My boyfriend and I were watching a National Geographic Channel show about how the the biblical plagues of Egypt may have been causally related. For example, the "waters into blood" of the first plague might have been a "red tide" algae poisoning event, followed by the plague of frogs jumping out of the water and dying, flies coming to the piles of dead frogs, etc. It also mentioned different natural mechanisms whereby the Red Sea might have been crossed. My boyfriend likes to argue, so he asserted that the object of the show was to "prove" that these biblical events had been caused by Nature, rather than by God. I argued that there was nothing in the show that could prove a case either way. I could say that if the Red Sea had been parted by a strong wind across a raised ridge of seabed, the Israelites still had to have been there at *exactly* the right time to have crossed safely.

It led me to wonder how much of the "Faith vs. Science" argument is really meaningless. Does showing how something might have happened (or did happen) take anything away from faith?

I've actually seen the same show that you saw. I thought it was a sensationalist piece although if it fosters discussion then I suppose that's a good thing. I agree with your feelings that the faith versus science argument is meaningless. I would also go on to say that it is also irrelevant in that arguing whether biblical events ever occurred, and whether they were caused by a "God" or "Nature" does not mean a person is spiritual or not, or whether they believe in a Judea/Christian God. Arguing those points is only arguing whether one takes the bible literally or not.

There are many people who believe in a Christian God but don't necessarily take biblical events at face value, especially when one considers the countless revisions and translations that have gone into the text. Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman brings up a lot of interesting points on this matter in his book "Misquoting Jesus" and he spent his career studying at some of the most prestigious religious institutions in the country.

The argument presented on the show is not one of faith versus science. It is True Belief versus faith. Also the "scientific" pretense behind explaining these biblical events is not scientific at all, and is quite frankly insulting for any person who has a true love and appreciation for the scientific method. The pseudo scientific explanations on the show are on par with the "science" that demonstrated that Negroes were inferior to Europeans and that men were smarter than women because they had larger brains.

I find it sad that the argument has been reduced to an "either or" scenario. Either you have faith, or you have science. This polarizes people into two camps and never gives them the option to think that in reality faith and science are not mutually exclusive. In fact they are only two manifestations of the same human desire, which is to gain an understanding of the world we inhabit. Historically both science and religion grew out of the same cultural bed, although they go about tackling the big questions differently.

Showing how something happened shouldn't have to compromise ones faith. At least I don't think so, I don't know what you think. In my experience, the more I understand something the more appreciation and respect I have for it. I feel that this increases my capacity for "faith". Now where I invest that faith for me just like for everyone else is a very personal matter, however I would consider it a disservice to myself and those around me if I were to discredit their faith in comparison to my own.

Thanks for the post, I found it very refreshing.

There is no conflict, since I am both a scientist, and a minster. Religion deals with the spiritual world, which is seperate from the material. Science deals with the physical world and physical properties of things. They have as much in common as accounting does to philosophy.

The actual mechanics of how things happened in the bible are not described, and in fact, many are most likely allegory to illustrate a point. People who insist on arguing these details are missing out on 75+% of the wonderful meanings and truth contained in the pages of the Bible. To insist on a literal meaning for everything in the Bible is to reduce it to nothing more than a collection of Bed-Time stories. These people are losing the forest while arguing over what kind of trees used to be there!

A 'Red Tide" could've been the blood to water miracle, and yes, the other plagues would fit right in with that. And it was probably not the Red Sea that the Hebrews parted and crossed, but the nearby Reed Sea, which frequently dries up to a very shallow depth even to this day, and fills right back up again with the first good rain. It was most lilkey an error in translation, since ancient Hebrew artifacts have been found near the Reed Sea, and none near the Red. Or maybe it was something entirely different. The details are not that important. The message is that God leads people who listen!

You can study and live by God's principles and have a happy, peaceful life, or you can waste it arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The choice is yours.

I would like to add my voice to the two previous (and very good) posts. Why must science and faith be mutually exclusive? Take evolution for example. There is ample scientific proof of the validity of evolution and natural law. But why would evolution have to exclude God? I think evolution includes God. I can see his hand shaping the creatures of this earth, slowly over time. I can also envision God using this same process throughout creation. The physical laws that govern this existance are there for a reason, to bring order to chaos. A fitting definition of God if I ever heard one.

...

I am a minister, I believe implicitly in Jesus as my saviour and the ONLY way to get to God...........I ALSO, go fishing, shooting, study dead bugs under my microscope, I KNOW that dinosaurs really DID exist and that the fabled "HUMAN FOOTPRINT" seen beside a dinosuars footprint is false, evolution is real, wwe can see it all around us, it also doesnt exist coz God made everything . My main hobby since 1968 has been Astronomy, we can now "see" back in time to about 500 million years before the accepted "Big Bang" happened.............God made the universe or even the "multiverse" and then maybe left it to us and possibly other species of intelligent life to get on with it. In answer to ALL of this debate and every other one I have been involved I say this.

One day man called up God and said. "HEY GOD???? We can now make man in our own image as well!"
God, who was wondering how man got to call him said. "So what!"
Man replied "HEY GOD!!!! WE can make man FASTER than you ever could!!!".

And man, in his infinate wisdom challanged God to a race to see who could make man fastest.

As the starting pistol went of man reached down and lifted a handful of soil........God yelled at him.... "NO WAY!!!!!!! GET YOUR OWN SOIL!!!!!!"

There is a time and a place yet to be named to most of us when ALL will be revealed. Until that time we are just playing at things and hoping we get it right.....................Faith I think its called.......

John

My 2 cents, not that anyone asked or cares, is that Faith accepts WHAT was done and Science attempts to explain HOW it was done.

Both working together in harmony and balance!

Seven,
no matter how much modern, Western science "proves" (remember, their proof is nothing but a different method of explaining the world, it's an approximation, nothing less, but also nothing more), the one thing it can't prove is how the world was created, and how exactly things happen that can't be explained by "natural laws" (telepathy, long distance healing, etc).

Science tries to explain the effects. Faith/spirituality tries to explain what causes them. They're both valid, and they both go hand in hand, like pieces of a puzzle.