Religion and Science

[Gwenyfur]

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.

ROFL

Sorry, but for every car I've had, I've wound up praising G-d that someone was smart enough to make those manuals!!!!!

I do a lot of my own maitenance LOL

 

[gluadys]

ROFL

Sorry, but for every car I've had, I've wound up praising G-d that someone was smart enough to make those manuals!!!!!

I do a lot of my own maitenance LOL

That's the point isn't it. You did not need God's name printed in the manual to praise God for the manual.

And the manual is useful to you, and worth thanking God for, even if the person smart enough to write it was an atheist.

 

[gluadys]

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.

You held up George Washington Carver as an example of a scientist who gave God the glory. But in the anecdote, he did that in a speech to the Senate.

Did he ever mention God in a scientific report on his scientific findings?

How do you know that scientists who never mention God in their scientific reports are not giving God the glory when they are speaking or writing in other venues? In fact, I would point to Ken Miller's book Finding Darwin's God as an example of giving God the glory in the same way as Carver's speech to the Senate.

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

I'll agree with that. But it still doesn't make adding pious sentences to scientific reports a good way to glorify God.

Better, as you intimated earlier, that the scientist be attuned to God mentally and spiritually as s/he considers what area of scientific research to engage in. That will be far more effective in glorifying God than anything religious being added to a scientific paper when the research is finished. A scientist still has many other opportunities to give God glory outside of scientific journals.

 

[gluadys]

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...

Do you know about vocation (aka calling)?

If God has given you the vocation to be a scientist, then using your science mind is responding to the calling of God, and so you are still loving God with all your mind.

 

[vossler]

You held up George Washington Carver as an example of a scientist who gave God the glory. But in the anecdote, he did that in a speech to the Senate.

Did he ever mention God in a scientific report on his scientific findings?

Not that I know of, but then again that wasn't the point. I never stated that God should be mentioned in scientific reports. All I've ever said was that God should receive the glory. The report can say whatever it likes, it's what comes out of the lips of the scientist that really tells whose being glorified.

How do you know that scientists who never mention God in their scientific reports are not giving God the glory when they are speaking or writing in other venues? In fact, I would point to Ken Miller's book Finding Darwin's God as an example of giving God the glory in the same way as Carver's speech to the Senate.

Hearing any scientist, other than those who work specifically for obvious Christian ministries, acknowledge God in any manner is extremely rare.

I'll agree with that. But it still doesn't make adding pious sentences to scientific reports a good way to glorify God.

Again, no one is advocating that so why is this continually being brought up? Not once have I mentioned anything of the sort, yet repeatedly I've had to deny it. Go figure.

A scientist still has many other opportunities to give God glory outside of scientific journals.

Yes they do, the point is, it rarely happens.

 

[Gwenyfur]

That's the point isn't it. You did not need God's name printed in the manual to praise God for the manual.

And the manual is useful to you, and worth thanking God for, even if the person smart enough to write it was an atheist.

Duhh...I know that wasn't the point...

Do you even *have* or *know* what a sense of humor is????

 

[Numenor]

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?

Because my scientific findings will be wrong regardless of my faith if my methodology is wrong. Having faith will not make my findings correct.

Is God not the seed of all wisdom? (proverbs, job, psalms)

The wisdom spoken of in Proverbs, Psalms & Job is spiritual wisdom and insight. What did King Solomon know about atoms, gluons and quarks?

Therefore why set aside His word as allegorical?

Were Christ's parables not allegories? Were they not packed with wisdom? The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Gwenyfur]

Because my scientific findings will be wrong regardless of my faith if my methodology is wrong. Having faith will not make my findings correct.

The wisdom spoken of in Proverbs, Psalms & Job is spiritual wisdom and insight. What did King Solomon know about atoms, gluons and quarks?
Were Christ's parables not allegories? Were they not packed with wisdom? The two are not mutually exclusive.

When he spoke in parables, He made sure to note that it was a parable....

There is no such notation in regards to creation or the flood

 

[shernren]

When he spoke in parables, He made sure to note that it was a parable....

For example?

Does starting a parable with "There was ... " constitute a parable? I'm sure I can probably find a report from my local newspaper that starts with "There was" and I'm pretty sure it won't be a parable.

