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)?

[theophile]

Christians are foolish to distrust science. But scientists are also foolish to distrust Christianity (or at least its biblical foundation).

The bible is not meant to be science, hence scientists shouldn't distrust it simply because it lacks scientific accuracy. (The point of the bible lies elsewhere.) But science, which is to say both the scientific method and all of the knowledge that it provides, is perfectly consistent with our biblical calling to bring life into this world. Hence Christians should trust it, use it, and pursue it even.

To do the things that the bible describes takes knowledge, and science is a prime source of it. Christians will likely never accomplish what they need to without it. (Things like healing and resurrection.)

The problem is, they believe some magical God power already exists to do the job. Something even greater than Jesus who can heal and restore life. They don't realize it's our job (the job of Christians) to collectively achieve the vision depicted in the bible (whilst we wait for such a miracle to occur).

It's no different that we need to grow our own food so that we don't starve.

[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.

[brunumb]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #1]

Science is often treated as some sort of entity that has an independent existence. It is really, however, the outcome of ordinary human beings pursuing knowledge and understanding. It is not their fault that what we have discovered over the centuries where the scientific method has been applied has generally removed gods from their previously perceived involvement and replaced them with natural phenomena. I think the religious can see that and maybe even project into the future where they see that their precious deities are no longer necessary at all. The discomfiting cognitive dissonance may result in attacks on science in an attempt to salvage their religion and shore up their beliefs in the promises of something better after they die. But when it comes to revealing the truth of our world through science, like king Canute, they will not be able to stop the tide.

[Miles]

Christians are foolish to distrust science.

In light of all its accomplished, yes they are.

But scientists are also foolish to distrust Christianity (or at least its biblical foundation).

Why? Why should scientists care about a religion that was based on book that was stitched together hundreds of years ago by church prelates and who had a theological agenda to preserve, and whose many contents fly in the face of reason and even logic?

The bible is not meant to be science, hence scientists shouldn't distrust it simply because it lacks scientific accuracy.

Quite right. There are far better reasons to distrust it, or never pick it up.

But science, which is to say both the scientific method and all of the knowledge that it provides, is perfectly consistent with our biblical calling to bring life into this world.

Really? Think most scientists believe the Genesis creation story? They don't.

"Among scientists connected to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 98% say they believe humans evolved over time."
source

That leaves a grand 2% who might think the Biblical creation story is correct.

Hence Christians should trust it, use it, and pursue it even.

Yes they should.

To do the things that the bible describes takes knowledge, and science is a prime source of it.

So you think science is at the basis of explaining the world-wide flood that covered Mt. Everest? As I see it, all it took was the magic of imagination.

Christians will likely never accomplish what they need to without it. (Things like healing and resurrection.)

So what does science have to do with resurrection, an event that has never been demonstrated to exist?


.

[theophile]

But scientists are also foolish to distrust Christianity (or at least its biblical foundation).
Why? Why should scientists care about a religion that was based on book that was stitched together hundreds of years ago by church prelates and who had a theological agenda to preserve, and whose many contents fly in the face of reason and even logic?

I didn't say they should "care" for it. My point here is more that it's a bit unfair to dismiss it simply because of scientific accuracy when science isn't even its point.

But science, which is to say both the scientific method and all of the knowledge that it provides, is perfectly consistent with our biblical calling to bring life into this world.

Really? Think most scientists believe the Genesis creation story? They don't.

My main point is that Christians should believe in science, not that scientists should believe in the bible.

(A secondary but different point is that scientists shouldn't outright dismiss the bible, but this is not the same as saying they should believe it.)

To do the things that the bible describes takes knowledge, and science is a prime source of it.

So you think science is at the basis of explaining the world-wide flood that covered Mt. Everest? As I see it, all it took was the magic of imagination.

That's also not what I'm saying. I specifically said that the bible isn't science (so why would I try to scientifically prove the flood?). In what you cite here I'm saying that the knowledge that science provides is critical to achieving the Christian mission. (Hence Christians are fools to distrust it.)

