Nationality & Science

[eddie123]

Following on from posts regarding a "Scientific" compared to "Christian" world-view - do you think that where you come from effects how you respond to the answers Science provides.

The reason I ask this is that I know quite a few Christians in the UK and I've not encountered one who seems to feel that what Science says about things (like creation or evolution) challenges their faith in any way.

 

[Calminian]

Following on from posts regarding a "Scientific" compared to "Christian" world-view - do you think that where you come from effects how you respond to the answers Science provides.

The reason I ask this is that I know quite a few Christians in the UK and I've not encountered one who seems to feel that what Science says about things (like creation or evolution) challenges their faith in any way.

I don't think it's so much where you come from geographically as it is world-view. Perhaps that's what you meant. Worldview is essential in just how far one will be guided by science. To be sure, christians value science and believe it to be an effective tool in many areas. Christians believe God created an orderly world that follows patterns that can be observed, tested and repeated. Because of this science can be used to predict the future and gain insight into the past.

But, christians also believe in a God that transcends the natural processes discovered by science. Not only did He create them, but at times violates them. These interventions are often referred to as miracles. The Bible is full of testimony of these rare events. The life of Jesus is filled with occasions where He violated scientific understandings (just as we would expect of our Creator).

So basically christians will embrace science except in those areas where they believe the presuppositions of science have been directly challenged by the Bible, such as the miracles of Christ, and of the apostles and prophets, the Resurrection of Christ, and the Creation of the world. Science is limited to that which is testable and repeatable. Miracles or special acts of God are not, and therefore are outside the realm of scientific verification.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[prophecystudent]

Perhaps geography has less to do with it than does the "culture".

US culture is more diversified and seems to provide more freedom to explore and/or express differing thoughts an opinions regarding religion, or creaton vs evolution.

From a personal standpoint, I have nothing against real science that follows scientific principles and rules. That means observation of the evidence, form an opinion of how that evidence came to be. Then do tests to see if the opinion is in fact accurate. ie. can the conditions observed be replicated. If not, then the "theory" has not been proven, or has been proven to be inaccurate.

Regardless of the phenomena observed the same basic principles are involved.

There are far too many unanswered questions regarding evolution, for example to claim it is anything other than a theory. It is something someone decided answered SOME of the observations and evidence.

Until the major questions that dispute evolution as the source of the universe and mankind have been answered, we are left with a "theory" that cannot be explained, or supported.

Long answer to get to the bottom line. Science provided a host of benefits to mankind. Medicine, tools, learning, for example all stem from science in one form or another.

To simply deny that on the basis of one's religious belief is, in my opinion, less than intellectually honest.

But then I am by nature a person who tends to think logically, and draws conclusions based on the information (all of it) that is available.

God made us intelligent for a reason. That intelligence does not mean we should ignore anything else that He made, or gave us.

Fred

 

[Key]

Following on from posts regarding a "Scientific" compared to "Christian" world-view -

I do not believe that there is a difference between science and Christ.

The problem is only when people treat science like it is a religion, and a religion like it is science.

do you think that where you come from effects how you respond to the answers Science provides.

To the point that Culture affects our outlook, yes.

The reason I ask this is that I know quite a few Christians in the UK and I've not encountered one who seems to feel that what Science says about things (like creation or evolution) challenges their faith in any way.

That is true, that was established many years ago by Queen Elizabeth I, when she made the proclamation that "All that matters is Christ, everything else is just trifles"

This, to that culture, Christianity is about Christ, not anything else.

And it seems to have remained in that direction still today.

God Bless

Key.

 

[PenelopePitstop2]

Following on from posts regarding a "Scientific" compared to "Christian" world-view - do you think that where you come from effects how you respond to the answers Science provides.

The reason I ask this is that I know quite a few Christians in the UK and I've not encountered one who seems to feel that what Science says about things (like creation or evolution) challenges their faith in any way.

the resaon for me that science does not challenge my faith is because I my faith is based on my relationship with God.

There are scientist who have theories supporting evolution just as there are scientist that have theories supporting creation. My faith is not based on the need to understand everything but as I said on a ralationship I have with my creator and savior.

Ultimately much of science is based on interpretation of various observations of evidence found but there are gaps and flaws in a lot of theories from both sides. No man would claim to have infinate knowledge of all things so no man's theories do not challenge my faith.

 

[Seekermeister]

I do not think that many American Christians reject science as a whole, but to ask why we are less tolerant about evolution signifies what some of us might consider a weakness of faith by those who ask the question. This intolerance is not simply a matter of faith, it is also logical. I could dream up most any kind of fatuous theory and call it scientific, but should that be enough to cause people of rational thinking to give it any real consideration?

 

[eddie123]

...to ask why we are less tolerant about evolution signifies what some of us might consider a weakness of faith by those who ask the question.