 

[Gwenyfur]

There was is the equivalent of
Once upon a time in the language of today

kinda like the story of evolution....
once upon a time, there was a _______________________

 

[Numenor]

There was is the equivalent of
Once upon a time in the language of today

kinda like the story of evolution....
once upon a time, there was a _______________________

Just when I thought you were taking this seriously....

 

[The Lady Kate]

Not that I know of, but then again that wasn't the point. I never stated that God should be mentioned in scientific reports. All I've ever said was that God should receive the glory. The report can say whatever it likes, it's what comes out of the lips of the scientist that really tells whose being glorified.

So are you saying that unless "thank God" comes out of the scientists' lips at every opportunity, he's just praising himself?

Hearing any scientist, other than those who work specifically for obvious Christian ministries, acknowledge God in any manner is extremely rare.
Again, no one is advocating that so why is this continually being brought up? Not once have I mentioned anything of the sort, yet repeatedly I've had to deny it. Go figure.

Because unless you are advocating it, then none of us have the slightest clue what you're complaining about.

Nobody acknoledges God as much as they probably should... not out loud, anyway. That doesn't mean God doesn't get the glory.

So what is your point?

Yes they do, the point is, it rarely happens.

It rarely happens for anybody. Why pick on scientists?

 

[gluadys]

Not that I know of, but then again that wasn't the point. I never stated that God should be mentioned in scientific reports. All I've ever said was that God should receive the glory. The report can say whatever it likes, it's what comes out of the lips of the scientist that really tells whose being glorified.

I am glad to hear that, because I am clearly not the only person who thought that was your point. So, let's make it clear now. You are agreeing that the scientific report is not the appropriate place to mention God. But if the scientist is a Christian and invited to speak in a non-scientific venue, you would expect him or her to say a word about their faith.

Is that your point?

Hearing any scientist, other than those who work specifically for obvious Christian ministries, acknowledge God in any manner is extremely rare.

I think it is a cultural thing. North American culture has become so secularized, and religion so privatized, that very few people speak of God outside obviously religious settings. And scientists are human too.

Now Muslim culture is much more open to public expressions of faith. A Muslim hardly opens his/her mouth without saying "inshallah" (God willing). African culture, both Christian and Muslim, is also much more open to public expressions of faith.

Again, no one is advocating that so why is this continually being brought up? Not once have I mentioned anything of the sort, yet repeatedly I've had to deny it. Go figure.

I don't remember you clearly denying it before. We are just trying to figure out what you mean when you speak of scientists "not glorifying God".

 

[gluadys]

Duhh...I know that wasn't the point...

But it was the point. Or did you skip over my first sentence?

Do you even *have* or *know* what a sense of humor is????

I like my humour very dry. A lot of people don't understand it.

 

[gluadys]

Therefore why set aside His word as allegorical?

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

Your confusion lies in concluding that those who see passages of scripture as allegorical are setting it aside. As if allegory was not scripture or could be ignored.

But that is not the case. Even when scripture is allegorical it is still inspired by God and is just as important and true as non-allegorical scripture.

 

[Dannager]

kinda like the story of evolution....
once upon a time, there was a _______________________

Please, Gwenyfur. This is a serious discussion, and I ask that you not belittle a respected scientific theory in that manner. Evolution is not a children's story. It is fact and solid theory and deserves more respect than you are giving it. The Bible deserves your respect as well, and your understanding. Parts of the Bible are meant to be read as allegory. Comments like the one I quoted do nothing to advance discussion. Could you please, in the future, refrain from them?

 

[vossler]

I am glad to hear that, because I am clearly not the only person who thought that was your point. So, let's make it clear now. You are agreeing that the scientific report is not the appropriate place to mention God. But if the scientist is a Christian and invited to speak in a non-scientific venue, you would expect him or her to say a word about their faith.

Is that your point?

Yes, a scientific report is probably not the appropriate place to mention God. However, when presenting such a report, whether by lecture or other inquiry, there should be nothing holding you back. Now having said that, this isn't the point of this thread.

I've repeatedly heard Christians say that you have to separate religion from science. My point is we should never take God out of our vocation or anything else that we do. Carver did no such thing, he acknowledged and sought out God while doing his work. His work was in service to the Lord.