Christians will likely never accomplish what they need to without it. (Things like healing and resurrection.)

So what does science have to do with resurrection, an event that has never been demonstrated to exist?

Did I say that the resurrection has been demonstrated? My point is that something like science is what will help make it possible. (Hence Christians should embrace it.)

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #3

Today's "science" is nothing but political science

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.

Looks to me like you're the one being political.

[bjs1]

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?

[Veridican]

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.

Imagine if we had not nailed Christ to the cross and instead made him our king. I believe he still would have been alive today, and maybe in those 2000 years, we would have settled with what we have and practiced his methods of faith. Over the last two thousand years we would have gotten better and better at it, just like we've gotten, instead, really really good at miniaturizing integrated circuits. So, maybe we wouldn't have Facebook or the printing press, but people really don't need those things. We wouldn't have cell phones...excuse me...smart phones. But maybe the lost civilizations that moved massive stones around so easily knew something about faith over gravity that we don't know. Maybe Jesus meant what he said when he said if we had faith the size of a mustard seed, we could tell a mountain to move, and it would be done.

Faith works a little bit now. But we really have never developed it. We nailed Christ to the cross and atheistically followed science instead. So, our faith is very withered. If we had gone the faith-route, no doubt there would have been geniuses of faith, just like there are scientists now. You know, I'll bet you faith heals better than medicine. But we have no faith. No one does. Not miracle-working faith anyway.

We have faith in science. 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.

Science is finished. It's over. We are at the end of the world now. That's my take on science.

[Miles]

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?

Imagine if we had not nailed Christ to the cross and instead made him our king.

"We"? Believe it or not, but I don't remember being involved in the nailing at all.

I believe he still would have been alive today, and maybe in those 2000 years, we would have settled with what we have and practiced his methods of faith.

Really? I though god specifically put him on Earth to die; like within the normal lifetime of that time---30-35 years---and that he was never destined to be any kind of king for the next two millennia.

Over the last two thousand years we would have gotten better and better at it, just like we've gotten, instead, really really good at miniaturizing integrated circuits.

With first century technology no less? I assume you 'd agree that technology since the first century would have been going "downhill" all the time.

So, maybe we wouldn't have Facebook or the printing press, but people really don't need those things. We wouldn't have cell phones...excuse me...smart phones.

So if it isn't need that drives our burgeoning consumerism what do you think it is?

But maybe the lost civilizations that moved massive stones around so easily knew something about faith over gravity that we don't know.

Couldn't it be just as likely that they didn't, which, as it stands, is the more likely scenario? After all, there's no convincing evidence to any such ability, only tall tales.

Maybe Jesus meant what he said when he said if we had faith the size of a mustard seed, we could tell a mountain to move, and it would be done.

Boy, considering that no mountains have ever been seen to move it seems very odd that no one has ever achieved such faith. Doesn't say much for Christianity and its Christians, does it.

Faith works a little bit now. But we really have never developed it. We nailed Christ to the cross and atheistically followed science instead.

Science is atheistic? How about math, is that atheistic? How about ballet and oil painting, are these atheistic endeavors? For that matter, how does one follow anything aesthetically at all?

So, our faith is very withered. If we had gone the faith-route, no doubt there would have been geniuses of faith, just like there are scientists now. You know, I'll bet you faith heals better than medicine. But we have no faith. No one does. Not miracle-working faith anyway.

And you believe faith is so powerful because . . .? You do realize, do you not you, that faith has no bearing on the truth of its object at all. That the faith I have that pixies will be riding pink unicorns this coming Saturday is no less viable than your faith that Christ is the savior of sinners. Thing is, faith can lead one to falsehood just as easily as it can lead one to truth, and therefore utterly undependable.

We have faith in science.

You may, but I certainly don't. At most I have confidence in science.

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

Science is finished. It's over. We are at the end of the world now. That's my take on science.

Actually, looking at the stats.


.......................
........................source: Downey, Allen (20 October 2017). “The retreat from religion is accelerating”. Scientific American.

it's Christianity that's on the skids, with disbelief on the rise.


.