for living. However, they are two different things. Facts are bits of information that can be validated. Faith is the belief in something based on something that can't be proven. If faith can be proven, it ceases to be faith. It becomes fact. However, many religious leaders often confuse the two and treat them as one and the same.
Religion and Science are not the same thing either. Religion is a belief system, whereas science is a method of inquiry. As a result, when preachers confuse science as a belief system, it's a demonstration that they have very little understanding of the topic, and as such, provide unintelligent commentary to the subject. Unintelligent and unnecessary commentary that is quickly embraced by many to justify hostility on science.
Whether one embraces a literal interpretation or chooses secular or theological evolution is up to that person. Because this topic is a pointless from a spiritual perspective, a person's Christian belief won't be compromised regardless of what choice one makes, despite what some pious and self-righteous individual might declare. For Theological Evolutionist, evolution and the Big Bang could be seen as part of God's plan without contradicting His word or compromising your beliefs.
Personally, I never understood why many religious leaders felt so threatened by the Big Bang. For those who embrace theological evolution, like yours's truly, one can see the Big Bang as a part of God's plan, and not have the feeling that my beliefs have been compromised. For many, science confirmed many of the awesome creations of God.
It's very rude, and inappropriate during a sermon to ask someone, especially a younger person if "they" (in quotes and in a in a condescending tone), teach if we come from monkeys in school". One wonders what the alternate question would be: "Hey, do they teach that the Earth is only 6,000 years old in a public education setting!?"
Offensive as again, there's no compromised beliefs if one chooses to follow one idea or the other. Besides, what's taught in the secular setting is of civic concerns, and what's taught in the religious setting is of spiritual concerns. Paraphrasing Lisa Simpson, one doesn't go to a church to hear a scientist speak. Does one go to a science class to hear a preacher speak? Religion and science have different paths. Spirituality provides the faith for one to follow there deep personal beliefs, whereas science provides the understanding of the earth and the universe. They operate on different rules. If one wants to hears that the Earth was a recent creation, go to a church that promotes this idea. Otherwise, don't try to force science or civic institutions to conform to your personal ideas. When one scraps universal ideas for a idea to cater to a narrow, specific view of Christianity, that is a invitation to a theocracy.
One looking for spiritual guidance is going to gravitate towards spirituality, whereas one who wants a better understanding of the world and universe will gravitate towards science. Some interested in spiritual guidance won't find science that interest. There is nothing wrong with that.
With many though, they assume the mindset that if they don't find it interesting, than it's a pointless topic for everybody else as well, based on there personal preference. It's important to see science as a complement the God's works instead of a hostile opponent.
Both faith and fact are essential for living. However, they are two different things. Facts are bits of information that can be validated. Faith is the belief in something based on something that can't be proven. If faith can be proven, it ceases to be faith. It becomes fact. However, many religious leaders often confuse the two and treat them as one and the same.
Religion and Science are not the same thing either. Religion is a belief system, whereas science is a method of inquiry. As a result, when preachers confuse science as a belief system, it's a demonstration that they have very little understanding of the topic, and as such, provide unintelligent commentary to the subject. Unintelligent and unnecessary commentary that is quickly embraced by many to justify hostility on science.
Whether one embraces a literal interpretation or chooses secular or theological evolution is up to that person. Because this topic is a pointless from a spiritual perspective, a person's Christian belief won't be compromised regardless of what choice one makes, despite what some pious and self-righteous individual might declare. For Theological Evolutionist, evolution and the Big Bang could be seen as part of God's plan without contradicting His word or compromising your beliefs.
Personally, I never understood why many religious leaders felt so threatened by the Big Bang. For those who embrace theological evolution, like yours's truly, one can see the Big Bang as a part of God's plan, and not have the feeling that my beliefs have been compromised. For many, science confirmed many of the awesome creations of God.
It's very rude, and inappropriate during a sermon to ask someone, especially a younger person if "they" (in quotes and in a in a condescending tone), teach if we come from monkeys in school". One wonders what the alternate question would be: "Hey, do they teach that the Earth is only 6,000 years old in a public education setting!?"
Offensive as again, there's no compromised beliefs if one chooses to follow one idea or the other. Besides, what's taught in the secular setting is of civic concerns, and what's taught in the religious setting is of spiritual concerns. Paraphrasing Lisa Simpson, one doesn't go to a church to hear a scientist speak. Does one go to a science class to hear a preacher speak? Religion and science have different paths. Spirituality provides the faith for one to follow there deep personal beliefs, whereas science provides the understanding of the earth and the universe. They operate on different rules. If one wants to hears that the Earth was a recent creation, go to a church that promotes this idea. Otherwise, don't try to force science or civic institutions to conform to your personal ideas. When one scraps universal ideas for a idea to cater to a narrow, specific view of Christianity, that is a invitation to a theocracy.
