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
Re: Christianity and science
Post #91I agree, but your statement must be tempered by acknowledging that we actually "know" close to nothing.nobspeople wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:31 pmI think everyone has some sort of faith in something as not everything's known. And some faith may not be misplaced, either. But when one knows something, faith about that 'thing' is no longer needed.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:28 pmMany atheists I have discussed these issues with also have faith, they have faith in science, empiricism and dare I say it - atheism too.nobspeople wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:23 pm [Replying to mgb in post #87]
That's exactly what chalking it up to god means.It is not about chalking everything to God. It is having a deep, well thought out conviction that God is the source of the world.
Only if you don't let it be simplistic. That's why FAITH is necessary in christianity. Agreement of faith with knowledge simultaneously on the same issue can't exist.It is not as simplistic as believing is God because science can't explain it.
And... here we are.The science vs. God thing is only something that's thrown up over the course of argument.
Interesting (I find, and that's sarcasm) that, out of everything I said, this is all you commented on. Funny how that works, ain't it (again, sarcasm)?
The oft heard (and illogical) argument "just because science hasn't explained it yet doesn't mean..." is an expression of faith in the scientific method as the only means for answering all questions about the universe.
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3187
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
- Has thanked: 1510 times
- Been thanked: 824 times
Re: Christianity and science
Post #92I depends on the frame of reference but, overall, the grand scheme of all things, yes that seems to be a proper claim that, while it can't be proven, can surely be highly suggested to the point of acceptance!Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:33 pmI agree, but your statement must be tempered by acknowledging that we actually "know" close to nothing.nobspeople wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:31 pmI think everyone has some sort of faith in something as not everything's known. And some faith may not be misplaced, either. But when one knows something, faith about that 'thing' is no longer needed.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:28 pmMany atheists I have discussed these issues with also have faith, they have faith in science, empiricism and dare I say it - atheism too.nobspeople wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:23 pm [Replying to mgb in post #87]
That's exactly what chalking it up to god means.It is not about chalking everything to God. It is having a deep, well thought out conviction that God is the source of the world.
Only if you don't let it be simplistic. That's why FAITH is necessary in christianity. Agreement of faith with knowledge simultaneously on the same issue can't exist.It is not as simplistic as believing is God because science can't explain it.
And... here we are.The science vs. God thing is only something that's thrown up over the course of argument.
Interesting (I find, and that's sarcasm) that, out of everything I said, this is all you commented on. Funny how that works, ain't it (again, sarcasm)?
The oft heard (and illogical) argument "just because science hasn't explained it yet doesn't mean..." is an expression of faith in the scientific method as the only means for answering all questions about the universe.
We don't know what we don't know until we know it, as they say.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!
Re: Christianity and science
Post #93May I ask, are you an atheist?nobspeople wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:36 pmI depends on the frame of reference but, overall, the grand scheme of all things, yes that seems to be a proper claim that, while it can't be proven, can surely be highly suggested to the point of acceptance!Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:33 pmI agree, but your statement must be tempered by acknowledging that we actually "know" close to nothing.nobspeople wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:31 pmI think everyone has some sort of faith in something as not everything's known. And some faith may not be misplaced, either. But when one knows something, faith about that 'thing' is no longer needed.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:28 pmMany atheists I have discussed these issues with also have faith, they have faith in science, empiricism and dare I say it - atheism too.nobspeople wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:23 pm [Replying to mgb in post #87]
That's exactly what chalking it up to god means.It is not about chalking everything to God. It is having a deep, well thought out conviction that God is the source of the world.
Only if you don't let it be simplistic. That's why FAITH is necessary in christianity. Agreement of faith with knowledge simultaneously on the same issue can't exist.It is not as simplistic as believing is God because science can't explain it.
And... here we are.The science vs. God thing is only something that's thrown up over the course of argument.
Interesting (I find, and that's sarcasm) that, out of everything I said, this is all you commented on. Funny how that works, ain't it (again, sarcasm)?
The oft heard (and illogical) argument "just because science hasn't explained it yet doesn't mean..." is an expression of faith in the scientific method as the only means for answering all questions about the universe.
