Science supporting religious beliefs...

[cubinity]

Being someone that enjoys the sciences, but is also a Christian, I was curious what other Christians and non-Christians thought of when religious people read a scientific article, remember something in their sacred text, and relate the two arbitrarily as if the scientific article was evidence for the statements in their sacred text? Does that help or hurt your impression of their religious arguments?

 

[RETS]

Science has, does, and can support Scripture. Likewise, science has benefited from those who set out to prove/disprove something in Scripture.

The OP is baloney because it asks a question which demands a judgment call of an individual- Something which I believe is expressly forbidden on this forum.

This is my opinion, and I may or may not be back to this thread. Object or agitate as you will... To quote our "humble" OP: "...that is exactly why I don't care anymore."

 

[cubinity]

If individuals making judgment calls about how something helps or hurts an argument is expressly forbidden, then I welcome the rule that says so, and I will apologize.

If such a rule actually exists, then how can a discussion forum even exist? What exactly would there be to discuss? How could we then learn to become better at writing our arguments?

 

[AV1611VET]

I vote HURT.

I know from five years experience here, that when someone posts all the science that the Scriptures mention, like the universe expanding, the Internet being mentioned, or "paths in the sea", all it does is make matters worse.

The Defender's Study Bible has something like two pages of science found in the Scriptures, and in all the times I've seen it mentioned, it only stirs the pot.

 

[RETS]

If individuals making judgment calls about how something helps or hurts an argument is expressly forbidden, then I welcome the rule that says so, and I will apologize.

If such a rule actually exists, then how can a discussion forum even exist? What exactly would there be to discuss? How could we then learn to become better at writing our arguments?

Ah- I see I have mis-communicated. I hate doing that.

I was referencing these two rules, first of all:

• Do not insult, belittle, mock, goad, personally attack, threaten, harass, or use derogatory nicknames in reference to other members or groups of members. Address the context of the post, not the poster.
• Do not make another member's experience on this site miserable. This includes, making false accusations or persistently attacking them in the open forums.

Secondly, I was implying that as this thread is a spin off of a comment I saw in another thread, it might be an implied violation.

 

[Non sequitur]

I was referencing these two rules, first of all:

• Do not insult, belittle, mock, goad, personally attack, threaten, harass, or use derogatory nicknames in reference to other members or groups of members. Address the context of the post, not the poster.
• Do not make another member's experience on this site miserable. This includes, making false accusations or persistently attacking them in the open forums.

I, personally, don't see any of these specific violations.


The good side of me says, neither.

"God did/said it", seems to trump everything.

The bad side of me says, hurt.

See: AV's "the Internet being mentioned".

 

[cubinity]

I, personally, don't see any of these specific violations.

Me neither. And, I felt the OP was quite general, so I don't see how it could have been taken that way.

The good side of me says, neither.

"God did/said it", seems to trump everything.

The bad side of me says, hurt.

See: AV's "the Internet being mentioned".

Interesting that no part of you sees this as helping...

 

[Non sequitur]

Me neither. And, I felt the OP was quite general, so I don't see how it could have been taken that way.

Someone hates the player and not the game?

Interesting that no part of you sees this as helping...

Well, my first hand experience is that when science favors your god, "Hooray for science! See, see, see!"

When it does not, "Science is the devil. Don't trust anything they say," or "Man is stupid and arrogant".

It really boxes you guys in a corner and/or makes you seem hypocritical...

So I'd say for your "agenda", whatever that is, if it is, it can only hurt in the long run.

Lose-lose.

 

[Jazer]

"Hooray for science! See, see, see!"

You think this is all about proving something to you? Not really. Some people just want to learn. I like Science, History, Bible. Why should I stop growing and learning more about things that interest me?

 

[Non sequitur]

You think this is all about proving something to you? Not really. Some people just want to learn. I like Science, History, Bible. Why should I stop growing and learning more about things that interest me?

We are talking when science disagrees with your god, not science in general .

 

[Simply_Amazing]

How I feel about it depends on what specifically is in question. Could you give an example by any chance?

 

[cubinity]

Well, my first hand experience is that when science favors your god, "Hooray for science! See, see, see!"

When it does not, "Science is the devil. Don't trust anything they say," or "Man is stupid and arrogant".

It really boxes you guys in a corner and/or makes you seem hypocritical...

So I'd say for your "agenda", whatever that is, if it is, it can only hurt in the long run.

Lose-lose.

When I was a teenager, apologetics were "in" at church. They wanted to teach us all the "hard evidence" of why our religion was true so that we could prove it to intelligent people like humanists and atheists.

So, I thought if the goal was to better communicate with the intelligent, it might be a good idea to study as they do, to look objectively at my religion as they would, and to criticize my own beliefs as strongly as I was being conditioned to criticize those of others.

In conjunction with that, we were constantly being told to live up to our church's policies and codes of conduct. Breaking these rules was called sinning, and it was sinning that made us look like hypocrites; or at least that's what they told us.

However, as I got to know more and more intelligent people, I came to realize that they cared very little whether or not I "sinned." They mostly cared whether I was likable to be around, and when it came to philosophy, they mostly just cared that I was consistent and respectful.

What I found was that a whole bunch of atheists and humanists were all around us, and more than willing to hang out with us. The problem was that we, without "sinning," treated them all like outsiders and only used similar reasoning to theirs whenever it suited our religion's agenda.

So, they kept calling us hypocrites, and our leaders kept telling that it was because of "sin" in our lives, but that we were doing a great job at continuously bombarding "them" with our flip-flopping apologetics.

So, I have also experienced something similar to what you describe, and I realize now that I'm older how much all that flip-flopping alienated me from really great people who were more than willing to respect me if I were willing to treat them with respect.

 

[cubinity]

How I feel about it depends on what specifically is in question. Could you give an example by any chance?

Hi Simply_Amazing! Glad to see you!

I have been thinking a bit about an example from my life. I guess I wrote the question vaguely because there have been so many occurrences to some degree or another that I just didn't feel right narrowing it down to the circumstances of any one of them.

I guess one example is Ken Ham's young-earth Creationist arguments, and his Creation Museum.

 

[Simply_Amazing]

Hi Simply_Amazing! Glad to see you!

I have been thinking a bit about an example from my life. I guess I wrote the question vaguely because there have been so many occurrences to some degree or another that I just didn't feel right narrowing it down to the circumstances of any one of them.

I guess one example is Ken Ham's young-earth Creationist arguments, and his Creation Museum.

With this example, I disprove. He's running a museum for children where he presents a blatantly false version of events. I don't know if this is a case of religion adopting science, but of a theist espousing his own view under the guise of science. (in an attempt to indoctrinate children no less)

 

[cubinity]

With this example, I disprove. He's running a museum for children where he presents a blatantly false version of events. I don't know if this is a case of religion adopting science, but of a theist espousing his own view under the guise of science. (in an attempt to indoctrinate children no less)

Oh, yeah, I have no problem with religion adopting science. As I was saying in another post, and was encouraged by Non sequitur, that whenever it happens, it should be done consistently and reasonably, not just selectively to suit an agenda.

In this example, you would definitely say the behavior hurts whatever argument he may be making, right?

 

[Cabal]

When I was a teenager, apologetics were "in" at church. They wanted to teach us all the "hard evidence" of why our religion was true so that we could prove it to intelligent people like humanists and atheists.

So, I thought if the goal was to better communicate with the intelligent, it might be a good idea to study as they do, to look objectively at my religion as they would, and to criticize my own beliefs as strongly as I was being conditioned to criticize those of others.

In conjunction with that, we were constantly being told to live up to our church's policies and codes of conduct. Breaking these rules was called sinning, and it was sinning that made us look like hypocrites; or at least that's what they told us.

However, as I got to know more and more intelligent people, I came to realize that they cared very little whether or not I "sinned." They mostly cared whether I was likable to be around, and when it came to philosophy, they mostly just cared that I was consistent and respectful.

Well, I think people will not really care about your "sins" if you don't go around telling them about all of their "sins", which it sounds like you didn't do

What I found was that a whole bunch of atheists and humanists were all around us, and more than willing to hang out with us. The problem was that we, without "sinning," treated them all like outsiders and only used similar reasoning to theirs whenever it suited our religion's agenda.

Yeah, it is frustrating. With regard to the OP, what I think is the biggest hindrance is when someone, say a creationist, makes an argument for some aspect of Scripture that is couched in scientific terms. When the argument doesn't go their way, they just ignore that and resort to Goddidit.

Really - if you're going to do that, just flip us the "Goddidit" from the start so we can get on with our lives - pretending you're actually interested in logical debate when you're not is just irritating.

 

[AV1611VET]

Really - if you're going to do that, just flip us the "Goddidit" from the start so we can get on with our lives...

I thought you guys didn't like us "pulling rank" on you?

 

[cubinity]

I thought you guys didn't like us "pulling rank" on you?

"Rank?" Oh boy...

 

[Cabal]

I thought you guys didn't like us "pulling rank" on you?

No, the annoying thing is creationists who bring nothing to the table thinking they outrank us - especially after giving the impression they actually gave a rodent's posterior about rational argument.

"Pull rank" from the start, if that's all you're going to do when logic fails you, so everyone can see you've got nothing and then we can move on.

 

[Non sequitur]

I thought you guys didn't like us "pulling rank" on you?

I wouldn't call that "pulling rank", in the sense that you get no credit for being a higher "rank".