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)?
Christianity and science
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3187
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
- Has thanked: 1510 times
- Been thanked: 824 times
- Jose Fly
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Re: Christianity and science
Post #101I've seen this sort of debate plenty of times before and for the most part it hinges on conflating different types of "faith". There's the "faith" that's born of repetition, independent confirmation, direct observation, etc., such as the "faith" I have that when I flip a light switch a light will come on. And then there's the "faith" that's more akin to belief and hope, such as the "faith" some Christians have that Jesus will return. It's the latter type of religious faith that pastors and Sunday school teachers insisted I needed to have when I would ask them questions they couldn't answer ("You just need to have faith").
The two are not the same and IMO folks should avoid conflating them when discussing/debating faith.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3187
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
- Has thanked: 1510 times
- Been thanked: 824 times
Re: Christianity and science
Post #102Ah. Then thiis is simply justification of an already accepted principle, not an honest need for an answer.Purple Knight wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:06 pmI'm talking about reverse engineering from the answer and getting the process, then confirming your answer. People who start with evolution tend to confirm evolution. People who start with creator tend to confirm creator.nobspeople wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 6:30 amBeing a creator there would be no need to reverse engineerPurple Knight wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 3:28 pmYou would if you started from there being a creator.nobspeople wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 2:32 pm I reverse engineer a lot of things on a daily. No where have I said 'Dang! Look at that! A creator!!'
Have a great, potentially godless, day!
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1668
- Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:21 pm
- Location: Europe
- Has thanked: 8 times
- Been thanked: 21 times
Re: Christianity and science
Post #103I don't think it is reasonable to split things up like this. Faith/belief is a whole thing. It exists for many many excellent reasons and if you ask anyone to explain fully why they have faith there will be many reasons. The main point is that belief comes from the conviction that a creator is the best explanation for the world and this conviction has many layers. It is not as simple minded as you make it sound.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 5:38 pmI've seen this sort of debate plenty of times before and for the most part it hinges on conflating different types of "faith". There's the "faith" that's born of repetition, independent confirmation, direct observation, etc., such as the "faith" I have that when I flip a light switch a light will come on. And then there's the "faith" that's more akin to belief and hope, such as the "faith" some Christians have that Jesus will return. It's the latter type of religious faith that pastors and Sunday school teachers insisted I needed to have when I would ask them questions they couldn't answer ("You just need to have faith").
The two are not the same and IMO folks should avoid conflating them when discussing/debating faith.
- Jose Fly
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Re: Christianity and science
Post #104But not all faiths are equivalent. Like I explained, the type of "faith" one has when flipping a light switch is not the same type that Muslims have in believing that Mohammed visited heaven. If you think they're the same type of faith, perhaps you can explain how.
Then you should explain.The main point is that belief comes from the conviction that a creator is the best explanation for the world and this conviction has many layers. It is not as simple minded as you make it sound.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1668
- Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:21 pm
- Location: Europe
- Has thanked: 8 times
- Been thanked: 21 times
Re: Christianity and science
Post #105That's a detail within a faith. I'm talking about people who have a strong faith - many such people have thought deeply on many levels about what it is they believe. From philosophy to science to mysticism to their own experience. They have come to the conclusion that God is the most comprehensive answer to many questions in many areas.
The main point is that belief comes from the conviction that a creator is the best explanation for the world and this conviction has many layers. It is not as simple minded as you make it sound.
See above.Then you should explain.
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3187
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
- Has thanked: 1510 times
- Been thanked: 824 times
Re: Christianity and science
Post #106What about those with weak faith?mgb wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:01 pmThat's a detail within a faith. I'm talking about people who have a strong faith - many such people have thought deeply on many levels about what it is they believe. From philosophy to science to mysticism to their own experience. They have come to the conclusion that God is the most comprehensive answer to many questions in many areas.
The main point is that belief comes from the conviction that a creator is the best explanation for the world and this conviction has many layers. It is not as simple minded as you make it sound.See above.Then you should explain.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!
- Jose Fly
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Re: Christianity and science
Post #108I'm sorry, but that reply makes no sense in the context of what I said.mgb wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:01 pmThat's a detail within a faith. I'm talking about people who have a strong faith - many such people have thought deeply on many levels about what it is they believe. From philosophy to science to mysticism to their own experience. They have come to the conclusion that God is the most comprehensive answer to many questions in many areas.
The main point is that belief comes from the conviction that a creator is the best explanation for the world and this conviction has many layers. It is not as simple minded as you make it sound.See above.Then you should explain.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3187
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
- Has thanked: 1510 times
- Been thanked: 824 times
Re: Christianity and science
Post #109Who is Dawkins and why is he so good IYO?
And how do these weak faithed people deal with the aspect of science? Are they not able to grasps concepts as well as those with strong faith?
Have a great, potentially godless, day!
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1668
- Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:21 pm
- Location: Europe
- Has thanked: 8 times
- Been thanked: 21 times
Re: Christianity and science
Post #110Dawkins stirs things up and gets people talking. That's a good thing. Some people are just not science minded. A musician or poet for example might not have a very scientific mind. Nothing wrong with that, but if they see science being used against their faith they may just react. Dawkins should never have set science against religion. He just confused things.nobspeople wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:51 pm Who is Dawkins and why is he so good IYO?
And how do these weak faithed people deal with the aspect of science? Are they not able to grasps concepts as well as those with strong faith?