When did religion and science become mutually exclusive???

[Bouncy Ball]

My grandfather, who passed away two years ago, was born in 1921. He grew up going to church every Sunday, he was a Methodist like his parents, etc.

He also believed in science, anthropology and archeology being his two favorite areas. He read tons of books on both subjects, couldn't get enough of it. My grandmother, raised Southern Baptist, would ask him to tell her about every chapter he read when he was done with that chapter (she didn't want to read it, but she did want to hear about it) so he'd sit there and breathlessly relate what he had read about our primate-like ancestors, etc. His favorite was when they discovered the skull of "Lucy" that VERY VERY old prehistoric woman. He read everything he could find on that archeological find.

And yet, he was a religious man. He believed in God, he was Christian.

When I was in the 10th grade, we read "Inherit the Wind" about the Scopes Monkey Trial in the 1920s (evolution vs. creationism). I got to wondering how my grandparents reconciled the two, so I asked them.

My grandfather started talking about Genesis and he said every society makes up stories to explain the beginning of time and the beginning of human beings. He told me some Native American creation stories. So then I asked him why he believes in the stories of Jesus, etc. and if believing in the Bible conflicted with his belief in evolution. I wish I could remember everything he said, but like a typical teenager, I lost interest after the first few minutes, but I do remember being impressed by the way he had really thought through these issues. He said he strongly felt evolution should be taught in schools and he gave me a "homework assignment" (at which I rolled my eyes, like any good 15 year old would) to read Darwin's "The Origin of Species." Well I did read it, and we discussed it for many months.

I don't think my grandfather, as religious as he was, would be able to understand what is going on now with the religious right. I don't know how my grandfather voted, but I know the idea of science and religion being mutually exclusive would have had him scratching his head.

[Semi_subversive]

1. Your grandfather sounded like a very wise man

[Bouncy Ball]

5. He was and thank you!

We think it was his love of learning and his continuing to read and learn that kept his mind active and thus kept him healthier longer. I really think there's something to that.

[yardwork]

2. Wonderful post! Thank you!

This whole fuss about creationism vs. science is a made-up issue designed to get Christians mad at "lib'ruls."

It's similar to the false claim that we "lib'ruls" are trying to "ban Christmas."

It's all made up to get out the vote among people who are easily confused. Typical Republican trick.

[Bouncy Ball]

6. I'm a liberal

and I celebrate Christmas. They never can reconcile people like me, who don't fit their little generalizations.

[DrWeird]

3. Hmm, I'd say around the time of the Spanish Inquistion...

was the first time some insecure religious authorities started getting upset because science was contradicting and undermining their authority. Can't think of anything older than that, but of course there wasn't a whole lot of science going on before that either.

[Bouncy Ball]

4. I think you are right.

But I was thinking back to the fact that there were (and still ARE) people who consider themselves to be religious who do not feel threatened by science, indeed find it interesting.

These people nowdays, seriously, I think they are a bit short of attic insulation.

[DrWeird]

8. There have always been both sides.

Creationists even now are still a very small minority. They've only gotten themselves on school boards and confused the hell out of a lot of otherwise decent people.

[Arianrhod]

9. I'd say around the time of the burning of the Alexandrian Library

and the torture-murder of its curator, Hypatia.

[gottaB]

11. Inquisition of Galileo

http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/archive/warongal.htm

[zbdent]

28. Don't forget, though, that the Catholic Church ended its hissy-fit

and acknowledged Galileo as correct




in 1992.

[ChairOne]

30. not really... "conventional wisdom" attacks again...

http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Issues/GalileoAffair.html

http://www.iac.es/project/galileo/neo/esabstinvfantolirev.html

... for example...

Religion never gives up. It can't give up. God doesn't lose any more than he plays dice...

[ChairOne]

29. It was BEFORE Galileo folks!...

Read Kuhn's *The Copernican Revolution*.

Religion and *good* science have been mutually exclusive since Aquinas and others like him cast Aristotlian/Ptolemic rubbish as god's truth.

Copernicus was the first famous one to say "fuck that shit". It's been downhill for sci/rel ever since.

[Spider Jerusalem]

7. The problem is that fundamentalists aren't very bright.

They seem to have particular trouble with the idea that the Biblical account might be a metaphor. Their biggest problem is their literalism. Were religion not socially acceptable, they'd be labelled delusional and institutionalised.

[rkc3]

12. What's funny about fundies is that while their bible is to be

translated literally - they see metaphors in every thing around them. And even more so, the parts of the bible they don't care for are written off as metaphorical.

