Where or in what era did the Jesus gospel and science cross paths that science is now the wiser of the two?

Question

Oh I don't want to take away from science, for it has achieved much, and may solve many more of the worlds problems, and questions.

But even scientist have and do believe in God. My question is that science has evolved in many areas of study. But,it has not answered the spiritual man, or the essence of man's proper.

But yet people want to do away with that which man has only become aware of. In the sense it is unknowing by letters.

Answer 1

Pope John Paul, II in his letter "Fides et Ratio" (Faith and Reason) wrote that:

"...truth attained by philosophy and the truth of Revelation are neither identical nor mutually exclusive: “There exists a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards their source, but also as regards their object. With regard to the source, because we know in one by natural reason, in the other by divine faith. With regard to the object, because besides those things which natural reason can attain, there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, cannot be known”. Based upon God's testimony and enjoying the supernatural assistance of grace, faith is of an order other than philosophical knowledge which depends upon sense perception and experience and which advances by the light of the intellect alone. Philosophy and the sciences function within the order of natural reason; while faith, enlightened and guided by the Spirit, recognizes in the message of salvation the “fullness of grace and truth” (cf. Jn 1:14) which God has willed to reveal in history and definitively through his Son, Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Jn 5:9; Jn 5:31-32)." (paragraph 9).

Since all human knowledge comes from God as His gift to us, there can be no opposition between what is divinely revealed and what is discovered by the scientific community. Each has its own proper place. For example questions regarding "existence" and the "meaning or purpose" of life itself is a subject for theology, whcih alone concerns itself with the problem of existence as such. The natural sciences can inform theology, but cannot be said to take presidence over what has been divinely revealed.  

Answer 2

No one has actually answered your question, they have just reworded agreement with you.  I would say in began in the Enlightenment.  That is where they began crossing.  I would also disagree with having not answered the "spiritual man," question, but that is a long issue that has all kinds of implications too long to put into a Yahoo Answers post.

As to man being the only spiritually aware group, that isn't true.  You could look at species as either pre-theological, theological or post-theological beings.  Lions are pre-theological.  Modern humans (homo sapiens sapiens), Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) and probably, though there are no artifacts but it would make sense, our extinct cousins (homo sapiens idaltu) were theological.  Certainly Neanderthals and Modern Humans have left a variety of artifacts that show theological reasoning.  It is my guess that Idaltu did have them, since it would be weird for them not to, unless it arose first in Neanderthals and then separately arose in Sapiens Sapiens.  But it is clear we are not the only theological species in history.  Yet, we are becoming post-theological, but not losing many of the advantages that "spirituality" has, rather it is being de-mythologized and is simply now an element of healthy human psychology.  Now that the principal religions can be explained without reference to a god, the side effects can be explained and even used constructively.  The good lessons can be taken and the bad ones dropped.

Of course a true believer would of necessity reject this view as it is very threatening.  Non-believers in any religion not only get by without it, it appears they are thriving by being able to keep the good without the bad.  Consider in the United States, the divorce rate of non-believers is 20% lower than the Catholic divorce rate and 34% lower than the Protestant divorce rate.  Consider that while non-believers make up 15% of the US population, about 1 in 6, they constitute only 1/500th of the prison population.  Both of these are still strongly statistically significant even accounting for income and education differences.  Further, research on prayer, even that sponsored by religious groups, shows that prayer has a neutral or negative effect on outcomes in patients and no demonstrable effect anywhere else.

Science, of course, isn't interested in undermining religion.  It is only interested in the truth.  However, the truth often contradicts statements of believers.  I was in Church not too long ago when I caught a mistake in a statement Jesus had made.  It was very subtle and any undergraduate could have made it.  Had Jesus been an undergraduate, it would have been a great lesson and discussion point.  Because he is a god, the correct lesson cannot be learned.  Sorry I do not remember the gospel passage.  I have tossed my liturgical calendar prior to September, but it was a Sunday reading, sometime since early Spring, in the Greek rite of the Catholic Church's cycle of readings.  I do attend church regularly with my family, I just have stopped believing once I really started noticing empirical mistakes and then began to think about how much I had always glossed over.

You are right, it is in a sense an unknowing by letters.  It is a good unknowing though and I would recommend it to any believer, even though it is very painful and harms some relationships with believers.  Jesus was pretty good, in some ways, the apostles were better.  Still, Jesus is not optimal, some of his ideas do not make the world a better place and there are better ideas out there.  It isn't a bad default belief system, if you are careful not to take the ideas to seriously.  Of course, neither is Buddhism, the Jains, Shinto or Islam.  They are all pretty good, especially inside their assumptions.  Indeed, each one is clearly a complete world view inside the assumptions.  That does not make any of them correct or optimal.

Science isn't trying to do away with religion, but the skeptics are.  Once you realize that religion is useful, as it is better than nothing, but less than optimal, you try and spread better systems of thinking, but in doing so unwind existing religions.

Answer 3

Science is just our way of trying to make sense of the way God has decided that the world will work.  We make a guess and then observe.  If our guess is shown to be wrong we make another guess.  After a large number of observations we have more confidence in our guess.  But we have to remember that no matter how many observations we make, our guess is still a guess.

God's revelation of truth, however, is no guess.  God's revelation of truth is certain knowledge.

There is no way that anything man could devise could ever be wiser than, or even approach the wisdom of, God.

Answer 4

My dear friend, science gets scared when the issue of god comes. Science is knowlegde but who can give knowledge other than Jesus? the scriptures says Jesus is knowledge and wisdom which more than the expensive gold or silver. Science did not die and rise from death, but Jesus did. Science cannot give life to death, and cannot even cure the deadliest HIV-AIDS but Jesus did and he can do many more if people repent and ask for his help.

Did we receive salvation through science? no Jesus gave free of cost, and we have give money for science if we need its help.

Science could not explain whats outside the earth, but Jesus did. Without the creator where is the creation? Be logic, ask yourself, without Jesus would I be, what will happen to me, will science help me even after i die, can science give me peace, happiness and take away my sadness and sins?

But Jesus the Christ can.