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)?

[nobspeople]

[Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #58]

And you voted for a multi degreed Biden who graduated at the top of his class?

Congrats on assuming. You know what they say about that....
It's funny how, to make donny 'better' they have to make his 'opponent' seem bad. That's very christian!
But none of what you said discounts donny's selfishness, nor his ineptitude on a myriad of things. But that's not what this thread's about.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #60]

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

They can see god in 'the trees, the sky, a baby's smile' but can't see evolution?!? Purposefully so.

I can't prove homosexuality is moral or doesn't hurt anyone. ...I can't prove abortion is moral any more than I can prove murder is moral.

No one can.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #62]

The science you are referring to, which has given us the things you have referred to, such as the computer, phone and TV, is not the same field of science which attempts to convince us the human has evolved from the ape.

Of course not - no one said otherwise. It is, however, the end result of understanding via the scientific method.

I have just addressed to issue of the human evolving from the ape, in that it has not been demonstrated to have occurred.

From what I've seen, it's been shown to be highly probable. However, some would say it has been proven.

As far as, "abortion, and homosexuality" I do not know what science has demonstrated as far as they are concerned?

I believe I addressed this earlier in the thread (at least I think I did - been a long weekend).

As far as I am concerned, it has nothing to do with the "book".

Great!

this certainly does not mean I simply accept the opinion of scientists, who have not demonstrated what they are claiming.

I've heard this many times and, most of those times, people don't understand the science they've discounted (said in general, of course).

I have no "distrust of science".

Again, great!

[2ndpillar2]

[Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #58]

And you voted for a multi degreed Biden who graduated at the top of his class?

Congrats on assuming. You know what they say about that....
It's funny how, to make donny 'better' they have to make his 'opponent' seem bad. That's very christian!
But none of what you said discounts donny's selfishness, nor his ineptitude on a myriad of things. But that's not what this thread's about.

I am sorry, I didn't know you voted for Trump. I am sure that you were glad he had the economy running smoothly, reduced illegal immigration numbers, produced a vaccine, had the Afghan withdrawal moving at a measured pace, had unemployment for minorities and women at record low levels, had middle east peace accords running smoothly, withdrew from the stupid Paris accords, and reduced U.S. CO2 by 9% in one year. I can see where you might be a little set back by having Biden urge Russia and the Saudi's to produce more oil, and shutting down energy efficient pipelines in the US, and switching to less safe and less efficient trucks. I think according to "science", that Biden has failed, and that Trump won on the score. According to the left-wing rag, ABC, CO2 emissions dropped 9% under Trump during his final year of presidency and is up 6.2% in 2021 under Biden. Deaths from covid are higher under Biden than under Trump. What "science" criteria do you use for comparing? The right-wing conspiracies for targeting testing, masks, and vaccines for the old and feeble, which was mocked, now seems to be the direction the Progressives are heading, due to the realities of life.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #58]

And you voted for a multi degreed Biden who graduated at the top of his class?

Congrats on assuming. You know what they say about that....
It's funny how, to make donny 'better' they have to make his 'opponent' seem bad. That's very christian!
But none of what you said discounts donny's selfishness, nor his ineptitude on a myriad of things. But that's not what this thread's about.

I am sorry, I didn't know you voted for Trump. I am sure that you were glad he had the economy running smoothly, reduced illegal immigration numbers, produced a vaccine, had the Afghan withdrawal moving at a measured pace, had unemployment for minorities and women at record low levels, had middle east peace accords running smoothly, withdrew from the stupid Paris accords, and reduced U.S. CO2 by 9% in one year. I can see where you might be a little set back by having Biden urge Russia and the Saudi's to produce more oil, and shutting down energy efficient pipelines in the US, and switching to less safe and less efficient trucks. I think according to "science", that Biden has failed, and that Trump won on the score. According to the left-wing rag, ABC, CO2 emissions dropped 9% under Trump during his final year of presidency and is up 6.2% in 2021 under Biden. Deaths from covid are higher under Biden than under Trump. What "science" criteria do you use for comparing? The right-wing conspiracies for targeting testing, masks, and vaccines for the old and feeble, which was mocked, now seems to be the direction the Progressives are heading, due to the realities of life.

If it makes you happy to think you know my voting history, by all means be happy.

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #60]

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

They can see god in 'the trees, the sky, a baby's smile' but can't see evolution?!? Purposefully so.

I'm not sure it's purposeful. I believed in evolution before I became an animal breeder, but I didn't have much evidence for it and if I'm being honest I was just regurgitating what I was taught.

I was just working backwards from the "right" answer. I would see a beautiful, graceful animal and say to myself, ah, what a perfect killing machine, it must have been honed over hundreds of thousands of generations of hunting for its food. The religiosos see creation as evidence of a creator. That beautiful animal is evidence of something, and I saw a whetstone while they saw a mould, only because of difference in education. So I don't fault anybody since I was doing the same thing. And it's very hard not to do that thing. If you stop working backwards from accepted correct answers, you become something society deems as insane.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #76]

I'm not sure it's purposeful.

Based on my experience, most do so purposefully. Some do so because of the lack of understanding, however.

I would see a beautiful, graceful animal and say to myself, ah, what a perfect killing machine, it must have been honed over hundreds of thousands of generations of hunting for its food. The religiosos see creation as evidence of a creator.

The difference here, is there is data to support something like evolution, while evidence of a creator is purely wishful thinking. It may be right, but as far as I've seen through observation, testing and repeatability, the only evidence of a creator is wanting to see one. I call it spiritual pareidolia.

That beautiful animal is evidence of something, and I saw a whetstone while they saw a mould, only because of difference in education.

There's a difference between education and dogma

If you stop working backwards from accepted correct answers, you become something society deems as insane.

I reverse engineer a lot of things on a daily. No where have I said 'Dang! Look at that! A creator!!'

[Purple Knight]

I reverse engineer a lot of things on a daily. No where have I said 'Dang! Look at that! A creator!!'

You would if you started from there being a creator.

[Jose Fly]

It seems science is OK so long as it doesn't interfere with their beliefs

That's exactly it (in most cases I've seen). Some of the main benefits of religious belief are how it provides a sense of certainty, emotional comfort, and belonging. Those are all very important to one's overall wellbeing, and thus some folks will reflexively reject anything that's perceived to threaten to those things.

Therefore, if something from science is perceived to conflict with people's religious beliefs, many will reject it out of hand in order to maintain their wellbeing. And that's not just limited to science either. I recall my father, an evangelical Christian, refusing to sit down at a steamer bar because it has the word "bar" in it, and he believed it's a sin to go to bars. So he completely rejected the possibility of going to one.

"I reject X because it conflicts with my religion" isn't exactly a new phenomenon.

[mgb]

I reverse engineer a lot of things on a daily basis. No where have I said 'Dang! Look at that! A creator!!'

I reverse engineered my bicycle and did not find a creator so it must have arisen purely out of random natural events.