Religion and Science

[The Lady Kate]

Like I said "You don't believe man should publicly glorify God through his work and I do." Let's just leave it at that, I'm not interested in going round and round on this.

OR that he's already glorified God in private and doesn't see the need to do so again in public to impress any of us.

If a man doesn't want to publicly acknowledge his Lord and Savior, it's probably better that he doesn't. Chances are he didn't have one in the first place, which is probably the case for most scientists.

And when I thought you were saying that God should only be glorified publicly, you accused me of twisting your words.

If you haven't gotten my 'beed' on this by know I don't think you will.

I have gotten it... anyone who doesn't make a public show of glorifying God is probably an Atheist... as you just said.

That sounds like a good reason for not giving Him glory. There were a few who abused it or misrepresented it.

You mean a good reason for not publicly giving Him glory.

Well, for one, they didn't share it.

Not to you, anyway.

Look, the Bible is full of examples of people who had victories and publicly gave the glory to God. How this is something we now shouldn't pursue is just beyond me.

Times have changed since then. There have been people who have publicly given glory to God for actions they consider blessed, but the rest of us consider atrocious.

No wonder as Christians we're so weak and inept, we can't even give God the glory He so much deserves.

Can't even publicly declare what we so freely do in private... especially when doing it in public would be such a fine show of our own strength as Christians.

Again... who do you want us to glorify: God or ourselves?

No, but many are, especially those who have experienced significant scientific breakthroughs. Why is this so difficult to grab a hold of.

No scientist is in the spotlight 24/7. 99.999% of the public wouldn't recognize them on the street. If the Christians glorify God in their private lives... and I for one have no reason to believe they don't... why then should I insist they do it during the brief time when they have something to say?

Not all athletes or businessmen are in the spotlight either, yet many of those who are give God glory.

Some do... not many. I understand why you approve of their public displays.

 

[vossler]

Lady Kate,

It's obviously we see this entire subject for polar opposite sides of the issue. As Christians we couldn't be further apart.

If I believed in evolution, I'd say we came from two entirely different genetic backgrounds.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Lady Kate,

It's obviously we see this entire subject for polar opposite sides of the issue. As Christians we couldn't be further apart.

And yet we're still Christians... gotta love it.

If I believed in evolution, I'd say we came from two entirely different genetic backgrounds.

Well, I do believe in evolution, and I think we're just products of different environments.

 

[Numenor]

If a man doesn't want to publicly acknowledge his Lord and Savior, it's probably better that he doesn't. Chances are he didn't have one in the first place, which is probably the case for most scientists.

Why are scientists always singled out. What about historians? I've never read a history book (apart from specifically Christian ones) that were concerned with God's hand in history. Why aren't historians being vilified?

 

[vossler]

Why are scientists always singled out.

Could it be because they're the subject of this thread.

Actually, athletes and businessmen were mentioned more than once.

 

[Donkeytron]

Why are scientists always singled out. What about historians? I've never read a history book (apart from specifically Christian ones) that were concerned with God's hand in history. Why aren't historians being vilified?

Scientists are singled out because they make verifiable claims to objective truths-anathema to literalists of any stripe. Also, because they produce knowledge that actually works, theyre held in pretty high public esteem-also a danger to some religious folks.

 

[vossler]

Scientists are singled out because they make verifiable claims to objective truths-anathema to literalists of any stripe. Also, because they produce knowledge that actually works, theyre held in pretty high public esteem-also a danger to some religious folks.

That would be an incredibly accurate assessment if we just took out the word "verifiable"

 

[Numenor]

Could it be because they're the subject of this thread.

You prove my point, scientists are being singled out. Now why specifically do you target scientists and not for example historians?

 

[vossler]

You prove my point, scientists are being singled out. Now why specifically do you target scientists and not for example historians?

Because people here stated that religion and science shouldn't ever mix, hence the title to the thread.

I haven't heard anyone, at least not yet, advocate historians and religion shouldn't mix, but if you are now doing just that, then I'll challenge that too!

 

[Donkeytron]

Because people here stated that religion and science shouldn't ever mix, hence the title to the thread.

