why science remains in a toxic relationship with religion

[@jamesgamboa3788]

Really appreciate the videos! It’s so difficult being a Christian who chooses to constantly question. So often it’s extremely lonely and as a result I have doubted myself in my questioning. Your videos provide a much needed reassurance that my questions are valid and that I’m not the only one thinking about these things.

[@danielduvana]

You’re not alone! Many of us are doubting and questioning, but many in the church do not speak openly about for different reasons.

[@vincentmothapa2421]

Wouldn't you be better served working through your questions with your local pastor instead of non-christians on youtube?

[@danielduvana]

@@vincentmothapa2421 I think the issue is that often a doubting christian only seeks answers within the church, from pastors etc. But they are of course usually only going to try to give answers that confirm their beliefs. It’s healthy to seek alternative voices like ex christians, critical biblical scholarship, historians, philosophers and so on. If it’s actually true then it will withstand scrutiny and if God is good he won’t punish someone who against their own will is convinced that Christianity isn’t true.

[@vincentmothapa2421]

@@danielduvana Hi Daniel. Thanks for your response. I hear the point you're making. This is a Christian who is questioning Christianity, I would assume he/she would work through those questions with fellow Christians and then decide that this doesn't make sense to them, then leave Christianity and seek answers and direction elsewhere. But this is just my assumption, I might be wrong. I noted your assumption about God's goodness at the end of your message. I propose you read what the Christian book says about people who are not Christians and how God views them and will deal with them

[@danielduvana]

@@vincentmothapa2421 I was a christian for 15 years. I’ve read the Bible from start to end multiple times

[@evelynhenao5727]

Thanks for putting this gem out there. As a Christian, sometimes it’s hard to find true content creators that are questioning the faith with honesty and not just displaying hate against the church. I know you mentioned at the beginning that this was not well thought on, but I would suggest you can give more practical examples of how theology has picked up parts of science and dismiss others on their behalf, this will give more color to your argument. I love watching your videos, it really does instruct me. Have a lovely week!

[@flightsfeelings]

helpful feedback. will try to keep in mind. thank you!

[@wesleyhargon]

This was well said, I am new to this take, but I agree. You're giving me words to make sense of my disdain for apologetics.😅 It may be helpful to view all of life as theology. Drinking hot tea on a cold morning can tell me just as much about God as lab work. Radical inclusivity, down to the adjective before theology, makes sense to me. Everything in life evolves, including our theology! To reject this is to reject the fundamental nature of reality. God's fundamental nature and reality do not change; our perspective changes. Lastly, the Bible cannot be seen as a scientific artifact. The writers (or even the Spirit) are not bound by the Scientific Method! The Bible is for meaning, not measurements, etc. Thank you for these thoughts, Joe! You're right; everything is up for grabs! We are limited humans who only live to be 80 years old on average.😅 We're bound to get something or many things wrong. Perhaps this is what true faith is, living with the grey and question marks. Letting go of unhelpful ideas and trusting God to handle our heretical and orthodox ideas. We all have heresy and orthodox within us! This may be why we all need science and religion. Furthermore, the unconditional grace of God!

[@diestarkechristina]

Hey Joe! As someone estranged from the faith through realization of (my own) suffering, I’m wondering whether or not you have a video planned for this perspective. - Either way, the concept of something outside of the faith not being able to influence our faith has definitely been one (if not the main) thing keeping me in my faith for a decade. I quite literally needed something to cling onto as I was surviving trauma and the aftermath of damage done to me as a being. Realizing the damage and becoming sick and not experiencing any healing even through prayers and fasting has made my heart tired and honestly kind of hopeless. I love coming here and hearing your thoughts. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: You help me feel my own emotions and you validate complex human realities. I appreciate that.

[@sandraamadi5806]

I really enjoyed this video! I think of myself as a Christian in the most liberated definition of the term (in which, if I explained to most people my views on Christianity they would probably say I am not a Christian at all), and most often, I just think of myself as a spirtual human being. I enjoy Christian culture and music, but I hold them loosely yet engage with them sincerely. I feel like I am exactly at the place you described as allowing my personally held theology (aka understanding of God) to not only to evolve via science but also by learning about other religious practices and beliefs outside of Christianity. And by living in they Grey, I feel more Christ-like than I ever did when my faith was limited to the commonly held Christian theology. Thanks again for this video!