One looking for spiritual guidance is going to gravitate towards spirituality, whereas one who wants a better understanding of the world and universe will gravitate towards science. Some interested in spiritual guidance won't find science that interest. There is nothing wrong with that.
With many though, they assume the mindset that if they don't find it interesting, than it's a pointless topic for everybody else as well, based on there personal preference. It's important to see science as a complement the God's works instead of a hostile opponent.
Literal Genesis Resurrected
From the 1930's up
to the 1980's, there wasn't really this division of science and religion
that one sees now. The general consensus that the creation account
presented in Genesis wasn't meant to be taken literally. Geological
advances confirmed this as well. Many saw science as a complement of
Christianity.
During this time, the literal interpretation of the creation story was looked down upon. Theological evolutionist present God as this grand scientist that not only creates creatures, but can mold and manipulate them over time, which presents God as being much more creative with his creations. God could even be compared to a artist under this interpretation. Literalist present God as essentially a side-show magician pulling the rabbit out of the hat. Things just magically appeared out of nowhere and are now there. This idea is not very creative and lacks imagination and research.
All was not well. The rise of Neo-Conservatives cultivated a hostile environment for those that love conflict to embrace. Combined this with people not exercising there critical thinking skills, a idea that should have been left in the past came back in full force. Even more so now as believing in absurd conspiracy theories have become the norm. The word of the experts was rejected.
With the inability of many to do critical thinking, the literal interpretation of creation made a massive comeback. Not only that, Literal Genesis has propelled the flat-Earth idea to the forefront. A idea that had been universally rejected since the Renaissance. Lack of critical thinking among the masses resulted in conspiracy theories gained widespread acceptance.
Several Evangelist never were fond with science, and the new social climate and lack of critical thinking has provided them with a golden opportunity to wage war against it. Many of these Evangelist saw science as a competitor, to Christianity. In there eyes, Christianity didn't need to be complemented. Within many of these Christian circles, science, like secularism, was out to destroy there beliefs. Those promoting evolution were Satanist and if you embraced evolution, then you were weak in your faith and sold out to the world.
During this time, the literal interpretation of the creation story was looked down upon. Theological evolutionist present God as this grand scientist that not only creates creatures, but can mold and manipulate them over time, which presents God as being much more creative with his creations. God could even be compared to a artist under this interpretation. Literalist present God as essentially a side-show magician pulling the rabbit out of the hat. Things just magically appeared out of nowhere and are now there. This idea is not very creative and lacks imagination and research.
All was not well. The rise of Neo-Conservatives cultivated a hostile environment for those that love conflict to embrace. Combined this with people not exercising there critical thinking skills, a idea that should have been left in the past came back in full force. Even more so now as believing in absurd conspiracy theories have become the norm. The word of the experts was rejected.
With the inability of many to do critical thinking, the literal interpretation of creation made a massive comeback. Not only that, Literal Genesis has propelled the flat-Earth idea to the forefront. A idea that had been universally rejected since the Renaissance. Lack of critical thinking among the masses resulted in conspiracy theories gained widespread acceptance.
Several Evangelist never were fond with science, and the new social climate and lack of critical thinking has provided them with a golden opportunity to wage war against it. Many of these Evangelist saw science as a competitor, to Christianity. In there eyes, Christianity didn't need to be complemented. Within many of these Christian circles, science, like secularism, was out to destroy there beliefs. Those promoting evolution were Satanist and if you embraced evolution, then you were weak in your faith and sold out to the world.
Hostility Erupts And Persecution Reduced To A "Card"
Many spiritual
leaders are very critical of science. These spiritual leaders see
science as a adversary to there Christian Faith. Recent scientific
claims will be quickly dismiss without understanding. Those hostile to
it are quick to point out it shortcomings, pointing out that science is
wrong when opportunity presents. Science isn't wrong, just incomplete,
as one doesn't have all the answers. Science is the pursuit of
knowledge, whereas Religion is about providing a spiritual framework, as
referenced earlier.
Unfortunately, this view widely rejected in the current environment where the us-vs.-them mentality is en vogue. As mentioned earlier, there are multiple interpretations of the creation story/evolution. Young Earth Creationist are free to embrace the idea that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. On one hand, there isn't any issue if they want to believe this at all. A few problems are posed by this though.