What ever suits their needs.

[Bouncy Ball]

13. I really think you are right.

My grandparents were never fundies, I don't think anyone in my family ever was or is. And they were both very very bright.

[Spider Jerusalem]

17. Perhaps it could be expressed less offensively...

as "incapacity for abstraction". Concrete vs symbolic thinking.

[Bouncy Ball]

18. But

if they aren't that bright, could they understand "an incapacity for abstraction?"

I agree with you, just wondering about that....

[Spider Jerusalem]

19. Probably not...

"big words...you're one a them READERS, aint'cha?" (Reminded of an old Bill Hicks bit, for some reason)

[Bouncy Ball]

20. I was thinking

"ELITE".....sigh......I'm gonna have to start apologizing for being able to understand big words someday soon, aren't I?

"SORRY I CAN UNDERSTAND THE TWO DOLLAR WORDS AND YOU CAN'T!!!"

Sad LOL.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

10. I don't get it either...

I went through 12 years of Catholic school and was taught pure evolution in science class -- with not even a hint of religion attached.

In religion class we did talk about evolution and how we could mesh it with the bible/Catholicism. We were told there was no problem with believing in evolution if you also believed that God created the big bang.

I think the problem comes in when you are the type of "christian" who belives the bible is to be taken literally -- as an absolute historical document -- as opposed to metaphorically.

If Genesis is called into question, what else in the bible can be? The existence of God himself???

Too much thinking freaks the RW "christians" out. They like the world black and white, with no room for pesky questions.

[Bouncy Ball]

15. Thank you

you sparked my memory of something he said that day...he acknowledged that his thinking of the Genesis creation story as metaphor would mean, logically, that everything else in the Bible would be called into question. He explained that he KNOWS there is a disconnect there but he did still believe there is a loving higher power. In other words, he takes the Bible with a grain of salt. I remember him saying that some words in the Bible had proven to be a great comfort to him during hard times. That was what it was to him. A comfort--not a call to harm others through hatred. Not a call to be exclusionary or self-righteous, but simply a personal comfort.

[immoderate]

14. There are those who cannot process.

Sophisticated thinkers, such as your grandfather, are able to distill the wisdom of creation myths, without needing to believe in the literal or historical meaning of them.

A large portion of people, and recently these folks have risen to some power, cannot process the ideas of allegory and archetype. Some study quoted on DU recently, stated that young children and a percentage of adults cannot process sarcasm, for instance. I found this to be true teaching in various parts of the country. It is, in part, cultural. Some geographical areas of the country did not get my jokes, and I had to modify my delivery.

I had some discussions with a then colleague, who was also a minister, about biblical interpretation. I asked him about phrases like "the windows of heaven" in the Bible which opened to release the "waters above" the "firmament" in the days of the flood. Where are the windows of heaven? He said that that is a figure of speech. And I asked, why isn't the rest of the Bible seen as an allegory? He said that according to the Doctrine of Something or Other (wish I could remember what) that the Bible is interpreted as a figure of speech only when no other explanation is possible. Otherwise it is literal truth. He now devotes his time to the field of apologetics, which is the pseudo-intellectual refutation of science in favor of Creationistic principles.

He doesn't claim the earth is 6000 years old. There is too much evidence for an old earth, he said. But if you can't nail the science, he believes in the literal interpretation of the Bible. I think that there have always been the ignorant, but they previously had no organized leadership and political voice. The Southern Strategy of enlisting fundamentalists and racists to achieve political power for the Republican majority gave them a voice.

Science and religion are not mutually exclusive to a sophisticated thinker, as they address different human needs. But now we are faced with a dangerous combination. The ignorant see the intelligentsia as an elite, out to rob them of their simple beliefs. And the Republicans, having no scruples, have co-opted their votes.

--IMM

[Bouncy Ball]

16. Your last paragraph was beautiful

and dead on.

"Science and religion are not mutually exclusive to a sophisticated thinker, as they address different human needs. But now we are faced with a dangerous combination. The ignorant see the intelligentsia as an elite, out to rob them of their simple beliefs. And the Republicans, having no scruples, have co-opted their votes."

I grew up believing in God (of my own accord, we weren't ever taken to church and my parents rarely mentioned religion) and I also grew up fascinated with science. Those two things did indeed address different needs.