[@DrNee]

I think your musing assumes "truly being hand in hand" requires equivalency (at least in operability)... that is false in my opinion. I submit that both science and theology are subject to (and thus commanded by) faith. Always appreciated you honesty and openness bro!

[@curiousfox5074]

That uv had great influence on me would be understatement as some nights ago I literally sat next to u will u created and amazing music and when I woke I tried recalling the melodies but no I couldn’t- learnt a lot from u mehn

[@ashleyallen8094]

Seems like Christians seem to forget 1 Cor 13:9 where Paul says we know in part, we see in part. I believe that God is always creating and always revealing. Christians read “he rested” as he stopped. My unpopular belief is that God made way more ppl than Adam and Eve as evidenced by Cain being marked so no one would kill him. Too many people have a problem with simply saying “idk” as if that some how discredits what they do know

[@danielduvana]

The way I see it: science is our best method for finding truth. Religion is a very poor way to find truth. Religious ideas should adapt to scientific discoveries, like it usually have done in the history of humanity. Religious beliefs can never refute science, but science can refute some religious beliefs (such as believing the earth is less than 10,000 years old).

[@mrharrietthugman]

Hi!!!!!! I disagree. I believe Religion can determine beliefs and values, but not empirical truths. Science shouldn't concern itself with metaphysical subjects, but hold to proving things in the natural world (that we can see). Religion is irrefutable by science, because science as said, deals with empirical proofs, meaning religion is not some scientific theory science can disprove. I hope this was understandable and helpful :)

[@danielduvana]

@@mrharrietthugman I think you may misunderstand me. I actually agree with you. Religion is often two things: truth claims and values/morals/culture. Science is only relevant for the first part: truth claims. Science can (and often have) disproved the truth claims of religion (like saying the earth is only 6,000 years old for example). But science itself doesn’t have anything to say on values/morals/culture. So yeah, I actually agree with you. But the thing is, science is much better at finding empirical truths than religion, so religion should adapt to science where it’s relevant. For example change your interpretation of Genesis 1 to be understood in a way that is compatible with a 4,5 billion years old earth.

[@mrharrietthugman]

@@danielduvana oh yeah then I agree with u lol. Some Christians don’t believe Gen. 1 as a literal translation/scientific record. The earth is over 13 billion years old, and the Bible doesn’t assert its self as a science textbook but rather as a way of living and knowing God-Yahweh. Christians should be excited about scientific discovery!

[@danielduvana]

@@mrharrietthugman cool 😊

[@jeremymhead]

Halfway through this so apologies if you say exactly what I'm about to say. lol Just wanted to pause and say that I like that you pointed out the distinction between the relationships -- Science and Religion vs Science and God. Then you also mentioned, something to the effect of how what we believe about God is not God in and of them/it/etc. self. I think that piece is where a lot of Christians falter. *FORMER WORSHIP LEADER AND POSTER-BOY CHRISTIAN HERE lol👋* We hear "The word (most times in reference to the Bible) never changes; therefore, it is the most reliable source of truth." This reference to WHAT is believed about God, or the book that "guides" you to what you believe about God, tends to become the wall that anything progressive (i.e. Science) gets slammed against. And it becomes easier to pick up the pieces of Science that would only add to the points of the faith, but reject those that would challenge it. Or it gets overly complicated and categorized as a "gray area," like all the other "hard topics" that come up when discussing faith -- and standing only at the door of challenging faith, rather than actually pursuing it. On the flip-side, things get even more complicated because people then say, well God never changes either. And it's like, sure, but what if Science is pointing to a truer "God" than what you believe? People don't like that tension though. I get it. I too tried to hold a position similar to Doe, but I simply can't anymore. It doesn't make sense to me any longer. Hope all that made some kind of sense. lol Anyway, back to the video. Thanks for sharing, Joe! 💛

[@Jkila25]

To think we have arrived to fully understand God and the universe would be exempt of faith. Our faith inherently understands we do not understand or know everything. There should be constant growth and understanding. We talk about the word is it is LIVING. So our understanding can grow and change. Because we are never going to fully understand and infinite eternal God. But I believe we also have e some close handed truths that do not change.

[@flightsfeelings]

“but i also believe we have some close handed truths we do not change”. exactly my point lol science eventually has to bow to theology, not necessarily god itself.

