Religion and Science

[The Lady Kate]

O.K. Here we go again...I say:

Then you say:
Where did I say anything about hard work? Or praying the hardest? Again you twist and distort what I say to make it confom with what you want me to say.

That's just it... you said nothing about hard work. Is it not relevent? As for praying the hardest... what else in your opinion praises God?

It still sounds like God gives bonuses in the here and now which He purposely keeps from others. Still sounds like health and wealth to me.

How can a theory that is wrong and of the thief be practical? We've spent countless $$$, time and energy promoting a theory that in the end will prove fruitless. That's very unpractical and specific.

You realize you've predicted something will never happen after it already has, right? From martyr to prophet... and not a particularly good one at that.

 

[vossler]

That's just it... you said nothing about hard work. Is it not relevent? As for praying the hardest... what else in your opinion praises God?

I think that goes without saying, hard work is relevent. For me praising God is acknowledging Him in all that I do, realizing that without Him I am nothing. Sometimes that takes the form of prayer, most of the time it's just a simple acknowledgement, I suppose some might consider that a prayer. It certainly isn't something that is done the 'hardest' whatever that might be.

It still sounds like God gives bonuses in the here and now which He purposely keeps from others. Still sounds like health and wealth to me.

As God's children shouldn't He give us 'bonuses'?

 

[vossler]

Anyting specific you can bring to bear on your claim that it is fruitless or unpractical? The worlds scientists seem to disagree. Why is that? Why would such a fruitless theory be taught even in Christian colleges and schools? How can a fruitless theory make so many valid predictions and explain so much of the data we have?

I'm not going to derail this thread into another topic. I was asked a question and I gave my response, I'm sorry if you don't believe it to be true.

 

[The Lady Kate]

I think that goes without saying, hard work is relevent. For me praising God is acknowledging Him in all that I do, realizing that without Him I am nothing. Sometimes that takes the form of prayer, most of the time it's just a simple acknowledgement, I suppose some might consider that a prayer. It certainly isn't something that is done the 'hardest' whatever that might be.

The whole point of this thread was that you claimed that by and large, scinetists don't do this at all... with the exception of Carver.

For the life of me, I still cannot figure out how you came to that conclusion.

As God's children shouldn't He give us 'bonuses'?

Certainly... since you put it that way. But the impression I got earlier was the every hard working non-Christian was nothing more than a "Back-up" for God when a True Christian wasn't available... and that smacked of arrogance.

I'm fairly certain that's not the way you meant to portray it, but we should all choose our words carefully, lest someone get the wrong idea.

 

[Numenor]

As God's children shouldn't He give us 'bonuses'?

I thought you said you weren't pushing a health and wealth gospel? Our 'bonus' is Christ, what else do we need? Are you suggesting that we need extra bonuses so we know God is pleased with us? Utter rubbish.

 

[vossler]

The whole point of this thread was that you claimed that by and large, scientists don't do this at all... with the exception of Carver.

For the most part that is true. I truly can't recall a well known scientist that has praised and acknowledged God for what he accomplished. If he/she exists I'd like for you to point him out because I'd like to have some hope in this area.


I'm a bit confused, help me out here.

You said:

"It still sounds like God gives bonuses in the here and now which He purposely keeps from others. Still sounds like health and wealth to me."

To which I responded:

As God's children shouldn't He give us 'bonuses'?

Then you state:

Certainly... since you put it that way.

I don't believe I 'put it' anyway other than the way than the way you did.

But the impression I got earlier was the every hard working non-Christian was nothing more than a "Back-up" for God when a True Christian wasn't available... and that smacked of arrogance.

I'm fairly certain that's not the way you meant to portray it, but we should all choose our words carefully, lest someone get the wrong idea.

Although I don't think of it in the terms you used, but in effect your first paragraph is true. I don't believe it smacks of arrogance in the least. This coincides well with my previous statements that God blesses His children.

 

[The Lady Kate]

For the most part that is true. I truly can't recall a well known scientist that has praised and acknowledged God for what he accomplished.

...in public. Which we've already agreed is not necessary.

If he/she exists I'd like for you to point him out because I'd like to have some hope in this area.

For what purpose? Such a person already has God's approval. Why should they seek yours?

I'm a bit confused, help me out here.

You said:

"It still sounds like God gives bonuses in the here and now which He purposely keeps from others. Still sounds like health and wealth to me."

To which I responded:

As God's children shouldn't He give us 'bonuses'?

Then you state:

Certainly... since you put it that way.

I don't believe I 'put it' anyway other than the way than the way you did.

Remember that your statement was in response to the notion that God uses non-believers when Christians aren't available... as well as the whole notion of the "health and wealth" doctrine... which you claim not to be espousing.

Although I don't think of it in the terms you used, but in effect your first paragraph is true. I don't believe it smacks of arrogance in the least. This coincides well with my previous statements that God blesses His children.

