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

whois

rational
Mar 7, 2015
2,521
119
✟3,336.00
Faith
Non-Denom
I'm not sure who you are referring to. Perhaps you could give an example?
my mistake.
i should have said there was a better than 50% chance that some early scientists were "religious", or believed in some kind of higher power.
As I said, I think there is a philosophical divide between seeking natural explanations for phenomena and ascribing supernatural explanations to phenomena.
yes, it's a natural outgrowth of humanity to explain things in rational terms.
even the most religious fundamentalist will not accept "it was gods will" when told his daughter was killed by a drunk driver.
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.
a scientist would not make such a gross mistake.
proving a book wrong DOES NOT prove god wrong.
You have to be more specific. I'm not sure what his observations are.
if they wish to tell you, they will.
as to their observations, i consider them as one of the more amiable posters here.
as far as you knowing who they are, that should be evidence that they don't let god or religion slip into their arguments.
 
Upvote 0

leftrightleftrightleft

Well-Known Member
Jul 14, 2009
2,644
363
Canada
✟22,986.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
yes, it's a natural outgrowth of humanity to explain things in rational terms.
even the most religious fundamentalist will not accept "it was gods will" when told his daughter was killed by a drunk driver.

Yea, this is essentially my point. Supernatural explanations aren't really explanations.

Saying that God "caused" something to happen doesn't really explain anything. It's a dead end rather than an open door of curiosity.

a scientist would not make such a gross mistake.
proving a book wrong DOES NOT prove god wrong.

I think you are missing my point. Or perhaps we are just talking past one another.

Cheers.
 
Upvote 0

whois

rational
Mar 7, 2015
2,521
119
✟3,336.00
Faith
Non-Denom
I think you are missing my point. Or perhaps we are just talking past one another.

Cheers.
if there is a god, then it must, by definition, operate on an entirely different ruleset than physical reality.
and that's the catch, what is this ruleset.
you simply cannot say something does or doesn't exist when faced with that type of unknown.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
if there is a god, then it must, by definition, operate on an entirely different ruleset than physical reality.
and that's the catch, what is this ruleset.
you simply cannot say something does or doesn't exist when faced with that type of unknown.

No kidding.

That's why, the majority of people who believe in a God, believe on faith. And, the majority of people who don't believe in a God, don't believe because they are not convinced this God exists.
 
Upvote 0

TudorGothicSerpent

Working Class Villain
Nov 15, 2015
35
12
32
North Carolina
✟7,725.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Theistic evolution is unscientific.

How do you empirically demonstrate that evolution is theistic?

You don't and you can't. The "theistic" part is a religious belief and not scientifically provable.
 
Upvote 0

Holoman

Credo
Jun 29, 2015
417
149
UK
✟18,043.00
Faith
Catholic
What if God took it?
What would be the point of investigating natural laws to determine a cause if the natural laws have been bypassed by the cause (God)?

Because agents do not always intervene. If I drop an apple onto the floor, and someone else catches it before it hits, does that mean there is no point developing our scientific understanding of gravity, because someone has intervened and broken the law that if I drop an apple it will hit the ground?

What about the fact that the laws of gravity do not hold at a black hole? Is your opinion that we should just abandon all this scientific knowledge because something exists that breaks these laws?
 
Upvote 0

Martin Moe

Newbie
Dec 6, 2014
35
17
Florida Keys
✟8,473.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Something we seldom realize or consider when we take a position on, well, pretty much everything, but especially on matters of politics, culture, and religion is that, to use an old and hackneyed phrase, ‘Perception is Reality”. And human perception depends on many things, including the culture that formed the mind, the environment we occupy, the current state of human knowledge (that changes over time), the early training and indoctrination of the individual, the genetic code that forms the brain and determines or at least influences the mental capabilities of that brain, and the experiential history of the individual human being. All of these things and many more change sometimes slowly and sometimes rapidly and the general perception that guides the life and beliefs of a human being in any past point in time, and including the present, is quite specific to that particular time and environment in which the individual lives. For example, there was a time and place when humans observed the travel of the sun across the sky each day and noticed with apprehension that the days were getting shorter, and they were afraid that the supernatural being (s) that controlled the sun were displeased with them and because of this the sun would eventually no longer return to their world. But if they appeased this deity with the sacrifice of a virginal female (or perhaps just a goat) at just the right time, then the sun would reverse its decline and the world would be safe for another year. That was their perception of reality and it was true to them because it worked! The current perceptions of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Yazidis, Hindus, Mormons, Scientologists, and many, many more religious groups are reality to them because they perceive for whatever reasons that these beliefs are true. And the strength of their belief and the support of other believers makes it appear to work for them, and thus their perception is truth. Science of course, bases belief on evidence and analysis, thus what is accepted as true is subject to change as our perception of reality changes. And in that lays the power of science to change, for good or ill, the course of human civilization, as it has. So what is truth? For the most part it is the belief system that works for the individual, and many people will defend that belief to their death or the death of others that do not agree with them. So unless there is a supernatural entity with a really perverse and extremely complex purpose for creating and manipulating humanity, or a plethora of supernatural entities with conflicting purposes; it should be obvious that religion is a human construct.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,290
51,527
Guam
✟4,913,150.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Science tells us how things work.
God does something and science tells us how He did it?

