Opinions on this quote

[vossler]

Vossler, you have done two things here that astound me.

The first is general, and is not a surprise because of other things that you have posted have led up this, but it still astounds me: you are saying that Christian beliefs form the parameters that constitute good science. You are blurring the line between naturalistic science and supra-natural belief that hasn't existed in Western society since before the Enlightenment. Basically you are saying that if it contradicts tenets of the faith (however those may be defined) then it can't be acceptable science.

Yes, I'm saying Christian beliefs form the parameters that can and do constitute good science. I'm in no way attempting to blurr the line between naturalistic science and a super-natural belief.

For me there is no line.

The second surprises and astounds me: you put words in my mouth in order to make a point. You admitted, but that doesn't mitigate that you did it.

I apologize if that offended you, that certainly wasn't my intent. It was just a simple means of making a point. Given your reaction, I promise not to take that kind of liberty again. Please forgive me.

 

[vossler]

No it's not. You couldn't be more wrong. If a gay rapist mass muderering liberal discovers a cure for cancer or solves M-theory, the only test of his work is whether or not it works. The whole point of science is that we can test someone else's results for their objective worth, rather than their convictions or beliefs.

You're free to believe a gay rapist mass murdering liberal could possibly find a cure for cancer or the M-theory, I'll just continue believing, if it ever is done, it will be a man/woman of high character that will do it.

That's part of the beauty of the country we live in.

 

[Dannager]

You're free to believe a gay rapist mass murdering liberal could possibly find a cure for cancer or the M-theory, I'll just continue believing, if it ever is done, it will be a man/woman of high character that will do it.

That's part of the beauty of the country we live in.

But what would happen if it was created by a gay rapist mass-murdering liberal?

 

[vossler]

Therefore, peer review. The effective way to "cancel out" personal worldviews is to have people of differing worldviews agree on the same thing. If many people of differing worldviews can agree that the apple is falling downward, then we can be relatively sure that they are saying so because they are really seeing the apple falling downward and not because they all have some hidden agenda in preaching the message of downward-falling apples. Having many people of different leanings check a scientist's work is the only real substitute for having a scientist without personal leanings.

You're right! The problem is we rarely do have people of differing worldviews agree.

But surprisingly I agree with you, after a fashion, although in a completely different way. I wouldn't say that a Christian's belief validates his/her work, but in fact the Christian belief gives value to scientific work.

Actually that is exactly what I'm saying. So we agree again. Thanks for saying it better than I did or could.

I've said this before and I will say this again: it is only within the context of the Trinity as the Creator God that Creation itself possesses meaning. If God is a rational God, and has created us as rational beings in His image, and then created a universe that is rationally understandable, the obvious implication is that God fully intends us to exercise our rationality to the fullest in understanding the universe and to enjoy ourselves every step of the way! If God has created this universe a real universe and not some maya universe or some universe where observation is not reality, and if God is glorified through this universe, the obvious implication is that God fully intends us to study the universe and as we do He will give us a sense of the numinous and the amazing as we begin to understand the masterpiece which is Creation. Note that this doesn't mean the Christian scientist will observe anything different from, say, a Hindu scientist. But what the Hindu scientist observes he has to call maya, and there is no point studying this immersive illusion even if there is something to be learned about it. The Christian rejoices to see God's splendour in creation; the Hindu just chucks it away as another property this lousy maya seems to have.

Well said, couldn't agree more!

But of course creationism in some circles never fails to introduce "God-of-the-gap" arguments which robs Christianity of its birthright in the sciences, ironically in the name of promoting "Christian science".

Not quite sure what you mean by "God-of-the-gap" since I don't adhere to any sort of gap theories or arguments.

 

[bullietdodger]

A simple breakdown would go something like: science is expected to be separate from personal belief, especially with respect to religion. The more unbiased with respect to things that are outside the realm of science that a scientific discovery is, the more likely it is to be accurate. I'm sure that the scientists you quoted conducted science as most scientists do - agnostically. Their personal beliefs, then, are irrelevant to me when it comes to their science.

An unbiased scientist? That seems somewhat impossible. Evolutionists always try top prove their viewpoint, just like Creationists do.

Scientists always have a hypothesis of how something should work and the should preform experiements to prove their hypothesis. Some time the scientist is right, sometime they are wrong and admit they are wrong and other times scientists are wrong and will not accept that they were wrong.

Science is not perfect. The only thing that is perfect is God.

 

[Dannager]

An unbiased scientist? That seems somewhat impossible. Evolutionists always try top prove their viewpoint, just like Creationists do.

Scientists always have a hypothesis of how something should work and the should preform experiements to prove their hypothesis. Some time the scientist is right, sometime they are wrong and admit they are wrong and other times scientists are wrong and will not accept that they were wrong.

Science is not perfect. The only thing that is perfect is God.

This shows that you have an improper understanding of what the scientific process is about. No scientist tries to prove their viewpoint. What scientists try to do is test (not prove) a hypothesis. Granted, science is not perfect as it is vulnerable to human error, but it's pretty darn good.

 

[Donkeytron]

You're free to believe a gay rapist mass murdering liberal could possibly find a cure for cancer or the M-theory, I'll just continue believing, if it ever is done, it will be a man/woman of high character that will do it.

That's part of the beauty of the country we live in.

What's there to believe? Many people of many faiths and creeds are scientists, and they publish new research all the time. I don't understand what "high character" has to do with empirical investigation that can be duplicated.

 

[chaoschristian]

Yes, I'm saying Christian beliefs form the parameters that can and do constitute good science. I'm in no way attempting to blurr the line between naturalistic science and a super-natural belief.

For me there is no line.

OK. But answer me this, if you will: what is at risk if one's science is bounded by one's religious presuppositions?