These are the terms you used. God uses non-Chirstians to do his will when Christians aren't available... do you agree with that statement... your statement... or not?

 

[vossler]

For what purpose? Such a person already has God's approval. Why should they seek yours?

This has nothing to do with my approval, but everything to do with acknowledging God and His role. Yeah they can do it in private, but what are they ashamed of? If God has enabled you to accomplish an important feat, why keep that fact a secret from others?

These are the terms you used. God uses non-Chirstians to do his will when Christians aren't available... do you agree with that statement... your statement... or not?

I agree with this statement.

 

[Numenor]

Yeah they can do it in private, but what are they ashamed of? If God has enabled you to accomplish an important feat, why keep that fact a secret from others

So because they haven't told you then they are keeping it a secret? You have no idea as to how Scientist who believe are bearing witness to their saviour yet you continue to call them cowards just because they aren't perched on a horse as high as yours.

In fact from now on I want to keep us informed every time you give the glory to God in your workplace for your accomplishments. That shouldn't be too hard should it, after all you wouldn't want to keep all that a secret. I'm sure you can come up with a way which is public enough to get as wide an audience as possible, how about billboards? Now if you can't or won't do this I can only assume that you are either ashamed of something or you are a hypocrite.

 

[Gwenyfur]

To quote Sandage:

"...the scientific community is so scornful of faith that there is a reluctance to reveal yourself as a believer, the opprobrium is so severe."

The Case for a Creator ... Lee Strobel

 

[Donkeytron]

To quote Sandage:

"...the scientific community is so scornful of faith that there is a reluctance to reveal yourself as a believer, the opprobrium is so severe."

The Case for a Creator ... Lee Strobel

...and yet something like half of scientists are believers of one sort or another.

 

[The Lady Kate]

To quote Sandage:

"...the scientific community is so scornful of faith that there is a reluctance to reveal yourself as a believer, the opprobrium is so severe."

The Case for a Creator ... Lee Strobel

Random quotes don't prove much of anything.

 

[vossler]

...and yet something like half of scientists are believers of one sort or another.

Yeah, we all believe in something!

 

[The Lady Kate]

Yeah, we all believe in something!

Obviously. But your claim (as near as I can tell... I wouldn't want to be accused of distorting your words again) was that scientists (at least most of them) do not believe in God.

I am still at a loss to understand where you drew this conclusion from. Having already agredd that belief in God is not a necessary part of the scientific method (although He may very well be a part of the process, that is, inspiration, but that is a matter of faith), then where do you get your conclusion from?

You offer up Carver as an example of a proper Christian scientist, primarily (again, as far as I can tell... don't want to be distorting anything) because after the fact, he gave public recognition and praise to God for His aid.

Now, I have not yet seen anyone claim that what Carver did was in any way improper, but we have also agreed that giving such praise to God doesn't need to be in the manner that Carver did it. God can get His glory in private just as well as in public. Which way one chooses to do so is entirely up to their discretion... did we not agree on that as well?

The closest you have come to actual support for your claim was the survey that 55% of the scientific community believe that life originated through naturalistic means. I think we have well established that all this means is that God was not involved in the process, and not that there is no God at all.

And even if this were so, 55% while a majority, is a narrow margin. Certainly not indicative of "most scientists are Atheists" which is the message that many people, perhaps mistakenly, are getting from your posts.

So... What are we doing here?

 

[vossler]

Hello again Lady Kate

Obviously. But your claim (as near as I can tell... I wouldn't want to be accused of distorting your words again) was that scientists (at least most of them) do not believe in God.

That's true, it takes a belief in something to believe that.

I am still at a loss to understand where you drew this conclusion from. Having already agreed that belief in God is not a necessary part of the scientific method (although He may very well be a part of the process, that is, inspiration, but that is a matter of faith), then where do you get your conclusion from?

I've always suspected that scientists weren't the most God fearing people around. That was based on some of my previous points I made where science and God always seemed like oil and water.

However, since coming here to CF this observation has really proven itself in so many ways. If one goes to the C&E area you'll see how separating God from science is tantamount to the ability to perform good science. You might say that this comes only from non-Christians, yet with few exceptions most Christians have a similar view.

You offer up Carver as an example of a proper Christian scientist, primarily (again, as far as I can tell... don't want to be distorting anything) because after the fact, he gave public recognition and praise to God for His aid.

IMO, his public recognition of God was only a small part of what made him such a good Christian scientist. The fact that he relied upon God for inspiration and direction is what truly made him a good scientist.

Now, I have not yet seen anyone claim that what Carver did was in any way improper...

If I had, before posting his testimony, said that scientists should bring God into their scientific experiments, I believe most people here at CF would have attacked that statement.

God can get His glory in private just as well as in public. Which way one chooses to do so is entirely up to their discretion... did we not agree on that as well?

Yes, but the preferred way is in public.