I think it is a cultural thing. North American culture has become so secularized, and religion so privatized, that very few people speak of God outside obviously religious settings. And scientists are human too.

Now Muslim culture is much more open to public expressions of faith. A Muslim hardly opens his/her mouth without saying "inshallah" (God willing). African culture, both Christian and Muslim, is also much more open to public expressions of faith.

You see far more people in none scientific areas acknowledging God in the work than in the scientific area. This is probably due to the fact we have so few scientists who are devote in their faith.

 

[chaoschristian]

My point is we should never take God out of our vocation or anything else that we do. Carver did no such thing, he acknowledged and sought out God while doing his work. His work was in service to the Lord.

This is what is confusing me.

On one hand you acknowledge that it is inappropriate to reference faith within the terms of a scientific paper or discussion.

One the other hand you say we should never take God out of our vocation.

Yet the scientific process is neutral towards, or rather completely disinterested in, religious ideas/ideals.

Now, I was doing a rather horrible job of trying to express myself in my earlier posts, and hopefully I'll do better here.

Let me take your example of Carver and play with it a little, to see if we can reach some for of understanding.

Let's say that the Bible actually talked about the peanut directly. And let's say it said something alongs the lines of "and thou shall not mash the nut of the pea, nor shall you mix it with the honey of the comb, nor shall you spread it upon your matzah, for such a thing is an abomnination before the Lord."

OK, so for centuries people avoid the peanut because of what scripture says. Then along comes Carver, and he's looking at a peanut and he's thinking to himself, "These things are growing all over the place, surely there has to be some use for them. Some good can come out of this, that can help feed the hungry at least."

So, in your opinion, what should Carver do in this scenerio? Should he follow what scripture says (and let's also assume for a minute that that scripture was 'inspired' because Moses had a peanut allergy, but Carver doesn't know that) or should he follow his curiosity and intellect?

From what I've read of your posts and how I understand them, Carver might be allowed to pursue his interest in the peanut, so long as his findings excluded anything to do with peanut butter.

That's what I was trying to say earlier when I was talking about scripture and/or religion binding scientific inquery. That because certain results are proscribed, then the scientist must ignore them, although in doing so the very nature of scientific inquery is violated.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Yes, a scientific report is probably not the appropriate place to mention God. However, when presenting such a report, whether by lecture or other inquiry, there should be nothing holding you back. Now having said that, this isn't the point of this thread.

The lecture hall, the laboratory, the classroom... these are the places one should proselytize?

I've repeatedly heard Christians say that you have to separate religion from science. My point is we should never take God out of our vocation or anything else that we do.

"Religion" and "God" are two spearate things... "Religion" is the set of rules and beliefs we use to simplify God to something easier to comprehend...

We may set aside "religion," from time to time, but can we ever set aside "God"?

Carver did no such thing, he acknowledged and sought out God while doing his work. His work was in service to the Lord.

Good for him. So...?

You see far more people in none scientific areas acknowledging God in the work than in the scientific area. This is probably due to the fact we have so few scientists who are devote in their faith.

So you say...scientists are less devout in their faith because they proclaim it less. Judge much?

 

[Marshall Janzen]

There was is the equivalent of
Once upon a time in the language of today

Did you even check Scripture before posting that? Never mind that in Greek, it's just the verb "to be" and it is variously translated in English as "am", "been", "being", "exist", "had", "happen", etc. Are you aware that the phrase "there was" introduces parts of one of the resurrection narratives? Are you aware that it introduces many of Jesus' encounters with people to heal them? "There was" was simply a common way of starting a story, regardless of whether it was historical, parable, or otherwise.

Sometimes it was used to start a parable: "He said, 'In a certain city there was a judge who neither feared God nor respected man..." (Luke 18:2, ESV).

Sometimes it was used to start an account of what Jesus did: "And in the synagogue there was a man who had the spirit of an unclean demon, and he cried out with a loud voice..." (Luke 4:33).

Sometimes it introduces accounts of other people: "Now there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon, and this man was righteous and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him..." (Luke 2:25).

It's also used as an introduction to a segment of John's gospel: "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John..." (John 1:6).

Are you really willing to write off all these accounts as fairy tales?