For example, for centuries lepers were considered extremely contagious, and shunned. Almost universally throughout human culture lepers were/are considered not just diseased, but religiously 'unclean.' Even in the US in the 20th century there existed such strong aversion to lepers that official leper colonies looked and operated more like prisons than medical facilities.

Oh, but guess what? 90% of all humans are not at risk for Hanson's Disease, and the remaining 10% would have to try mightly hard and be just in the right conditions to catch it.

For centuries religion informed science that lepers were diseased not just in the body, but in the soul.

Pure science, however, saw past the bigotry and looked for natural causes through observation, experimentation and testing, testing, testing, eventually finding a cure.

I apologize if that offended you, that certainly wasn't my intent. It was just a simple means of making a point. Given your reaction, I promise not to take that kind of liberty again. Please forgive me.

Forgiven. Nuff said.

 

[vossler]

OK. But answer me this, if you will: what is at risk if one's science is bounded by one's religious presuppositions?

There shouldn't be anything at risk, instead the truth will have an avenue that God can use that isn't bound by the world. The important thing here isn't that man somehow declares his knowledge or self-sufficiency, but that God's glory and majesty can be declared.

Pure science, however, saw past the bigotry and looked for natural causes through observation, experimentation and testing, testing, testing, eventually finding a cure.

If there is such a thing as pure science it will only come through the God of the Universe, the One who is in control of everything. He will use His people to promote His agenda, not someone devoid of all 'religion'. As Christians, everything we do should be done with a Christian worldview and if we're not doing just that we need to reassess ourselves.

 

[Dannager]

As Christians, everything we do should be done with a Christian worldview and if we're not doing just that we need to reassess ourselves.

My Christian world-view tells me to be honest, equitable and work for the good of the world - not to work to affirm a biblical tale that is obviously allegorical.

 

[gluadys]

If there is such a thing as pure science it will only come through the God of the Universe, the One who is in control of everything. He will use His people to promote His agenda, not someone devoid of all 'religion'.

Why do you think God could not or would not use someone devoid of all 'religion'? God is sovereign. Will he not use whom he pleases?

 

[The Lady Kate]

Why do you think God could not or would not use someone devoid of all 'religion'? God is sovereign. Will he not use whom he pleases?

Because if God uses whom He pleases, that opens up the possibility that He may use someone who may not please certain followers...

It might very well be that God used an evolutionist, perhaps even Charles Darwin himself, to clarify a few things about His creation... but I haven't yet met a YEC who'd admit to that possibility.

 

[chaoschristian]

There shouldn't be anything at risk, instead the truth will have an avenue that God can use that isn't bound by the world. The important thing here isn't that man somehow declares his knowledge or self-sufficiency, but that God's glory and majesty can be declared.

I seem to have not communicated my point clearly. It's not about who gets credit, its about whether or not you are going to allow the presuppositions of texts written thousands of years ago to be the boundaries of what is considered acceptable or good science.

My example was an illustration of how ignorance and cultural bias have proscribed the proper treatment of a group of people who are nothing more than simple victims of a bacterial infection.

If there is such a thing as pure science it will only come through the God of the Universe, the One who is in control of everything.

Science is indeed a blessing from God.

He will use His people to promote His agenda, not someone devoid of all 'religion'.

One, are you implying that only Christians are children of God? He is the Father of all, after all.

Two, are you implying that God can't/won't use anything or anyone such as it pleases Him? Can you demonstrate that God's has restricted Himself in such a way?

As Christians, everything we do should be done with a Christian worldview and if we're not doing just that we need to reassess ourselves.

Love.

And as we all know, that's a hard thing to do, especially as Jesus instructed. We, as Christians, are all in need of constant reassessment.

 

[vossler]

My Christian world-view tells me to be honest, equitable and work for the good of the world - not to work to affirm a biblical tale that is obviously allegorical.

My worldview tells me that God plays a major role in all that I am or do, whether it is my church, vocation, science, theology, health, family, friends, etc, etc,.

 

[vossler]

Why do you think God could not or would not use someone devoid of all 'religion'? God is sovereign. Will he not use whom he pleases?

God uses whoever He choses and if one of His children isn't available he'll use someone else.

 

[vossler]

I seem to have not communicated my point clearly. It's not about who gets credit, its about whether or not you are going to allow the presuppositions of texts written thousands of years ago to be the boundaries of what is considered acceptable or good science.

My example was an illustration of how ignorance and cultural bias have proscribed the proper treatment of a group of people who are nothing more than simple victims of a bacterial infection.

The idea here is that those presuppositions, that we each have, are true to God and His Word. Obviously if they're not we've got a problem.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the idea from reading your posts that you believe the Bible to be a hinderance to good science. The reason I say that is because you use words such as boundaries, implying that the Bible somehow binds us and keeps us from discovering good science. Am I right?

One, are you implying that only Christians are children of God? He is the Father of all, after all.

I'm not only implying it, I'll go ahead and state it. Yes, only Christians are Children of God.

John 1:12-13 states:

"But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."

There are more verses that confirm this.

Two, are you implying that God can't/won't use anything or anyone such as it pleases Him? Can you demonstrate that God's has restricted Himself in such a way?

Not at all, God can and does use whomever pleases Him, but like any good Father he'd rather use His own children; don't you think?

And as we all know, that's a hard thing to do, especially as Jesus instructed. We, as Christians, are all in need of constant reassessment.

Indeed!

 

[Dannager]

My worldview tells me that God plays a major role in all that I am or do, whether it is my church, vocation, science, theology, health, family, friends, etc, etc,.

As does mine. But if your world-view tells you to skew results in God's favor, then your world-view and my world-view are two very different things.