The closest you have come to actual support for your claim was the survey that 55% of the scientific community believe that life originated through naturalistic means. I think we have well established that all this means is that God was not involved in the process, and not that there is no God at all.

I personally don't know how one can believe in God and not believe he was involved with the process of life. Wouldn't this be an inept god and thereby no god at all?

And even if this were so, 55% while a majority, is a narrow margin. Certainly not indicative of "most scientists are Atheists" which is the message that many people, perhaps mistakenly, are getting from your posts.

That same Gallup poll stated that 87% of Americans call themselves Christians, or at least appear to do so. I believe if half of those actually were we would be fortunate. That would mean 40 - 45% of Americans were Christian. Using that same methodology then only 20 - 25% of scientists are Christians. It's not quite so narrow now.

So... What are we doing here?

I don't know about you, but I'm gathering information.

 

[The Lady Kate]

I've always suspected that scientists weren't the most God fearing people around. That was based on some of my previous points I made where science and God always seemed like oil and water.

So your posts are based on your previous posts. Ok then.

However, since coming here to CF this observation has really proven itself in so many ways. If one goes to the C&E area you'll see how separating God from science is tantamount to the ability to perform good science. You might say that this comes only from non-Christians, yet with few exceptions most Christians have a similar view.

Actually, so long as we're talking about separating religious beliefs (even including the belief in God) from the scientific method, then I 100% agree.

Think of it this way: when you observe something you don't understand, is your first explanation "It's a miracle!" or "Hmm... that's odd, let's see if we can figure this out..."

IMO, his public recognition of God was only a small part of what made him such a good Christian scientist. The fact that he relied upon God for inspiration and direction is what truly made him a good scientist.

And we only know that he relied upon God because he made a point to let poeple know this. Others may choose to keep the matter private, between God and themselves... and I think we've agreed that they have every right to do so.

If I had, before posting his testimony, said that scientists should bring God into their scientific experiments, I believe most people here at CF would have attacked that statement.

Indeed. It does help that you qualified your statement and shown an example how a person's beliefs can work within a scientific framework without potentially contaminating the results.

The problem is that you're using "God" and "A person's religious beliefs" interchangably.

Yes, but the preferred way is in public.

Preferred by whom?
And even so, what is the difference? God gets the glory either way.

I personally don't know how one can believe in God and not believe he was involved with the process of life. Wouldn't this be an inept god and thereby no god at all?

Not to change the subject...looking at life as it is... with all its flawed, vestigal, jury-rigged, and downright inefficent designs, then one might argue that God does have some explaining to do.

YECs can easily dismiss all this as a result of The Fall, which, theologically, is a sound answer, but from a scientific perspective, is as worthless as claiming "It's a miracle" and closing the book on it.

That same Gallup poll stated that 87% of Americans call themselves Christians, or at least appear to do so. I believe if half of those actually were we would be fortunate.

Not our place to judge without proof. If 87% of Americans call themselves our brothers and sisters in Christ, then 87% of them are... unless we have some reason to think they lied on the poll.

That would mean 40 - 45% of Americans were Christian. Using that same methodology then only 20 - 25% of scientists are Christians. It's not quite so narrow now.

Only because you've just called every other person who claims to be saved a liar. Are you in posession of some special insight into their souls that the rest of us lack?

I don't know about you, but I'm gathering information.

As am I... and making sure the information being gathered is accurate and honest.

 

[vossler]

Not our place to judge without proof. If 87% of Americans call themselves our brothers and sisters in Christ, then 87% of them are... unless we have some reason to think they lied on the poll.

Only because you've just called every other person who claims to be saved a liar. Are you in posession of some special insight into their souls that the rest of us lack?

No I don't possess any special insight, only the Word of God. This comes fro the Parable of the Sower in Luke 8:4-15.

 

[The Lady Kate]

No I don't possess any special insight, only the Word of God. This comes fro the Parable of the Sower in Luke 8:4-15.

What you seem to have forgotten is that I too have the Word of God... and I see no reason not to reject half the people who call themselves brother and sister without even bothering to meet them.

The interesting thing about the parable of the sower is what is unsaid... that not even the sower himself knows which seed will sprout and which will not.... and yet, you do.

 

[vossler]

What you seem to have forgotten is that I too have the Word of God... and I see no reason not to reject half the people who call themselves brother and sister without even bothering to meet them.

The interesting thing about the parable of the sower is what is unsaid... that not even the sower himself knows which seed will sprout and which will not.... and yet, you do.

Hey, there you go again putting words into my mouth.

I've never claimed to know which seeds will sprout and which won't. I simply said only a portion of those who claim to know God actually do.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Hey, there you go again putting words into my mouth.

I've never claimed to know which seeds will sprout and which won't. I simply said only a portion of those who claim to know God actually do.

Then what was the point of using the parable of the sower? You seem to think that at most, half the seeds will sprout... What makes you so pessimistic about your Christian bretheren?