Reconciling Science and Religion, Take II (with more detail)

Reconciling Science and Religion, Take II (with more detail)


5999661_origB: Heh!  Get a load of this “inspirational quote.”  I guess I can see why someone might think that about the Bible…makes it look pretty silly, don’t it?

A (giving a fake smile): Yeah, heh…

B: It’s misleading, of course.  It’s not as if all the works of science appear to contradict the Bible.  None actually do, at all, I don’t think, though there are a few that are controversial because they don’t seem to be consistent with the Bible.  Furthermore, it’s not like people believe the Bible simply because some “cattle-sacrificing primitives” did; those people who do believe it generally do because what it teaches at least generally rings true with the way they feel life should be.  Nobody has to believe another person to know truth; each person has the right and the ability to find out themselves.  Besides, this business about “ringing true with the way they feel life should be” – basically, that’s how the religions of “Political Correctness” and “Science is the End-all Authority on Truth” came about in the first place.

Still…darn good fun, though!

A: Well, uh…don’t you think the whole notion of God and His creation of the Universe sounds like…well…a fairy tale?  I mean, He just shows up out of nowhere…says “Let there be light” or whatever…and a few days later everything’s just magically in place?  And that’s just the beginning.  The Bible then starts talking about stuff like a big ol’ flood, a tower to get to heaven and everybody changes languages…I mean, all kinds of weird stuff.

B: How’s this for a fairy tale?  “Once upon a time, there was this enormous mass – I mean, bigger than anything you can imagine – all condensed together in a small space.  When all of a sudden, it magically exploded into a million pieces!  And then, on one of the pieces, some tiny single-cell creatures magically came to life!  And though it was roughly on the odds of a monkey randomly typing out the entire works of Shakespeare, those creatures’ descendants eventually became human beings, and that’s how we all got here today.  The end.”

A: Cute.

B: I might add that the story keeps changing every so often.  The original storytellers – they call them “scientists” – and their interpreters keep finding out new stuff, which leaves a bit of a hole in the plot, and it turns out they have to tweak their story.

A: Oh, and I suppose the tellers of the other story don’t?

B: Well, no, actually.  Occasionally people find out more to the story, but there’s nothing about the original story that changes.

I’m guessing, based on your language, facial expressions, and generally bad attitude, that you’re still just a mite uneasy about the seeming disconnect between science and religion?  I already told you how to reconcile the two.

A: Yeah, but…biblical stories such as that of Noah’s Ark have been disproven.

B: How so?

A: They aren’t scientifically feasible.

B: Why, of all Bible stories, would you choose the one about Noah’s Ark to be your poster child for those that have been disproven by science?  There are myriad others that appear to defy nature: fire rained on Sodom and Gomorrah, the parting of the Red Sea, three blokes emerging unsinged from a furnace so hot it killed those who threw them inside, walking on water, changing water to wine, feeding and filling five and four thousand with a few loaves of bread and fishes…and I’m just getting started.

I’m not sure how one would provide a scientifically-acceptable explanation for any of the examples I just gave, or even the story of Noah’s Ark, but when one doesn’t allow for the possibility of supernatural intervention, then of course the Bible is reduced to a silly farce, with one hoax after another filling its pages.  It’s already long since been well known that the Bible and science aren’t the best of buds.

To be continued

Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *