Can a scientist be a Christian? or of any other supernatural faith?

[durangodawood]

...Scientists get on us about interpreting the word of God literally, but then go out and interpret what they see literally.

Well, of course.
Stories are a whole different category of experience from sensory and reasoned reality.

 

[Doveaman]

Can a scientist be a Christian?

If they believe that miracles do override natural laws, yes they can.

The resurrection of Jesus was a miracle, not natural.

The intent of the religious mind is to bend science to support religion

Where did you get that idea? That is not even remotely true.

The intent of the Christian religion is not to bend science. The Christian religion is simply defending itself from being bent by science.

The Christian religion is based on what was observed historically and recorded for our benefit presently.

Science merely speculates of what might have happened historically based on what is observed presently.

Scientists also admit that all their conclusions are held tentatively (without certainty).

The Christian religion holds its records as factual accounts of historical observations.

and the motivation of the scientific mind is to find the truth without bending to preconceived supernatural revelations.

There is no "truth" in science, only tentative conclusions.

"Truth" is found only in religion.

Those "preconceived supernatural revelations" are revelations of truth.

If the science contradicts revealed truth, the science is rejected as false.

 

[Doveaman]

there is no true scientist in the entire world that will stand up there and say "there is no god".

But will the true scientist say "there is a God"?

What method would the true scientist use to determine there is a God? The scientific method?

 

[whois]

But will the true scientist say "there is a God"?

no, and for the exact same reason he would not say "there is no god".
a true scientist does not go around making matter of fact statements when they don't know.
they use qualifiers like possibly, or very unlikely.
in my opinion, a scientist should NEVER be questioned about their faith.
the only thing that matters is how level headed they are, and in all reality a scientist CANNOT make any statement that god does or doesn't exist.
those that DO make a statement like that are liars, or at the very least do not know what they are talking about.

What method would the true scientist use to determine there is a God? The scientific method?

good question, this is probably one of the reasons science is neutral on the god issue.
IOW, science is still waiting for the evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

Stories are a whole different category of experience from sensory and reasoned reality.

Paul reasoned too.

Acts 24:25 And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee.

And whose reality is larger?

The reality the Bible speaks of, or the reality science speaks of?

 

[Doveaman]

First define what you mean by 'a Christian' and then the answer should be obvious.

My definition of 'a Christian' is a follower of Jesus, a practitioner of the faith, a doer not just a sayer.

Fair enough.

I'm not aware of a commandment to believe the Universe was created in 4004 BC or 10,000 BC at the earliest.

But there is a command to believe Jesus was born to a virgin and was resurrected from the dead.

Why would a scientist believe in such events that contradict the laws of nature?

 

[Doveaman]

Doing science requires a belief that physical phenomena tend to follow patterns, patterns that can be discerned by humans. It also requires a willingness to find those patterns using empirical data. Both requirements are entirely consistent with belief in supernatural religion.

The question then follows: What empirical data do Christian scientists use to support the existence of a supernatural God?

 

[sfs]

The question then follows: What empirical data do Christian scientists use to support the existence of a supernatural God?

Mostly none. A supernatural God is not a pattern in physical phenomena.

 

[Doveaman]

Here is the difference.

When Collins declares he has found something in science, he needs to demonstrate this objectively to others.

When Collins claims to have found something in his faith belief, he only needs to satisfy himself.

Clearly, he has a personal need to have a faith belief and since he can still accept well evidenced reality, I take no issue with it.

So on the one hand Collins, the scientist, has beliefs that are well evidenced, and on the other hand Collins, the same scientist, has beliefs that are not well evidenced?

What kind of scientist has beliefs that are not well evidenced?

Oh, right, Collins the scientist.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

did any of the earlier scientists ascribe a god to their observations?

I'm not sure who you are referring to. Perhaps you could give an example?

As I said, I think there is a philosophical divide between seeking natural explanations for phenomena and ascribing supernatural explanations to phenomena.

For example, lets say a Christian scientist believes that Jesus turned water into wine. A scientist should immediately ask, "How did he do this? How did certain water molecules transform into wine molecules? What was the mechanism? If we put the water under a microscope and watched as it turned to wine, what would we see?" The Christian scientist may be an expert in his field whereby he regularly ascribes natural explanations to the objects that he studies. However there is always some limit where a Christian scientists can no longer think scientifically and still remain a Christian. Belief in miracles that "just happen" contradicts the scientific endeavour.

one of our board members is a professed christian, does he ascribe a god to any of his observations?

You have to be more specific. I'm not sure what his observations are.

 

[Michael]

Mostly none. A supernatural God is not a pattern in physical phenomena.

It could be said that we have ample data of countless humans all claiming that "God" had a tangible effect on them. It all depends on how one defines "evidence", and specifically if the cause/effect claim has to be empirically demonstrated. In astronomy that's virtually *never* necessary.

 

[Doveaman]

The obvious answer is yes. Definitely. Why in the world not?

Mainly because most religious scientists don't separate the two that strictly. It's not like there are two compartments that are totally separate, and never the twain shall meet. Most religious scientists are theistic evolutionists who allow their scientific views to impact their religious ideas.

Theistic evolution is unscientific.

How do you empirically demonstrate that evolution is theistic?

 

[Doveaman]

See, this is a disconcerting trend I see in - well, most of the population actually.
I personally see the laws of physics as the greatest proof for the existence of God. Everything is so organized, so intricately detailed that I have a hard time believing that the world was formed by coincidence.
Science can explain how things work, but it doesn't explain how those things came to be.
and I also just don't like it when people ignore scientific fact.

Scientific facts can be misinterpreted just as biblical facts can be misinterpreted. That's the problem with fallible humans.

 

[Doveaman]

I used to say "Yes" and there are countless examples of Christian scientists. However, I think there is a philosophical schism between scientific thinking and the acceptance of "miracles". Consider the following story:

Two men are sitting on a hill thousands of years ago and they both see lightning strike a tree in the distance. One man exclaims, "Wow! That was amazing, awe-inspiring and powerful! God must have caused this miraculous phenomenon!" The second man exclaims, "Wow! That was amazing, awe-inspiring and powerful! I wonder what caused it?"

Do you see the difference between the two men? One acknowledges his own ignorance and that ignorance compels him to seek a greater understanding.


How can you ascribe "God" as the cause of some observed event and still practice the scientific method which seeks natural explanations? The only way I think it can be done -- and the only way I have seen it done -- is to compartmentalize reality into two sets of topics: topics which can be probed scientifically and topics which cannot be probed scientifically. So, the Christian neuroscientist will claim that the universe's beginnings is beyond the realm of science while the Christian cosmologist will claim that consciousness is beyond the realm of science. Both scientists advance their respective scientific fields while compartmentalizing epistemology to maintain their beliefs.

In reality, any topic should be open to scientific enquiry.

I agree. Including the topic of God.

 

[Doveaman]

There is a great example that I think fits here by John Lennox. A scientists belief in the supernatural does not prevent him from conducting science.

Take for example a mathematician that adds $3,000 to a drawer, and the next day adds $3,000 more. By the laws of arithmetic he ascertains $6,000 is in the drawer. Suppose he opens it and finds only $4,000. Does the mathematician now discard the laws of arithmetic claiming they have been broken? Of course not, he still holds the laws of arithmetic and claims the laws of the country have been broken!

What if God took it?

Agents, like God, can peform actions that act contrary to laws, that doesn't mean the laws aren't correct, or that someone cannot investigate these laws even if he believes in an agent capable of bypassing them.

What would be the point of investigating natural laws to determine a cause if the natural laws have been bypassed by the cause (God)?

 

[Doveaman]

no, and for the exact same reason he would not say "there is no god".
a true scientist does not go around making matter of fact statements when they don't know.
they use qualifiers like possibly, or very unlikely.
in my opinion, a scientist should NEVER be questioned about their faith.
the only thing that matters is how level headed they are, and in all reality a scientist CANNOT make any statement that god does or doesn't exist.
those that DO make a statement like that are liars, or at the very least do not know what they are talking about..

So according to you, all Christian scientists are liars, or at the very least do not know what they are talking about.

Got it.

 

[Doveaman]

Mostly none. A supernatural God is not a pattern in physical phenomena.

But is a supernatural God a pattern in any phenomena, physical or otherwise?

If not, why would a scientist believe in God?

 

[Bananagator]

Scientific facts can be misinterpreted just as biblical facts can be misinterpreted. That's the problem with fallible humans.

Yes, this is true. Unfortunately theories are oftentimes mistaken as fact. I'm talking more about things that are indisputable because of numerical data and whatnot

 

[durangodawood]

But is a supernatural God a pattern in any phenomena, physical or otherwise?

If not, why would a scientist believe in God?

Intuition.

 

[Michael]

Theistic evolution is unscientific.

How do you empirically demonstrate that evolution is theistic?

Assuming for a moment that God *is* the physical universe, how would you possibly demonstrate that theistic evolution is "unscientific"?