Quantum Entanglement? Pete Enns’s “ The Bible For Normal People” podcast episode 134

The is is probably one of the nearest episodes I’ve heard so far. Now I have no idea what’s fact or not since it goes beyond anything I’ve ever read. But about 20 minutes before the end up then episode to the end they get into what is called Quantum Entanglement and is pretty neat. The episode will explain it far better than I can even give the gist of. It’s about how two particles that have interacted and was separated can affect each other even at great distances potentially. They begin to speculate about how that can play a role in things like prayer and even thoughts. Which I begin to think was possibly “ehhh” but again I have no idea. Never even heard of this particular stuff before now.

1 Like

Ilia:
"Let’s go back to the models of relationship that you pointed to. In the 1960’s, Ian Barbour in his book Religion in an Age of Science devised four models to understand the relationship between science and religion. The first model he said, is the conflict model, which is the one that you’re pointing to in the beginning. Antagonism, that science and religion have nothing to do with one another, in fact, they conflict on certain levels. The next model, he said, is called the independence model, or non-overlapping magisteria. Science is science and religion is religion. They are separate domains with different languages, different ways of thinking about things, so don’t confuse them. Allow them just to be themselves and stop trying to make a problem here. The third model is the dialogic model, that science has something to say to religion and religion may have something to say to science, but they are still independent disciplines and should just have like, a friendly conversation sometimes. The fourth model is the integration model, meaning that, just to put it in the shorthand, science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind, and only together can we really understand the world in its unified existence. And so, that’s the model that I opt for.

3 Likes

Uh oh. Quoting Ian Barbour is a heresy-level offense, per AIG.

And Terry is now a spokesperson for Biologos.

1 Like

Hey, can I get in on that too, with post 23 in this thread?
Genesis Apologetics: Noah’s Flood Evidence

Only if you’ve read or admire someone who’s read Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s The Divine Milieu.

1 Like

You should start calling yourself a “major contributor.”

1 Like

I do qualify as a “regular”. I’m not so certain about “major contributor”. If we emend that to “major contributor of information about paleontology on the forum”, then that is more valid.

I think we might have a copy. We have something of his.

That’ll work. You’re in.

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.