I once made a high school friend (an early fundie) VERY mad when we were discussing evolution and creationism. I said "Now how do you know God didn't create Adam but he was a MONKEY? Then the monkeys evolved into us!" Oh my, I was half-kidding, but he turned about 12 shades of purple and red, backed up half a step, SPAT on the ground in front of me, turned around and walked away. That was the last I heard of him. Good for me, anyone who would be moved to spit upon hearing a tongue-in-cheek theory was better off away from me! LOL!

[immoderate]

23. The Bible contains much of the wisdom of humanity.

But it, and other so called sacred writings, lose their beauty if taken literally. I point to stories in the Bible to illustrate the human condition. But if you think of it as straight history, then it's about them, not us.

One of my favorite books, as a child, was a digest of Bible stories, which I read several times. This led to an interest, as an adolescent, in science fiction. BTW, I have never been a "believer." but I can appreciate what it is about.

--IMM

[Bouncy Ball]

24. How interesting.....one of my favorite books as a child

was a book of Bible stories. It had the most wonderful illustrations and my brother and I were absolutely enthralled by it. We memorized just about every story in that thick book and when one of us was sick or hurting, we'd tell it to the other from memory just to distract the sick/hurt/about to get shots one of us. LOL!

It was given to us by friends of the family who were Catholic and who kept inviting us to their church, but my parents continually declined until they stopped asking.

I wish I could still find that book, it was beautiful.

You are truly a voice of reason. Thanks for posting here, I have enjoyed it!

[immoderate]

27. Thanks for your kind remarks.

Not everyone at DU would say that about me.

But the original post was a beautiful sentiment, and deserved a thoughtful response.

--IMM

[OneBlueSky]

21. this is a topic that theologian Matthew Fox has written about . . .

rather extensively . . . from his book Original Blessing: A Primer in Creation Spirituality . . .

"The late E.F. Schumacher believed that there are two places to find wisdom: in nature and in religious traditions. To seek wisdom in nature we should obviously go to those who have loved nature enough to study it. Because science explores nature it can be a powerful source of wisdom. It often has been. For in just about every culture imaginable, religion and science were teammates who offered the people a cosmic myth that allowed them to understand their universe, to find meaning in it, and to live out their lives with meaning. In the West, however, religion and science have been at odds ever since the seventeenth century. This split has been disastrous for the people: religion has become privatized and science a violent employee of technology, with the result that the people have become alternately bored, violent, lonely, sad, and pessimistic. Above all, the people have become victims -- victims of world wars, massive military taxes, needless unemployment, dire conflict between haves and have-nots.

(snip)

"Clearly, there has been enough sin on both the religious and the scientific fronts in Western cultural history. We now seek a truce -- and more than a truce, a common exploration for wisdom among scientists and spiritual seekers alike: the wisdom that nature can teach us and the wisdom that religious traditions can teach us.

(snip)

"Specifically, what religion must let go of in the West is an exclusively fall/redemption model of spirituality -- a model that has dominated theology, Bible studies, seminary and novitiate training, hagiography, psychology for centuries. It is a dualistic model and a patriarchal one; it begins its theology with sin and original sin, and it generally ends with redemption. Fall/redemption spirituality does not teach believers about the New Creation or creativity, about justice-making and social transformation, or about Eros, play, pleasure, and the God of delight. It fails to teach love of the earth or care for the cosmos, and it is so frightened of passion that it fails to listen to the impassioned pleas of the anawim, the little ones, of human history. This same fear of passion prevents it from helping lovers to celebrate their experiences as spiritual and mystical. This tradition has not proven friendly to artists or prophets or Native American peoples or women.

(snip)

"To recover a spiritual tradition in which creation and the study of creation matters would be to inaugurate new possibilities between spirituality and science that would shape the paradigms for culture, its institutions, and its people. These paradigms would be powerful in their capacity to transform."

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1585420670/qid=1103133940/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/103-2032720-2243818

[Bouncy Ball]

25. Great quotes

I'm going to have to see if I can find that book in my library.....

[SOteric]

22. In my opinion, they still aren't.

I was educated almost entirely by Jesuits, and imbued with a deep love of both god and the sciences. And I'm not all that old and crusty.

The fact that it has become popular to issue a broad sweeping judgement of one or the other of these things does not make them objectively mutually exclusive. It's the subjective analysis that suffers a serious failing of the rational and excludes the one where the other is present.

[Bouncy Ball]

26. Oh right, I don't think they are mutually exclusive

but I was wondering where that attitude came from, as I knew quite spiritual family members who believed in science as well as their religious beliefs.