Okay ... was the Flood local or global according to science?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

HondaMan

Active Member
Aug 24, 2015
238
82
35
✟11,947.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
God does something and science tells us how He did it?

I'm speaking in general. You can be a scientist in biology, physics, you know, study things on earth. You can do that and still be a Christian. That doesn't mean that scientists will be able to answer all the questions. I believe that God can work supernaturally, which would violate our physical laws, but then again, if God created the universe, he can do anything.
 
Upvote 0

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,444
593
✟77,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Assuming for a moment that God *is* the physical universe, how would you possibly demonstrate that theistic evolution is "unscientific"?
Assuming for a moment that God is the physical universe (or that the physical universe is a part of God), yes it would be scientific. Not necessarily correct, but scientific.

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities — His eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." -- (Rom 1:20). :)
 
Upvote 0

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,444
593
✟77,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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
Then I can confidently say that does not include evolution theory.
 
Upvote 0

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟281,096.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I'm speaking in general. You can be a scientist in biology, physics, you know, study things on earth. You can do that and still be a Christian. That doesn't mean that scientists will be able to answer all the questions. I believe that God can work supernaturally, which would violate our physical laws, but then again, if God created the universe, he can do anything.
Sorry, but you're barking up the wrong tree here, this particular poster believes scientists are witches, and thou shall not suffer a witch to live, therefore, Christians can't be scientists - according to AVlogic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HondaMan
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,444
593
✟77,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You don't and you can't. The "theistic" part is a religious belief and not scientifically provable.
It seems to me that theistic evolutionists have found a way of uniting science with religion.

Who would have thought?
 
Upvote 0

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,444
593
✟77,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Because agents do not always intervene. If I drop an apple onto the floor, and someone else catches it before it hits, does that mean there is no point developing our scientific understanding of gravity, because someone has intervened and broken the law that if I drop an apple it will hit the ground?
There would still be a point there, I agree.

But there would be no point in examining natural laws to determine who caught the apple if it was caught by God.
What about the fact that the laws of gravity do not hold at a black hole?
I wasn't aware that the existence of black holes was a fact.
Is your opinion that we should just abandon all this scientific knowledge because something exists that breaks these laws?
If it has to do with nonexistent black holes, yes.

"Black" is not referring to the color of a black hole. It is referring to the fact that black holes have never been observed. Just like dark matter and dark energy. They are all black and dark for the same reason.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

leftrightleftrightleft

Well-Known Member
Jul 14, 2009
2,644
363
Canada
✟22,986.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Of course. Science tells us how things work.

The conflict comes when you are confronted with something which someone claims God did.

It doesn't disprove God, it just observes, experiments, and delivers the results.

There have been a variety of studies done on the efficacy of prayer. Scientists observed, performed experiments and delivered results. The conclusion: prayer has no more efficacy than random chance.

Do you see the conflict? When scientists observe and experiment and then deliver results which conflict with religious dogma, people throw a fit.

But you are correct. That is all scientists do: observe, experiment and deliver results.

And if those results conflict with some religious dogma, how does a religious person respond?

The MRI was invented by a scientist, and he was a Christian.

For this man, the physics behind the MRI machine (and the machine itself) did not conflict with his religious beliefs, so he is all good.

However, if he was studying chemistry, then perhaps the water-into-wine story which is part of his religious beliefs would rub up against his scientific observations, experiments and results. He would observe that water does not turn to wine in any natural settings nor is there is any observed chemical mechanism for such a thing to happen. He would either have to claim it didn't happen and reconsider his beliefs/interpretations, or he would have to declare it a "miracle" -- a one time anomaly -- which has zero explanatory power. Declaring something a "miracle" doesn't actually tell you anything about anything. Its a dead end. Its a claim of ignorance rather than knowledge. Its an "I dunno" place holder. Its a shrug. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

xpower

Newbie
Site Supporter
Aug 24, 2014
445
149
✟105,003.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The conflict comes when you are confronted with something which someone claims God did.



There have been a variety of studies done on the efficacy of prayer. Scientists observed, performed experiments and delivered results. The conclusion: prayer has no more efficacy than random chance.

Do you see the conflict? When scientists observe and experiment and then deliver results which conflict with religious dogma, people throw a fit.

But you are correct. That is all scientists do: observe, experiment and deliver results.

And if those results conflict with some religious dogma, how does a religious person respond?



For this man, the physics behind the MRI machine (and the machine itself) did not conflict with his religious beliefs, so he is all good.

However, if he was studying chemistry, then perhaps the water-into-wine story which is part of his religious beliefs would rub up against his scientific observations, experiments and results. He would observe that water does not turn to wine in any natural settings nor is there is any observed chemical mechanism for such a thing to happen. He would either have to claim it didn't happen and reconsider his beliefs/interpretations, or he would have to declare it a "miracle" -- a one time anomaly -- which has zero explanatory power. Declaring something a "miracle" doesn't actually tell you anything about anything. Its a dead end. Its a claim of ignorance rather than knowledge. Its an "I dunno" place holder. Its a shrug. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The efficacy of prayer depends on a free agent(God) therefore you can not use the scientific method to measure It's efficacy. Also God is not a genie that grants every wish.
 
Upvote 0