Well as I'm the one asking the question, and as I'm not a Christian, then I think you've got your answer to this point.

I could dream up most any kind of fatuous theory and call it scientific

You could dream up any kind of fatuous explanation for something and call it the word of God. Faith is then required to believe this because there is no independent way of validating the information presented. We see this process happening all the time today.

For something to be considered a valid scientific theory you need to provide a body of evidence to support your theory that can then be tested. That doesn't mean a theory is true, most established theories are probably, at best, approximations of the truth - and many new theories are discarded upon independent testing, but it does at least provide a means for others to independently decide whether they believe in it or not.

that was established many years ago by Queen Elizabeth I, when she made the proclamation that "All that matters is Christ, everything else is just trifles"

Thanks Key - very interesting - exactly the sort of thing I'm interested in. Do you have any for info about this, like when she said it & in what context.

No man would claim to have infinate knowledge of all things

Thanks PenelopePitstop2 - interesting answer, though from the bit I've quoted I wonder if you've spent that much time on this forum as there seem to be a few here who come close

 

[Seekermeister]

eddie123,

You could dream up any kind of fatuous explanation for something and call it the word of God. Faith is then required to believe this because there is no independent way of validating the information presented. We see this process happening all the time today.

For something to be considered a valid scientific theory you need to provide a body of evidence to support your theory that can then be tested. That doesn't mean a theory is true, most established theories are probably, at best, approximations of the truth - and many new theories are discarded upon independent testing, but it does at least provide a means for others to independently decide whether they believe in it or not.

Your comparison of faith to science indicates that you have no faith, therefore are not qualified to evaluate it. As far as an independent means of validating faith is concerned, there is a vast source of information available. I'm not just referring to the word of another person, because this validity is found by personal experience. Even using "scientific" means is possible to an extent, but that requires a mind that is amenable to standards that currently are not considered scientific. This is far superior to the committee of organized guessing, because it has only one source, which is accessible by anyone, if they meet the "professor's" standards. Guessing is not part of the process.

 

[eddie123]

Seekermeister - I'm not sure I really understand your answer. I can read a scientific theory and (except for the most esoteric theories) I can seek out the evidence myself to form my own opinion. On a spiritual matter - whether based on my own experience or the accounts of others, or in reading ancient texts which claim to give the truth, it is obviously necessary for faith to accept these as any accounts or experiences are necessarily subjective and personal. If they were not they would be accessible to testing with scientific methods.

You seem to be confusing the application of faith as relating to any spiritual beliefs with some Christian specific meaning of the word "faith" which is not what I was alluding to.

"scientific" means is possible to an extent, but that requires a mind that is amenable to standards that currently are not considered scientific.

So they are "scientific" but not scientific - does this make sense to anybody?

As far as an independent means of validating faith is concerned, there is a vast source of information available. I'm not just referring to the word of another person, because this validity is found by personal experience....This is far superior to the committee of organized guessing, because it has only one source, which is accessible by anyone, if they meet the "professor's" standards. Guessing is not part of the process.

Then why is it that so many of the "professor's" students seem to believe contradictory things? (e.g per my OP - some believe creation / some evolution).

superior to the committee of organized guessing..........Guessing is not part of the process.

I think accusing scientific method to just be "guessing" is a bit disingenuous. Such methods have over hundreds of years lead to a great understanding of the world around us - regardless of when or how it was created - and produced applications as diverse as medicines, computers, telecommunications, archaeological dating, cars, aircraft, nuclear power, increased food production, modern sanitation, skyscrapers - indeed most of our modern world. That's really good guessing.

Your comparison of faith to science indicates that you have no faith, therefore are not qualified to evaluate it.

So you set yourself up to judge me? I thought that job was reserved for the God you believe in. In fact I thought Jesus had some very specific things to say on this matter.

FWIW I have faith in what I believe - I just don't have faith in what I think you believe.


Anyhow - I'm not sure how this track is going to lead to the answers I'm seeking & I'd rather concentrate on posters who actually seem to be trying to answer my question rather than just rehashing the same old arguments we see all over this site (and yes I have noticed that you seem to always be jumping into threads to start promoting your beliefs without any great reference to the actual subject of the thread). So - to try and get us back on track I'll ask the original question again......

Following on from posts regarding a "Scientific" compared to "Christian" world-view - do you think that where you come from effects how you respond to the answers Science provides.

The reason I ask this is that I know quite a few Christians in the UK and I've not encountered one who seems to feel that what Science says about things (like creation or evolution) challenges their faith in any way.

 

[Zeena]

Following on from posts regarding a "Scientific" compared to "Christian" world-view - do you think that where you come from effects how you respond to the answers Science provides.

The reason I ask this is that I know quite a few Christians in the UK and I've not encountered one who seems to feel that what Science says about things (like creation or evolution) challenges their faith in any way.

If it's decided on 'where one comes from' then it's a carnal decision, fleshly, to say the least, and the decision will not last, and if it does the person would be in torment all thier days..

If it's decided based upon WHO you are it's a spiritual one, and true

Exodus 9:7
And Pharaoh sent, and, behold, there was not one of the cattle of the Israelites dead. And the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and he did not let the people go.

Mark 7:20-23
And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

1 Samuel 16:7
But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.

Matthew 13:15
For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Matthew 12:34
O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

Ezekiel 18:31
Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

Ezekiel 36:26
A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

Mark 3:5
And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.

 

[Seekermeister]

Seekermeister - I'm not sure I really understand your answer. I can read a scientific theory and (except for the most esoteric theories) I can seek out the evidence myself to form my own opinion.

Yes, you could, but have you? And, if you have, do you not think that it is possible that your perception would be colored by the theories that you read? Even if you are so logically independent, don't you think that your own biases might effect the outcome of your experiments?

On a spiritual matter - whether based on my own experience or the accounts of others, or in reading ancient texts which claim to give the truth, it is obviously necessary for faith to accept these as any accounts or experiences are necessarily subjective and personal. If they were not they would be accessible to testing with scientific methods.

That is exactly the point, while you may not be able to experience exactly the same thing that someone in the Bible did, that is irrelevant, because you can experience what God has in store for you. Once that God touches you, you will not need a laboratory or a library of information to know it's truth.

You seem to be confusing the application of faith as relating to any spiritual beliefs with some Christian specific meaning of the word "faith" which is not what I was alluding to.

I'm not really sure what you mean then, because the only kind of faith that I know anything about is Christian.

So they are "scientific" but not scientific - does this make sense to anybody?

It shouldn't be that difficult to understand, since science is merely a means of applying logic to data, it is something that you could do also, with or without the validation of the scientific community.

Then why is it that so many of the "professor's" students seem to believe contradictory things? (e.g per my OP - some believe creation / some evolution).

I think accusing scientific method to just be "guessing" is a bit disingenuous. Such methods have over hundreds of years lead to a great understanding of the world around us - regardless of when or how it was created - and produced applications as diverse as medicines, computers, telecommunications, archaeological dating, cars, aircraft, nuclear power, increased food production, modern sanitation, skyscrapers - indeed most of our modern world. That's really good guessing.

Science has been around as long as man has been on this Earth, and long before the word science was even known. Many early scientists were Christian, and some still are.

So you set yourself up to judge me? I thought that job was reserved for the God you believe in. In fact I thought Jesus had some very specific things to say on this matter.

FWIW I have faith in what I believe - I just don't have faith in what I think you believe.

Whether you like it or not, there is nothing unChristian about me judging you or anyone else, when it comes to recognizing their spiritual status...especially when they witness this by their own words. The only thing unChristian about judging someone, is if that is in the form of condemnation or hate.

Anyhow - I'm not sure how this track is going to lead to the answers I'm seeking & I'd rather concentrate on posters who actually seem to be trying to answer my question rather than just rehashing the same old arguments we see all over this site (and yes I have noticed that you seem to always be jumping into threads to start promoting your beliefs without any great reference to the actual subject of the thread). So - to try and get us back on track I'll ask the original question again......

You can concentrate on who you choose, but that will have no effect on whether or how I might respond.

 

[eddie123]

Well Seekermeister - obviously you've got your own agenda to pursue. Fell free to post whatever you want in this thread - as I'm sure you will - but if you're not actually going to try to answer my question you'll have to excuse me if I ignore you in future.

 

[Seekermeister]

Well Seekermeister - obviously you've got your own agenda to pursue. Fell free to post whatever you want in this thread - as I'm sure you will - but if you're not actually going to try to answer my question you'll have to excuse me if I ignore you in future.

You might as well ignore me, because you don't understand what I have said anyway. As far as me having an agenda or I might be promoting my own beliefs, that is basically true, because it wouldn't make any sense for me to promote someone else's, unless they were like mine. However, I do not run a church, and I do not accept donations, so my "agenda" is not self centered or selfish. Ask your questions in your own fashion, but do not expect anyone to answer in the manner in which you demand.

 

[rocklife]

Following on from posts regarding a "Scientific" compared to "Christian" world-view - do you think that where you come from effects how you respond to the answers Science provides.

by answers do you mean about earth being millions of years old and big bang, etc?

The reason I ask this is that I know quite a few Christians in the UK and I've not encountered one who seems to feel that what Science says about things (like creation or evolution) challenges their faith in any way.