First, they believe that there interpretation should be the only one. They declare that if you believe in evolution and your Christian, you compromised your beliefs (despite what was mentioned earlier). Also, this interpretation doesn't have scientific backing either. That alone isn't a issue in itself if one want to be told that in religious school. If one want to be told that the Earth is only 6,000 years old then embrace it.
Unfortunately, those that embrace this idea want to force public education to conform to there views. To stop any opposition to there ideas, they take a heavy and serious topic, persecution, and reduce it to a card for them to play. To stop there opposition and maintain social control over there congregation, they will label any critiquing or criticism of there ideas as a assault on there faith. Persecution is declared as a result.
Many of the Young Earth Creationist will elevate these criticisms as a form of persecution. They will make the references to Daniel in the den of lions. They will claim that they can't practice there ideas, despite the fact that in this country, there is nothing stopping anyone from practicing there ideas. As mentioned earlier though, they don't want to settle with practicing there ideas among the like-minded. They want those ideas indoctrinated in as many as possible. Many believe that there ideas are beyond criticism, and those criticisms equal to persecution equal to what ISIS inflicted upon various groups in Syria and Northern Iraq. By playing up the struggle, it presents them as martyrs for there cause, which makes there struggle much more dramatic than it actually is. Dramatic in that there never was a actual real threat or chance of great suffering from the ideas that they embraced, other than public criticisms, which isn't persecution.
The word persecution has been reduced to a term to denote any vague critique or criticism. Several have taken advantage of the situation by pushing very stupid and absurd ideas and declaring persecution when there views are challenged.
Editors Note: When the term "persecution" is applied in this manner, a very important and serious word is reduced to a sensationalist, click-bait term with little meaning. Persecution is a real topic that shouldn't be reduced to a "card" for others to play when wanting to maintain order or silence opposition. It's a word that isn't suppose to be weaponized for someone's benefit. Labeling criticism of ideas as persecution does a huge disservice to those in certain parts of the world that have actually have suffered horrible physical and verbal assaults and abuses because of there religious preference, mocking them and there pain in the process.
Unfortunately, this view widely rejected in the current environment where the us-vs.-them mentality is en vogue. As mentioned earlier, there are multiple interpretations of the creation story/evolution. Young Earth Creationist are free to embrace the idea that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. On one hand, there isn't any issue if they want to believe this at all. A few problems are posed by this though.
First, they believe that there interpretation should be the only one. They declare that if you believe in evolution and your Christian, you compromised your beliefs (despite what was mentioned earlier). Also, this interpretation doesn't have scientific backing either. That alone isn't a issue in itself if one want to be told that in religious school. If one want to be told that the Earth is only 6,000 years old then embrace it.
Unfortunately, those that embrace this idea want to force public education to conform to there views. To stop any opposition to there ideas, they take a heavy and serious topic, persecution, and reduce it to a card for them to play. To stop there opposition and maintain social control over there congregation, they will label any critiquing or criticism of there ideas as a assault on there faith. Persecution is declared as a result.
Many of the Young Earth Creationist will elevate these criticisms as a form of persecution. They will make the references to Daniel in the den of lions. They will claim that they can't practice there ideas, despite the fact that in this country, there is nothing stopping anyone from practicing there ideas. As mentioned earlier though, they don't want to settle with practicing there ideas among the like-minded. They want those ideas indoctrinated in as many as possible. Many believe that there ideas are beyond criticism, and those criticisms equal to persecution equal to what ISIS inflicted upon various groups in Syria and Northern Iraq. By playing up the struggle, it presents them as martyrs for there cause, which makes there struggle much more dramatic than it actually is. Dramatic in that there never was a actual real threat or chance of great suffering from the ideas that they embraced, other than public criticisms, which isn't persecution.
The word persecution has been reduced to a term to denote any vague critique or criticism. Several have taken advantage of the situation by pushing very stupid and absurd ideas and declaring persecution when there views are challenged.
Editors Note: When the term "persecution" is applied in this manner, a very important and serious word is reduced to a sensationalist, click-bait term with little meaning. Persecution is a real topic that shouldn't be reduced to a "card" for others to play when wanting to maintain order or silence opposition. It's a word that isn't suppose to be weaponized for someone's benefit. Labeling criticism of ideas as persecution does a huge disservice to those in certain parts of the world that have actually have suffered horrible physical and verbal assaults and abuses because of there religious preference, mocking them and there pain in the process.
Young Earth creationism
Wikipedia
WWW.WIKIPEDIA.COM
Old Earth creationism
Wikipedia
WWW.WIKIPEDIA.COM
Looking for Life on a Flat Earth
By Alan Burdick
WWW.NEWYORKER.COM
Comments
Post a Comment