Religion and Science

[vossler]

Not Atheistic, but agnostic. Whether God exists or not is simply not a factor to the methodology.

I see you're just not getting it. Most scientists don't even give God a second thought as they do their work. This means that God won't get the glory for anything they produce. My point is this isn't right. Whatever it is we do will be done better if we believe and trust God through it.

Either the Atheists are right, and God doesn't exist, so He can't affect the outcome of a given experiment, or we're right, and He does exist, and won't affect the outcome of a given scientific experiment.

In other words... either 2+2=4, or 2+2+God=4. does it matter either way?

The result doesn't change just how you get there. With God as your co-pilot you won't face as many obstacles.

Look at the math problem above... is there any point to developing Theistic Algebra?

I don't know if we'll ever see this the same, I can hope but I don't know.

And so He is... but not so that we skew the outcome in what we may think is His favor.

It's not about us, it's all about Him. If the outcome can glorify Him, why wouldn't He want that? No skewing required!

Still a little fuzzy... Theistic Algebra? Theistic Chemistry? Theistic Physics? Where shall we draw the line?

That's just it, there isn't a line. God is in everything.

Must we preface every scientific endovor with "Of course, God could easily alter these results any way He wants?" Or can it go without saying, and for simplicity's sake, assume that He didn't?

Or, when We don't get the results we want, is that our license to say "Goddidit?"

Who said anything about God altering any results? The means of getting to a result don't change, just the purpose. That of course is to glorify Him.

 

[The Lady Kate]

I see you're just not getting it. Most scientists don't even give God a second thought as they do their work. This means that God won't get the glory for anything they produce. My point is this isn't right. Whatever it is we do will be done better if we believe and trust God through it.

My CPA probably doesn't give God a second thought when he does my taxes... but they're done right just the same.

The result doesn't change just how you get there. With God as your co-pilot you won't face as many obstacles.

Now you're talking about state-of-mind... Knowing that God is with me makes my life less stressful, and that will carry over to whatever I do... but it's not going to make 2+2=5.

I don't know if we'll ever see this the same, I can hope but I don't know.

I understand what you're saying... and certainly nothing I do is without God. But He need not be at the forefront of every single thing I do in order for me to be a good Christian. It's usually better, in fact, to keep my thoughts focused on what I'm doing at that moment.

Am I not glorifying God when I drive if I choose instead to keep my mind (and my eyes) on the road instead of on Him? Somehow I thnk He'd prefer it that way...

It's not about us, it's all about Him. If the outcome can glorify Him, why wouldn't He want that? No skewing required!

But if the outcome doesn't glorify Him... or doesn't in the way we would want it to or we think it should... there are some who do skew the results in what we think is His favor... but in the end, is usually our own.

That's just it, there isn't a line. God is in everything.

You know that; I know that; He knows that.

Who said anything about God altering any results? The means of getting to a result don't change, just the purpose. That of course is to glorify Him.

And the pupose is served just as well when it is unspoken.

God knows I would not abandon Him as much as I know He will never abandon me. Why make a public spectacle of something I already know in my heart to be true? Particularly when such a spectacle is explicitly warned against by Christ himself? (Matthew 6: 1-7)

 

[shernren]

I see you're just not getting it. Most scientists don't even give God a second thought as they do their work. This means that God won't get the glory for anything they produce. My point is this isn't right. Whatever it is we do will be done better if we believe and trust God through it.

I agree with what you are saying but also with what Kate is / was saying, mostly because you guys are going opposite ways and missing each other. It depends on how you define "good".

If "good" is being defined in a scientific sense - good data matches reality, bad data doesn't - then how do I make my data good? Well, I use accurate measurements, take repeated trials without bias towards unfavourable data, am ready to discard unnecessary hypotheses, have no qualms towards incisive peer review, then my data will probably come out of this "good". I grant that being a Christian with good character may make this whole process easier - but not all people with good character and scientific bent are Christians.

On the other hand, we could also take "good" in an ethical sense as you seem to be doing. In that case the atom bomb was "bad", although it represented a tremendous leap in the scope of human knowledge. In that case I agree: only a Christian scientist can make "good" science.