[@trillj0sh]

Yessirr, luv the vids

[@chariivy]

How I see it, God never changes, He has always been the same and will be forever, which also means He never stops working for Himself and His creation, matter of fact He never stops existing, hence the reason as to why the Universe is expanding infinitely. Life never stops breathing. God is not the Universe, He created the Universe. So, the universe is expanding infinitely, sure, but the "layer" underneath it is God, which has always been present, if it wasn't, there wouldn't be God, nor the Universe or anything literally, 0 would be real. Since it's been created, time exists in the universe but it ain't such thing for God, He is timeless. In the end of the day, whatever we say or come up to doesn't take away anything from God, He remains the same, while our theories may keep changing and evolving. Nothing wrong with that. God intended it be this way according His own way and reasons regardless. both science and religion are connected and needed

[@tmo2213]

Say have you ever considered collaborating with Brady Goodwin (fka Phanatik as I am sure you already know)?

[@itsMeTrell]

I agree that science and theology both fall under God. I don’t know if I fully agree that theology should be (for lack of better phrasing) ready to change based scientific discovery or theorizing. I believe that would nullify some core beliefs of the church, namely the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, etc. I believe God is the author of logic and science (like you said, it all falls under him) and he can work through or outside of it as he pleases (ie. aforementioned occurrences, or the Trinity). When he works outside of science, we call those extraordinary miracles. I concede that sometimes theology can be reformed due to observable scientific evidence, like the earth revolving around the sun. But these, in my opinion, are secondary issues. Not core theology. And, though I’m a young earth believer, @InspiringPhilosphy helps clear up that gray area of Adam and Eve in an old earth. But even he would say that he doesn’t argue if any of the many evolutionary theories are true, but that Process Structuralism, in particular, and Christianity aren’t mutually exclusive. It’s pretty fascinating. You should check him out. He even talked about it with Ruslan!

[@flightsfeelings]

but even a measurement for deciding what is “core” theology (whatever that is) is in itself a type of theology (almost a type of “pre-theology” idk) and cannot be confused as god itself. again my point being that because religion at large has decided that there are some things that are not up for grabs, aka “core beliefs”, this is where science or philosophy will always be the hand maiden of theology. and christian’s are left with pretty much only two options (that i could probably bet $10 the guy you’re suggesting is doing at least one of). it’s either 1. completely dismiss massive parts of scientific theories, such as the way ken ham and the like throw macro evolution out altogether, and the amount of patchwork they're left with is akin to efforts of flat-earthers. and/or 2. accept a scientific theory on the surface, and then give a wildly unscientific and unfalsifiable explanation for its appearance. i.e. “ah yes the earth has the appearance of being billions of years old, but god (for whatever theological reason idk) just created it with an apparent age that doesn’t match the age it actually is. god made trees in the garden that have 100 rings the first day they were created, appearing to be a hundred years old but really on one day old.” rather than expanding their theology to let mystery breathe, they have to fill in the gaps. the only person i’ve seen so far NOT try to do this is gerald schroeder in The Science of God, probably because he’s an actual jewish astrophysicist and not firstly an apologist or christian philosopher.

[@itsMeTrell]

@@flightsfeelingsfrom your comment, I understand more what you mean by science being theology’s handmaiden. That’s a perspective I’d have to mull over. But no, Michael actually thinks that humans originating from a single organism isn’t outside of Christian belief, and, in fact, that Adam and Eve were’t the first humans - only that they were elected as federal head of the generations to come. All of creation - trees, humans, animals, cosmos, etc - took billions of years to form. He makes a compelling argument (imo). Like I said, compelling stuff.

[@flightsfeelings]

@@itsMeTrell wow. that's rare. that's interesting

[@efrainbrown1]

The minute we have concept that defines God he will no longer will be God. The study of God is a never satisfying or fulfilling road if you are trying to fully understand God. He is govern by nothing he has no beginning or end science doesn’t prove God but God will always disprove science. A created concept can’t explained an uncreated God.

[@flightsfeelings]

i don’t get it. i mean, here you are, a created concept explaining the nature of an uncreated God maybe my point was misunderstood. i’m not* trying to say god (if a god exists) could ever be fully understood in finite terms. that’s pretty obvious. but that would be all the more reason that whatever finite knowledge of him should be able to expand, much like the knowledge of a virtually infinite universe has room to evolve. making the “well god is infinite” claim doesn’t get around the issue.