We don't know what we don't know until we know it, as they say.
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3187
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
- Has thanked: 1510 times
- Been thanked: 824 times
Re: Christianity and science
Post #94Of course you can.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:39 pmMay I ask, are you an atheist?nobspeople wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:36 pmI depends on the frame of reference but, overall, the grand scheme of all things, yes that seems to be a proper claim that, while it can't be proven, can surely be highly suggested to the point of acceptance!Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:33 pmI agree, but your statement must be tempered by acknowledging that we actually "know" close to nothing.nobspeople wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:31 pmI think everyone has some sort of faith in something as not everything's known. And some faith may not be misplaced, either. But when one knows something, faith about that 'thing' is no longer needed.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:28 pmMany atheists I have discussed these issues with also have faith, they have faith in science, empiricism and dare I say it - atheism too.nobspeople wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:23 pm [Replying to mgb in post #87]
That's exactly what chalking it up to god means.It is not about chalking everything to God. It is having a deep, well thought out conviction that God is the source of the world.
Only if you don't let it be simplistic. That's why FAITH is necessary in christianity. Agreement of faith with knowledge simultaneously on the same issue can't exist.It is not as simplistic as believing is God because science can't explain it.
And... here we are.The science vs. God thing is only something that's thrown up over the course of argument.
Interesting (I find, and that's sarcasm) that, out of everything I said, this is all you commented on. Funny how that works, ain't it (again, sarcasm)?
The oft heard (and illogical) argument "just because science hasn't explained it yet doesn't mean..." is an expression of faith in the scientific method as the only means for answering all questions about the universe.
We don't know what we don't know until we know it, as they say.
May you?
No, I'm not. I know a few, however.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1669
- Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:21 pm
- Location: Europe
- Has thanked: 10 times
- Been thanked: 21 times
Re: Christianity and science
Post #95Faith is not mindless belief. To be faithful is to be loyal and the faithful often have excellent reasons for their faith.nobspeople wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:31 pm I think everyone has some sort of faith in something as not everything's known. And some faith may not be misplaced, either. But when one knows something, faith about that 'thing' is no longer needed.
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3187
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
- Has thanked: 1510 times
- Been thanked: 824 times
Re: Christianity and science
Post #96[Replying to mgb in post #95]
That's your claim, not mine.Faith is not mindless belief.
To them, I'm sure their reasons as 'most excellent'. What it boils down to is they have faith because they have to have faith.To be faithful is to be loyal and the faithful often have excellent reasons for their faith.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1669
- Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:21 pm
- Location: Europe
- Has thanked: 10 times
- Been thanked: 21 times
Re: Christianity and science
Post #97No. Faith only means there are things we don't understand fully. Like in science.nobspeople wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:46 pm [Replying to mgb in post #95]
That's your claim, not mine.Faith is not mindless belief.
To them, I'm sure their reasons as 'most excellent'. What it boils down to is they have faith because they have to have faith.To be faithful is to be loyal and the faithful often have excellent reasons for their faith.
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3187
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
- Has thanked: 1510 times
- Been thanked: 824 times
Re: Christianity and science
Post #98Not sure what you're saying 'no' to, but OK....?mgb wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 2:01 pmNo. Faith only means there are things we don't understand fully. Like in science.nobspeople wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:46 pm [Replying to mgb in post #95]
That's your claim, not mine.Faith is not mindless belief.
To them, I'm sure their reasons as 'most excellent'. What it boils down to is they have faith because they have to have faith.To be faithful is to be loyal and the faithful often have excellent reasons for their faith.
I'm sorry you don't understand science, as it's a method of discovery and understanding. Really, it's not hard to understand if you put in a tiny bit of effort.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!
- Purple Knight
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3502
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
- Has thanked: 1134 times
- Been thanked: 733 times
Re: Christianity and science
Post #99I'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!!'
Re: Christianity and science
Post #100Yes, this is why we shouldn't emphasize "confirm" unduly, the real meat here is where we fail to confirm (aka falsification), that's where evolutionists tend to slack off, ignoring elephants in rooms etc.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!!'