But like it or not, God is not part of the lab methodology. If a Christian says he sees something different under the microscope because he prays before looking in, and nobody can repeat his data, the best thing I can do with his conclusions is to chuck them aside in "unexplained cases" and make a mental note to ask God about it when I see Him. The Christian doesn't get different data because he's a Christian, but he does get a different significance to the same data he obtains because he's a Christian.

 

[vossler]

God knows I would not abandon Him as much as I know He will never abandon me. Why make a public spectacle of something I already know in my heart to be true? Particularly when such a spectacle is explicitly warned against by Christ himself? (Matthew 6: 1-7)

As I suspected, we'll just have to agree to disagree. We see this entire discussion from two completely different perspectives. The Scripture you quoted brings that out clearly. Matthew 6 talks about someone being self-righteous and doing their work in order to be recognized by men. All I've ever said was that my work should glorify and honor God, not myself. Totally and utterly different. Just as George Washington Carver didn't require a public spectacle, nor do I. Just as Jesus tried to glorify His Father in everything He did, so shall I.

God Bless

 

[vossler]

But like it or not, God is not part of the lab methodology. If a Christian says he sees something different under the microscope because he prays before looking in, and nobody can repeat his data, the best thing I can do with his conclusions is to chuck them aside in "unexplained cases" and make a mental note to ask God about it when I see Him. The Christian doesn't get different data because he's a Christian, but he does get a different significance to the same data he obtains because he's a Christian.

Like Lady Kate you, unfortunately, also don't see what I'm saying.

I never said, implied, or hinted that a Christian would see something else under a microscope or that he would get different data because he was a Christian. I simply tried to say, with little success, that as a Christian who looks to God first, one will do and see the things God wants you to do and see. As a scientist like Carver that meant seeing uses for the peanut that no one else ever saw.

For the life of me I don't understand how it is we can't come together on this.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Like Lady Kate you, unfortunately, also don't see what I'm saying.

I never said, implied, or hinted that a Christian would see something else under a microscope or that he would get different data because he was a Christian. I simply tried to say, with little success, that as a Christian who looks to God first, one will do and see the things God wants you to do and see. As a scientist like Carver that meant seeing uses for the peanut that no one else ever saw.

For the life of me I don't understand how it is we can't come together on this.

Because there no way to say that if Carver hadn't come along, someone else wouldn't have. What may be divine intervention may also be blind luck.

Would Carver had failed had he not been a Christian?

 

[gluadys]

I see you're just not getting it. Most scientists don't even give God a second thought as they do their work. This means that God won't get the glory for anything they produce. My point is this isn't right. Whatever it is we do will be done better if we believe and trust God through it.

I am also as confused as Lady Kate about what you are trying to get at. In the paragraph above, you say that if a scientist is not personally working from a Christian perspective, God will not get the glory from what is produced by the scientist's work.

Why would God not get the glory? Whether the scientist is Christian or not, the results of the work exist because of what nature is. And nature is God's creation. How could the product of the work fail to give God glory? And how could Christians who now have a better understanding of creation fail to give God glory because of that scientific work?


What do the scientist's personal beliefs or non-beliefs have to do with God getting the glory for the knowledge and technology yielded by scientific work?

 

[Gwenyfur]

Okay...
I guess I just finally figured out the root of all my questions...

If we are to love G-d with all of our heart, mind soul and strength...how do you separate your faith from your scientific findings? Is God not the seed of all wisdom? (proverbs, job, psalms) Therefore why set aside His word as allegorical?

Therein I believe, lies the crux of my confusion...

 

[KerrMetric]

Okay...
I guess I just finally figured out the root of all my questions...

If we are to love G-d with all of our heart, mind soul and strength...how do you separate your faith from your scientific findings? Is God not the seed of all wisdom? (proverbs, job, psalms) Therefore why set aside His word as allegorical?

Therein I believe, lies the crux of my confusion...

As a scientist, it is not you separate your faith from your research findings but that you separate the two whilst performing the research because quite frankly you don't have the time. I don't need an open bible whilst writing software to model a planetary atmosphere.

 

[Dannager]

Okay...
I guess I just finally figured out the root of all my questions...

If we are to love G-d with all of our heart, mind soul and strength...how do you separate your faith from your scientific findings? Is God not the seed of all wisdom? (proverbs, job, psalms) Therefore why set aside His word as allegorical?

Therein I believe, lies the crux of my confusion...

