Christianity and science

[nobspeople]

Christians don't seem to have any problems believing in the science that created the computer they're typing on. Or phone they use. TV they watch. Yet some don't believe science that thwarts their understanding of, or causes issues with, their religion (evolution, abortion issues, homosexuality, etc).

It seems science is OK so long as it doesn't interfere with their beliefs that come from a book written by long, dead men, edited by other men (all of which were imperfect) about a perfect (many say) being.

For discussion:
Is this distrust of science stemming from the distrust of science itself, lack of faith in science and the flawed men that support said science (ironically they have no issues with the imperfect men that wrote and edited the bible but that's something for another topic), lack of faith in their holy book, or something else entirely (please submit YO on what the 'something else' is)?

[brunumb]

I think we had all the technological advancement we needed in the 1st Century. In fact, that may have been the highpoint, and everything has been downhill from there.

Curious, just what kind of technological advancement existed in the first century?

I for one am glad that we have moved on from dung-fired ovens.

[brunumb]

We marveled at the Covid vax only to find we might have just as well been injecting saline. Or prescribing a glass of milk once a day.

Really! From The World Health Organization, WHO:


source

We also have statistics showing that even when vaccinated people get infected with covid-19 they are less likely to develop severe symptoms or die from it. The reluctance to get vaccinated really boggles my mind. In the last 12 months I have had 5 vaccinations (yearly flu, shingles, pneumonia and 2 covid shots, with the 3rd coming in a week) and I have had no negative side effects or any bad experience. Sadly, I am not getting better 5G reception though lol. Funny how people can put so much faith in an anonymously written ancient book about an invisible magical being, but not in the efforts and hard won knowledge and advances gained by their fellow human beings.

[nobspeople]

Christians don't seem to have any problems believing in the science that created the computer they're typing on. Or phone they use. TV they watch. Yet some don't believe science that thwarts their understanding of, or causes issues with, their religion (evolution, abortion issues, homosexuality, etc).

It seems science is OK so long as it doesn't interfere with their beliefs that come from a book written by long, dead men, edited by other men (all of which were imperfect) about a perfect (many say) being.

For discussion:
Is this distrust of science stemming from the distrust of science itself, lack of faith in science and the flawed men that support said science (ironically they have no issues with the imperfect men that wrote and edited the bible but that's something for another topic), lack of faith in their holy book, or something else entirely (please submit YO on what the 'something else' is)?

The "father" of your "science", Isaac Newton, wrote more books on the bible than on science. He searched the Scripture for the rules to use in his science, and apparently was quite successful in doing so. Today's "science" is nothing but political science, and there is very little or no "settled science". Some theories work better than others. M=ma works at low speeds, and is the basis of most physical science, but does not work at very high speeds. The flawed men working in the social science realm, such as Karl Marx, stress humanism, and the casualties of putting his theories into practice, result in the death of millions, which according to the new woke social viewpoint, is a good thing, along with high gas prices, and higher cost of food. The probable solution will be a "great earthquake", which will push the Progressives of California into the ocean, and the Progressives of New Yorkers under the elements of a Tsunami (Revelation 16:18), whereupon, you will have your reduced population, the Progressive hope, and at the same time, fewer Progressives, a Conservative hope, a win for everyone.

Please clarify how this pertains to the subject at hand.

[nobspeople]

Christians don't seem to have any problems believing in the science that created the computer they're typing on. Or phone they use. TV they watch. Yet some don't believe science that thwarts their understanding of, or causes issues with, their religion (evolution, abortion issues, homosexuality, etc).

The premise that Christians don't "believe science" is shaky best.

The majority of modern Christians accept evolution as theoretical model to describe species diversification. The largest Christian denomination in the world explicitly supports evolution.

I am unaware of any ways in which the science concerning abortion issues or homosexuality thwarts or causes problems for Christianity. Can you explain what you mean?

To clarify, I wasn't trying to say christians don't believe in all science, just certain aspects.
In regards to abortion and homosexuality:
Many christians believe homosexuality is a choice, while science seems to indicate, more and more, it's more than that.
Abortion:
Many christians believe abortion is wrong from the instant of conception, while science seems to indicate that is nothing more than a set of cells, incapable of living on its own until later in developmental process.
Evolution:
Some christians say the earth is 6000-7000-ish years old, nothing evolved and god created everything just as it is today.

I same 'many' and 'some' because christianity and its beliefs are so numerous and diverse, it's impossible to lump them all in together as one entity. Even some christians don't believe god is perfect, jesus is god's son, etc.

Apologies for the lack of clarification originally.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Veridican in post #9

We nailed Christ to the cross and atheistically followed science instead.

"The Bible shows us the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go."

I wouldn't say that Galileo "atheistically" followed science.

We have faith in science.

There are two causes of belief: faith and reason. Science is a method of study, so we don't believe things we observe scientifically because we have "faith" in them; we believe them because we have reason to believe them.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Veridican in post #9

We nailed Christ to the cross and atheistically followed science instead.

"The Bible shows us the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go."

I wouldn't say that Galileo "atheistically" followed science.

We have faith in science.

There are two causes of belief: faith and reason. Science is a method of study, so we don't believe things we observe scientifically because we have "faith" in them; we believe them because we have reason to believe them.

It's almost as if the bible should be relegated to the realm of science fiction!

[theophile]

[Replying to Veridican in post #9

We nailed Christ to the cross and atheistically followed science instead.

"The Bible shows us the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go."

I wouldn't say that Galileo "atheistically" followed science.

That's a nice reference. It's unfortunate we've by and large lost this way of thinking and allowed a mutual distrust to form (to the point that many now see an absolute divide between science and the bible).