[@efrainbrown1]

God is not evolving we are evolving in our idea of him understanding of him. The universe in itself is a created thing making it impossible to be God. So God is the creator of the universe. The minute we try to understand God on God level it is tiresome.

[@efrainbrown1]

I love this conversation because everyone has had this questions at some point.

[@flightsfeelings]

“god is not evolving. we are evolving in our understanding of him.” yes that’s what i propose in the video. but in practice, it’s not necessarily so for the christian who holds theology as the master of science. i don’t propose that we could understand god (if god exists) in an infinite way. in the same way, we could never fully understand the universe. physicists have quite a good grasp on how gravity works but they could never tell you why the laws of gravity ARE the laws of gravity. that knowledge may always be infinitely beyond us. and i’m okay with that. but knowing this doesn’t prohibit us from evolving our knowledge of how the laws of gravity work, even if it means completely revising previous prevailing notions of it. however, the theologian or the religious are not often in the position to do the same when it comes to their explanation of the Infinite.

[@efrainbrown1]

@@flightsfeelings well they aren’t able to do that because it requires humility to say you don’t know or that your concept of God was wrong. Denial of your concept of God is not denying God. We can create connections that aren’t necessarily related. Example a dog barks at 8pm the moon shows every time he barks. Now fallacy of false cause would be me saying when my dog barks the moon comes out. Now though that truth in my limited knowledge it is not one bit depending on each other. I think there are a lot of connections made with the academically inclined about God that are unrelated but happen to be true. So our understanding of the why , how and who of God evolved we come closer to understand past truth vs facts.

[@Anthonys.Perspective]

Interesting man. Is the hypothetical Christian apologist or theologian from your comment, in a space where they are endeavoring to be more evangelistic or persuasive about their claim to the faith when they are making the "disingenuous" links between science and religion? If that is the case, then that's one of the major plausible reasons that you'll see what you're critiquing. Truthfully, I'm not sure how one would make a claim or share a personal discovery without highlighting the supporting material for their conclusion. If the issue is with people of faith who highlight points that support their conclusions and don't highlight points that work against that conclusion, then that may be something across the board to truly think about. It's a trait deeply rooted in at least the Socratic western thinking/reasoning/debating space. "No space for new understanding" is OD though lol. Theological thought has driven forward change and also received influence to change from a lot of "toxic" old world understandings throughout the centuries. So, there is noticeable growth and change in the Theological space throughout time. And let's think about it. Asking to say, a believer in the Christ to allow their theology to be the handmaiden to science is not practical or functional when considering keeping things "genuine". You kind of hinted at it but, the entire premise of being a person of faith (specifically one of the 3 major Abrahamic faiths) connotes that your life's priority is placed in seeking answers through the gaze of the faith above all. It's faith before natural manifestation. I like that you challenge the relationship of faith and science, yet there are a lot of implications that you seem to desire that are not germane or appropriate to a person of faith. I believe in thinking and reasoning, but the difference is that I choose to believe God's word (what I believe to be the Bible) first and above all. I believe the "hand in hand" idea stems from the that type of mindset, as opposed to allowing faith to be at all times equal to a pragmatic science. I do understand that for non-believers it makes no sense at all because the priorities are different.

[@flightsfeelings]

really appreciate this thoughtful response and pushback. i think id type too many paragraphs trying to respond in text. i want to do a better job of making my points clear and illustrated in the future. i think you may have some misunderstandings of what im trying to say, but its not at the fault of you. i get on here and start rambling and i think i take for granted what the listener already knows about me or assumes about the subject at hand.

[@Anthonys.Perspective]

@@flightsfeelings For sure man. And too, when I process, I break things down to a super basic level for my own comprehension. Hopefully my response wasn't way off in space in contrast to what you were getting at.

[@iamdanielmonroe]

What you described in your first paragraph is referred to as Confirmation Bias. Everyone has it to some degree and Christians are just as prone to it. It’s something that we’d all do well to be aware of at worst and at best eliminate from the way we think. If I’m not mistaken, the issue I believe Joe has with Christians willing to utilize the findings of the scientific method that agree with their worldview while wholly dismissing findings that disagree with it is the fact that it’s logically inconsistent. It’s faulty reasoning.