Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Let's face it. Christians don't believe in evolution, because they believe in the bible. And they believe in the bible for many different reasons, none of them being sound logic, or supporting evidence. It is for that reason, that there can never be such thing as a "Christian scientist".
All aboard the U.S.S. Failboat.
Seriously though, I'm judging by the tone of the argument and the age of the argumentor (is this a word?) that he's a young college goer filled with a newly discovered technical language and a long-broiling dislike of organized religion.
"It's illogical. You can't test for God! Why do all these religious people go on being religious? This cognitive dissonnance confuses and angers me!"
One of these days he'll get enough exposure and enough experience to simmer down a bit.
__________________
"Arguing with idiots is like banging your head on a rock. All you end up with is a headache and nothing to show for it." - Brian H. West (1986-?)
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I agree on the part where religion has no place at school. I am very strongly against religion being mixed with science, since the two are polar opposites.
And yes I believe there is a huge difference between scietists who happen to Christians and Creationist *scientists* which is an oxymoron
But
Christians don't believe in evolution, because they believe in the bible.
Painting with broad brush, isn't it fun?
Not all Christians blindly follow the bible, not all Christians believe in Creationism. I would agree if you said fundies instead of Christians
Let's face it. Christians don't believe in evolution, because they believe in the bible.
Millions of Catholics, Anglican, Lutherans and Eastern Orthodox Christians around the world would disagree why you.
Like Dawkins you seen to confuse christian with fundamentalist.
If you read my opening statement, I state that it is targeted at Christians who believe in creationism, and call themselves "Christian Scientists" When I say that " Let's face it. Christians don't believe in evolution, because they believe in the bible." I am referring to the previously mentioned, quote.
Also, Bushido, you said
" Seriously though, I'm judging by the tone of the argument and the age of the argumentor (is this a word?) that he's a young college goer filled with a newly discovered technical language and a long-broiling dislike of organized religion.
"It's illogical. You can't test for God! Why do all these religious people go on being religious? This cognitive dissonnance confuses and angers me!""
I had to laugh out loud, because you are mostly right, but that doesn't exactly change my opinion either, Be it my age that bars me, or an overall lack of experience, at this point in my life I can not find any reason whatsoever to accept any bibles, regardless of religion, nor can I see any merit or advantage to being Christian, Jewish, Muslim (I am not trying to pick on Christians), or any other sect that believes in a supernatural being.
If I came off as labeling the entire Christian population with a "broad stroke" I apologize, it was not my intention, perhaps I have been watching a little too much fox news
Last edited by Parogar; 15th January 2008 at 12:26 PM.
Reason: grammar
I am an attorney, not a scientist, but I could be a scientist without a problem.
A different worldview than an atheist would not hinder my role as a scientist at all. Science is simply the study of the natural world as it works (and has worked), naturally. As a scientist, my role would be to determine how that natural world works.
The only difference, and this is where the worldview part comes in, is that I would accept that the natural is not the only *possible* explanation for things, and that there is a supernatural as well. Science for me is a simply one of the tools used to find truth, the one that can tell me how the natural world works naturally. I just happen to believe that there is more going on than just the physical, stuff that science does not cover.
So, my role as a scientist, who happens to also be a Christian, is no different than my role would be if I was an atheist. The search for the best NATURAL explanations. Now, my ultimate, personal conclusion about things may very well be different, since I don't feel the need to stop at the best natural answer, but am open to other sources of truth to inform my decision. But, as a scientist, I would never call that a scientific explanation.
Now, keep in mind that there is nothing about science which says that the supernatural does not exist, or that it has not impacted our world. Science simply "can't go there". Gotta separate philosophical naturalism from methodological naturalism.
__________________ In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. - St. Augustine, in his analysis of Genesis.
I am an attorney, not a scientist, but I could be a scientist without a problem.
A different worldview than an atheist would not hinder my role as a scientist at all. Science is simply the study of the natural world as it works (and has worked), naturally. As a scientist, my role would be to determine how that natural world works.
The only difference, and this is where the worldview part comes in, is that I would accept that the natural is not the only *possible* explanation for things, and that there is a supernatural as well. Science for me is a simply one of the tools used to find truth, the one that can tell me how the natural world works naturally. I just happen to believe that there is more going on than just the physical, stuff that science does not cover.
So, my role as a scientist, who happens to also be a Christian, is no different than my role would be if I was an atheist. The search for the best NATURAL explanations. Now, my ultimate, personal conclusion about things may very well be different, since I don't feel the need to stop at the best natural answer, but am open to other sources of truth to inform my decision. But, as a scientist, I would never call that a scientific explanation.
Now, keep in mind that there is nothing about science which says that the supernatural does not exist, or that it has not impacted our world. Science simply "can't go there". Gotta separate philosophical naturalism from methodological naturalism.
Hmm, interesting post, and I thank you for the feedback on my topic. But If I may, I have one question for you (feel free to not answer if it is as all intrusive)
Why are you not agnostic then? If you are favoring science as the means, and God as the how, then why Christianity? Because if I am not mistaken, the bible clearly states that God put man here, and women came from the rib of man. Which is pretty far from Evolution.
Thanks
Last edited by Parogar; 15th January 2008 at 01:55 PM.
There may be many reasons to NOT believe in Christianity (theodicy is a particular good example), but the concept that it's holy book is simply in error in Genesis 1 and 2 is not one of them. The problem for both many atheists and fundamentalist Christians (strange bedfellows, I know), is that they are reading those texts through Modernistic lenses.
Before I became an attorney, I got a degree in ancient history, which included reading a lot of ancient literature and studying ancient cultures. After that education, when I went back to read Genesis, I no longer read it as an attempt to relate strict literal narrative history, but I read it the way an ancient Israelite would have: as a presentation of actual events in the past, but using symbolic, figurative and typological language. And, to a great extent, as a way for the ancient Israelites to describe (yes, I believe they were inspired) God, the universe, and Mankind.
Most Christians worldwide have no problem with this approach, but more and more here in the U.S. a fundamentalist reading of Scripture has come to predominate, insisting that for the Bible to be "True", it must be strictly literal narrative history, and a science book to boot.
Hopefully that helps give some insight into how so many of us fairly intelligent and knowledgeable people can still end up as Christians.
However, I have never been a great apologist or evangelist for the faith. I am pretty good at removing stumbling blocks, as above, but I make no pretensions about being able to provide a purely logical path to God. I don't think that is really possible. But over in the apologetics forum, they get into that a bit more.
__________________ In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. - St. Augustine, in his analysis of Genesis.
It's not that "christian scientists" don't exist, or can't. It's a matter of the two things being irrelevant to each other. Is there such a thing as an agnostic aviator? A hindu footballer? A muslim electrician? All those people exist, but one term is irrelevant to the other.
__________________ "Since YAC [Young-Age Creation] epistemology accepts Biblical claims over physical evidence and human reason, logical or evidential arguments for evolution and/or against YAC are likely to be ineffective in converting most YACists."--Kurt Wise
Linear Mode
