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)?

[Athetotheist]

People like Dawkins with his rabid ranting against religion is doing science a disservice. He is turning people against science.

If people are turning against science because of the facts Dawkins is presenting, then they are missing the point and perhaps purposely so.


Tcg

Are you sure that's the only reason?

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... amentalism

[Tcg]

People like Dawkins with his rabid ranting against religion is doing science a disservice. He is turning people against science.

If people are turning against science because of the facts Dawkins is presenting, then they are missing the point and perhaps purposely so.


Tcg

Are you sure that's the only reason?

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... amentalism

Where did I suggest that is the only reason?


Tcg

[mgb]

Let's face it: if there was no promise of an afterlife, most, if not all, wouldn't go to any god. The promise of living forever is a big of a draw as as eternal punishment in hell.

Maybe, but that has more to do with human frailty than whether religion is essentially true. The reality is much more complex and people often have very deep convictions about their faith. I don't think faith can be explained in simple terms like this.

[mgb]

People like Dawkins with his rabid ranting against religion is doing science a disservice. He is turning people against science.

If people are turning against science because of the facts Dawkins is presenting, then they are missing the point and perhaps purposely so.
Tcg

I would not defend anyone turning against science (real science). But Dawkins has poisoned the whole debate with his vitriol.

[nobspeople]

Let's face it: if there was no promise of an afterlife, most, if not all, wouldn't go to any god. The promise of living forever is a big of a draw as as eternal punishment in hell.

Maybe, but that has more to do with human frailty than whether religion is essentially true. The reality is much more complex and people often have very deep convictions about their faith. I don't think faith can be explained in simple terms like this.

I think religion is only as true as one makes it, since religion is a man made construct.
And yes, reality is more complex, but people are christian not to please a deity, but to get to heaven. That's, ultimately, selfish. Which isn't a bad thing, so long as it's not said to be selfless.
And having 'deep convictions about their faith' means nothing much more other than that. People have died for their belief (Jamestown, Heavens Gate, etc). Their convictions don't make their belief any more true than it makes it false.

[1213]

... arguments based on grammatical nitpicking. Without the discoveries achieved through the scientific method we would not have computers. Last time I looked, the Bible had nothing of value to say on that matter.

Atheists seem to practice often grammatical nitpicking, or equal, which is why I thought it is appropriate. But ok, sorry, lets focus on more important issues.

But, as said before, scientific method itself is not a problem. The problem is some theories that can't be proven with scientific method.

Also, I think computer can be made without scientific method, all though that depends slightly on what is meant with the method. Still, even if it would need the method, it is not a problem, when it can the theory and practice are true and testable.

[Athetotheist]

People like Dawkins with his rabid ranting against religion is doing science a disservice. He is turning people against science.

If people are turning against science because of the facts Dawkins is presenting, then they are missing the point and perhaps purposely so.


Tcg

Are you sure that's the only reason?

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... amentalism

Where did I suggest that is the only reason?


Tcg

I suppose you didn't. It just seems to be the only reason you're giving here.

[2ndpillar2]

[Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #44

"Google fact checks", are based on opinions of Progressive Google employees.

You're quoting an opinion piece.

Cyber Ninjas was run by a Trump supporter, and even they had to agree that Trump had lost Arizona.

Georgia had enough invalid ballots to change the count, if you didn't count them.

You may be convinced of that, but the legal experts apparently weren't.

Haven't you heard?!?! It's ALL a conspiracy against donny trump (intelligence and morality must be a conspiracy against him as well, as they both seem to go against him and his values).
It's fun to watch so many pro-donny politicians now turn against him when they see he doesn't have what it takes - and never did.

And you voted for a multi degreed Biden who graduated at the top of his class? Oh, wait a minute, that was a lie, and he only had one degree and graduated near the bottom of his class. At least Biden never hijacked speeches from other people. Oh, wait a minute, he did take speeches from other people as his own. Yeah, and don't you hate that Trump reduced the unemployment for Blacks, Hispanics, and women to an all-time low, and increased wages and purchasing power, and gave the U.S. energy independence, and put through the Abraham peace accords in the middle east, and increased U.S. manufacturing, made the Nato allies pay their fair share, and improve their defense position, while investing in our military, set N.Korea straight, and pointed out how corrupt the media is. Yeah, I hate that too. Biden was fooling around with his friend's wife before the guy died and wound up marrying her. I am sure in your book adultery is okay, and fornicating is not okay. Remember, as you judge others so shall you be judged. Remember, he was originally a Democrat, and therefore apparently led astray. It takes a while to get on the straight and narrow.
What "legal experts"? Is that CNN's legal commentator, Jeffrey Toobin, who was found masturbating on Zoom? Yeah, that guy has things well in hand. He takes care of all of my legal work.

[brunumb]

[Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #58]

May I suggest you take your political rants to the appropriate forum and try to stick to the OP question here.

[Purple Knight]

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).

Well they can see their computers. They can see their televisions. They can't see evolution.

Beyond that, these are moral issues and people with opposite viewpoints have no way to see eye-to-eye.

For example, I can't prove homosexuality is moral or doesn't hurt anyone. In fact, I tend to think it does hurt people and too bad, so sad. Male-male pairs tend to outcompete male-female pairs and I think that's a good thing, but if someone has a different value-judgment I can't really argue.

I can't prove abortion is moral any more than I can prove murder is moral. I've given plenty of arguments why I think abortion should be permitted, but if it's simply immoral because murder is immoral, and it turns out it counts as murder, I have no counter to that, except perhaps that some immoral things people want to do are too costly to stop, and I would still rather that limited space be given to babies of people who will love them rather than of people who regret them.