I think these are two different (though related) topics you have questions about. Separating faith from science is how science - all science - is conducted. God is the seed of all wisdom, to be sure, and he has given us the capacity to reason, but that doesn't mean that he wants us to skew our findings.

You mentioned that God is the seed of all wisdom. In God's wisdom, it is my belief, he realized that it would be counter-productive to attempt to explain to humanity how evolution works, and how the world actually came to be. His lesson could be taught within the frame of an allegory and, more importantly, it could be understood. Flash-forward to present day, where we have scientific findings that clue us in on how the current state of things came to be. God didn't put these findings here to fool us. That would be deceptive of him. God put them there so that we could discover them using the rational thought that God gifted us with. Likewise, God didn't inspire Genesis to deceive us. Genesis was perfect for its intended audience. It gave them a clear, moral message without cluttering it up with talk of natural evolution that would have made people back then go "Huh?!"

Do you have any questions about any of this?

 

[vossler]

I am also as confused as Lady Kate about what you are trying to get at. In the paragraph above, you say that if a scientist is not personally working from a Christian perspective, God will not get the glory from what is produced by the scientist's work.

Why would God not get the glory? Whether the scientist is Christian or not, the results of the work exist because of what nature is. And nature is God's creation. How could the product of the work fail to give God glory? And how could Christians who now have a better understanding of creation fail to give God glory because of that scientific work?

Well the typical scientist rarely if ever mentions or acknowledges God in any of his/her findings. Pretty hard for God to get the glory if He isn't mentioned.

Christians are always failing to give God glory, unfortunately they always have.

 

[Gwenyfur]

sortof...and hopefully I can get it out without being attacked yet again...

if you separate your science mind from your spiritual mind then how can you still be loving G-d with *all* your mind as He's orderd?

Man, I hope that made sense...

 

[KerrMetric]

Well the typical scientist rarely if ever mentions or acknowledges God in any of his/her findings. Pretty hard for God to get the glory if He isn't mentioned.

We also don't mention or kids in journal papers either. A journal paper isn't the proper place. We also have to remember that 4 out of 6 people on this planet are not Christians.

Do you complain when your DVD player instructions don't mention God?

 

[Gwenyfur]

As a scientist, it is not you separate your faith from your research findings but that you separate the two whilst performing the research because quite frankly you don't have the time. I don't need an open bible whilst writing software to model a planetary atmosphere.

anymore than I need my java or oracle books open while I'm coding something...though often my Bible is open somewhere near me....

so your point is?

 

[KerrMetric]

anymore than I need my java or oracle books open while I'm coding something...though often my Bible is open somewhere near me....

so your point is?

The point being there is a time and place for everything.

 

[The Lady Kate]

What do the scientist's personal beliefs or non-beliefs have to do with God getting the glory for the knowledge and technology yielded by scientific work?

Sadly, I think the implication is that God only gets glory if we give it to Him...which as we all know is simply not the case.

 

[vossler]

The point being there is a time and place for everything.

Therein lies the crux of the issue. As long as we keep God in his box (Sunday, Bible study, prayer closet, etc.) then everything will be alright.

 

[KerrMetric]

Therein lies the crux of the issue. As long as we keep God in his box (Sunday, Bible study, prayer closet, etc.) then everything will be alright.

But you no doubt do this in your work life too. The fact is God has no bearing on many tasks to be performed in a work environment. It makes no difference if I was an atheist, agnostic, Hindu, Muslim or whatever for what I do in my work. The results do not depend on professing my faith - that is the point.

 

[Gwenyfur]

But you no doubt do this in your work life too. The fact is God has no bearing on many tasks to be performed in a work environment. It makes no difference if I was an atheist, agnostic, Hindu, Muslim or whatever for what I do in my work. The results do not depend on professing my faith - that is the point.

Professing your faith, no...

Living your faith, as G-d ordained....yes

 

[KerrMetric]

Professing your faith, no...

Living your faith, as G-d ordained....yes

I don't disagree with that. But to hear some people they seem bothered that a scientific paper doesn't have a dedication to the Lord or a Praise Jesus in the conclusion. There is no place for that in a journal paper. As I said earlier, the scientific community is a world wide community where we have to remember 4 out of 6 are not Christians. Heck, in the science community probably half are not even believers at all.

Just as I don't need a Praise the lord on a candy wrapper or my cars shop manual I don't need to tag one on a submitted paper.