I was born in Japan, also have lived in Korea, I am half-Okinawan, (they teach evolution) and also lived in Las Vegas in the US, and etc. I believe I have been exposed to plenty, and actually didn't care that much about science, and still don't spend too much time worrying about it. Now that I am a christian, I just go along with the Bible whatever I understand, since I believe people can make mistakes and God knows all, so I just allow room for error (including for myself), and rely on God, and I am trying to help my son do the same. When we go to museums (we go all the time as homeschoolers), I do tell him my understanding of things, we don't go along with all things. but really in the scheme of things, it doesn't seem like a big deal to me. more of a private thing, what is more important christian message is forgiveness of sins found in Jesus, and He offers eternal life, that is great news.

 

[eddie123]

by answers do you mean about earth being millions of years old and big bang, etc?

Yes. Essentially those areas where some consider there to be a clash between the answers that Science provides to those provided by Christian teachings. Obviously the biggest ones at this time seem to be regarding the origin of the Universe and the origin of Mankind.

I find friends of mine who are members major Christian churches in the UK do not seem to have the issues with what science says, whereas certainly there seem to be some major perceived clashes from what I see of Christians in some other countries (mainly encountered in forums like this, TV reports, or some friends I have is the US and Canada).

What I'm interested in finding out is if any of you as Christians can shed light on why such differences in attitude occurs, seemingly influenced by the differing geographical locations.

 

[rocklife]

Yes. Essentially those areas where some consider there to be a clash between the answers that Science provides to those provided by Christian teachings. [/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT]Obviously the biggest ones at this time seem to be regarding the origin of the Universe and the origin of Mankind.

I find friends of mine who are members major Christian churches in the UK do not seem to have the issues with what science says, whereas certainly there seem to be some major perceived clashes from what I see of Christians in some other countries (mainly encountered in forums like this, TV reports, or some friends I have is the US and Canada).

What I'm interested in finding out is if any of you as Christians can shed light on why such differences in attitude occurs, seemingly influenced by the differing geographical locations.

I believe christians who go along with the bible scholars who say the earth is only thousands of years old (it is in bible study notes about that), we just try to pass that along, hopefully not to be arrogant, but just to try to bring correction from what we see as important, but many christians do have the faith that God's Bible and Scriptures can be trusted, which of course non-christians may not have.

one ministry from Australia or New Zealand originally (now is based in US), is www.answersingenesis.org, they are very much creationists. Ken Ham, the director, says that not having faith in the creation account in Genesis just leads to no faith in the rest of the bible, of course that is his personal belief. I just mention since he is very popular and respected creationist, so others probably can be led to have that same thinking. I personally believe before we can take Genesis so importantly, we need to first have that relationship with God, not just His book, so my own priority in sharing information is a little different than Mr. Ham's, but I respect his thoughts and ministry.

thanks for talking

 

[eddie123]

Hi Rocklife - thanks for the interesting response.

From further reading I was surprised to find out that the Catholic, Orthodox and main Anglican churches do not seem to have any issue with Science and Evolution - except in a context where these are used in an attempt to "prove" that the creation & existence of the Universe, or of mankind, occurred without God.

As a non-Christian my perception (probably formed a lot by the debates about the teaching of "intelligent design" in US schools) was quite the opposite, that the majority of Christians had a problem with these things.

Given that the major churches don't seem to have any problems in this area, where does the drive for a literal interpretation of Genesis and a denial of the results of scientific investigation come from, and how widespread is it?

 

[cmg08]

I think religion is more logical than faith and science is not meant to put in the same category as the bible

 

[Calminian]

Given that the major churches don't seem to have any problems in this area, where does the drive for a literal interpretation of Genesis and a denial of the results of scientific investigation come from, and how widespread is it?

I think you are going to find that exegetical approaches to scripture are as rare in america as they are around the world. Perhaps it is a little stronger in america, but by and large, very few allow scripture to interpret scripture. I really have no problem with this. Jesus said the true path would be a narrow one.

You may find it interesting, though, that even the major churches deny science at one point or another. They may align with science in the areas of astronomy and geology, but they suddenly switch and deny medical science which clearly precludes virgin births and resurrections after 3 days. I guess they allow for miracles in some portions, but deny them in others.

I'm convinced the whole world is simply confused about miracles and science. The two don't just don't mix. In my opinion, the more a christian equates (falsely) science with logic, the more likely he is to deny or reinterpret biblical teachings. On the other hand, the more one correctly understands the philosophical assumptions behind science, such as methodological naturalism, the less likely he is to compromise. The truth is, science cannot verify nor falsify miracles. It merely must assume they don't exist a priori. It's no wonder this debate is so confusing.

 

[eddie123]

science cannot verify nor falsify miracles. It merely must assume they don't exist a priori.

Would not a definition of a miracle be the occurrence of something that scientific theories would consider to be impossible?