To my earlier suggestion, the bible isn't science, so why judge it as such? And furthermore, science is a prime source of knowledge, so why shun it?...

[bjs1]

To clarify, I wasn't trying to say christians don't believe in all science, just certain aspects.
In regards to abortion and homosexuality:
Many christians believe homosexuality is a choice, while science seems to indicate, more and more, it's more than that.

The vagueness of this statement can be deceptive. Virtually every Christian I have known in the past 20 years has agreed with the science, which says that sexual orientation is a complicated matter that develops from a variety of causes and cannot simply be boiled down to “a choice.”

Now many Christians say that coitus with a person of the same sex is a choice, but that is different from sexual orientation.

Abortion:
Many christians believe abortion is wrong from the instant of conception, while science seems to indicate that is nothing more than a set of cells, incapable of living on its own until later in developmental process.

This statement is technically accurate, but it has been used in a misleading way. Yes, at conception a fetus is a set of cells incapable of living on its own. And yes, many Christians believe abortions is wrong. The latter is a moral statement, not a scientific one. Science makes no moral statements. Science doesn’t say that abortion is morally okay, and it doesn’t say that rape is wrong. Science can inform our morality, but disagreeing about the morality of abortion is not the same as disagreeing with the science about abortion.

Evolution:
Some christians say the earth is 6000-7000-ish years old, nothing evolved and god created everything just as it is today.

Yes, there are young earth Christians. They have always been in the minority, and it has been a shrinking minority for the past several decades. Perhaps we could aim a little higher here? Take on Christianity at its best, instead of going for the low hanging fruit. I assume that is how you would like Christians approach atheism.



Overall I have not found Christians to any more or less accepting of science than the population on the whole. This suggests that accepting or rejecting science is a cultural, not religious, issue.

[Veridican]

We have faith in science.

There are two causes of belief: faith and reason. Science is a method of study, so we don't believe things we observe scientifically because we have "faith" in them; we believe them because we have reason to believe them.

Right. If we see them scientifically, we believe for that "reason." But look where we've come. Now, we won't believe anything unless we see it and can reason it.

And yet, we know that faith works--at least in small ways. Sometimes in big ways. It has something to do with the mind--not the brain--the mind. It's a function of mind: the ability to be sure of something without proof of it. I have experienced it in small ways--like with healings or like with my motorcycle. I know--without any reason or logic to back it up--I just know that I will never die on my motorcycle. And then there's God, which is a big thing: I know God is there. I know Jesus Christ is the Way to God. That's faith.

But the ability to turn faith on when needed is something I don't possess. Part of it is my fault, because I don't practice it. But also, I am a product of this Church age, and I didn't have parents who taught it to me, who were taught by their parents, and on and on backwards to the time of Christ. Because we abandoned faith, the practice of it, we have not produced any "faith geniuses." Miracle workers who would demonstrate faith and thus strengthen our faith and teach us new ways and concepts in faith. All we have is faith charlatans like the prosperity preachers.

Imagine, if you will, a world where faith worked, even if not perfectly, but mostly. There'd be no government. Very little disease or poverty. Probably no countries or borders. I would imagine there would be much less population. There'd be no atheism. I would imagine people would be free to pursue their purpose and talents, and I would imagine there would be massive, beautiful cities. Imagine a temple as high as ten skyscrapers and as wide as Los Angeles made out of massive stones dipped first in molten gold.

Science will never give us that. Science will end us long before we do anything useful with it.

You know, they say even in the 1st Century, if a person made it to 30, they had every reason to think they'd live well into their 60's or older. The average life expectancy was around 45, but that's taking into account infant death rates and violent conflicts. What has science given us in the last 2000 years--about another 10 years of life expectancy--as an old person.

[2ndpillar2]

Christians don't seem to have any problems believing in the science that created the computer they're typing on. Or phone they use. TV they watch. Yet some don't believe science that thwarts their understanding of, or causes issues with, their religion (evolution, abortion issues, homosexuality, etc).

It seems science is OK so long as it doesn't interfere with their beliefs that come from a book written by long, dead men, edited by other men (all of which were imperfect) about a perfect (many say) being.

For discussion:
Is this distrust of science stemming from the distrust of science itself, lack of faith in science and the flawed men that support said science (ironically they have no issues with the imperfect men that wrote and edited the bible but that's something for another topic), lack of faith in their holy book, or something else entirely (please submit YO on what the 'something else' is)?

The "father" of your "science", Isaac Newton, wrote more books on the bible than on science. He searched the Scripture for the rules to use in his science, and apparently was quite successful in doing so. Today's "science" is nothing but political science, and there is very little or no "settled science". Some theories work better than others. M=ma works at low speeds, and is the basis of most physical science, but does not work at very high speeds. The flawed men working in the social science realm, such as Karl Marx, stress humanism, and the casualties of putting his theories into practice, result in the death of millions, which according to the new woke social viewpoint, is a good thing, along with high gas prices, and higher cost of food. The probable solution will be a "great earthquake", which will push the Progressives of California into the ocean, and the Progressives of New Yorkers under the elements of a Tsunami (Revelation 16:18), whereupon, you will have your reduced population, the Progressive hope, and at the same time, fewer Progressives, a Conservative hope, a win for everyone.

Please clarify how this pertains to the subject at hand.

The OT of the "bible", used and published by "Christians", was a primary informational source for the father of science, Isaac Newton. If you want to study creation/science, look to the writer of that creation. It is the social and political science of today, which ignores facts and science, and ultimately will pay for that fact. The Marxist Progressives taunt science yet ignore science and facts in favor of their false narratives.