How would you include religion in scientific studies? And I dont mean scientists with religious beliefs.

 

[vossler]

How would you include religion in scientific studies? And I dont mean scientists with religious beliefs.

Maybe you need to go back to the beginning of this thread and read all the posts because I talk about that rather extensively.

BTW, it isn't religion that needs to be included, just God.

 

[Donkeytron]

Maybe you need to go back to the beginning of this thread and read all the posts because I talk about that rather extensively.

BTW, it isn't religion that needs to be included, just God.

Yes, I read your posts, and I still dont understand the specifics. I have friends who work in laboratories and I believe have published in a couple different fields. Some are atheists, some arent, and I don't believe it affects the quality of their work. I still dont know where exactly you would stick god in the discovery process. Will any god do, or just jesus?

 

[Numenor]

Because people here stated that religion and science shouldn't ever mix, hence the title to the thread.

That's because as people have pointed out to you, if you had two scientists carrying out the exact same experiment, they would both use the exat same methodology to produce exactly the same results. One's religious position would have no bearing.

Hoewever, your beef seems to be with your perception of Scientists not giving glory to God for their work. A Christian in any walk of life should seek to give the glory to God for all of their achievements. Whether they do this by making grandiose statements or something more understated and lowkey is between them and God.

I haven't heard anyone, at least not yet, advocate historians and religion shouldn't mix, but if you are now doing just that, then I'll challenge that too!

I just finished reading a book on WWII and there wasn't a single mention of God. Is there any reason I should regard it as being historically less accurate?

 

[random_guy]

That's because as people have pointed out to you, if you had two scientists carrying out the exact same experiment, they would both use the exat same methodology to produce exactly the same results. One's religious position would have no bearing.

Hoewever, your beef seems to be with your perception of Scientists not giving glory to God for their work. A Christian in any walk of life should seek to give the glory to God for all of their achievements. Whether they do this by making grandiose statements or something more understated and lowkey is between them and God.


I just finished reading a book on WWII and there wasn't a single mention of God. Is there any reason I should regard it as being historically less accurate?

Why should I be required to publicly thank God whenever I make a new discovery. It seems that's the crux of Vossler's argument. Making scientists do this turns thanking God into a shouting match of who can thank louder, and I believe this completely invalidates the point of thanking him in the first place.

 

[vossler]

That's because as people have pointed out to you, if you had two scientists carrying out the exact same experiment, they would both use the exat same methodology to produce exactly the same results. One's religious position would have no bearing.

Did you read the posts in this thread? If you did you would have noticed that Carver performed experiments as he was led by God to do. Given that, if you had a scientist who was an atheist, or for that matter a professing Christian who didn't seek God's direction, they wouldn't be performing the same experiments as someone who is being led by the Lord. Not only that he wouldn't have to use conventional science books to assist him. This is exactly what Carver did.

However, your beef seems to be with your perception of Scientists not giving glory to God for their work.

True! We're on to something!

A Christian in any walk of life should seek to give the glory to God for all of their achievements.

Again, we're in agreement.

Whether they do this by making grandiose statements or something more understated and lowkey is between them and God.

I won't argue with this either, except to say we're called to preach the gospel in all the earth. What better way to let people know who it is you love and honor than when given a stage to do so. Isn't that what countless actors, musicians, athletes etc., do when they are given the opportunity? Why shouldn't scientists do likewise? Could it be because they are primarily atheists?

However, all of this is secondary to my point. That is, why should science and religion (God specifically) be considered oil and water? God is the author of science and should be consulted and drawn into everything that is science, not treated as if He were a leper.

I just finished reading a book on WWII and there wasn't a single mention of God. Is there any reason I should regard it as being historically less accurate?

You don't and probably won't ever get it. Again, if you had read my posts you would have clearly seen that that wasn't what I am advocating. Why is it you and others keep trying to put words into my mouth? I'm beginning to think that many people who call themselves Christians have a problem with God being publicly acknowledged. It appears as if it is fine for people to mention Him in church, Bible studies, one's home, etc; but God forbid we ever do so in a public forum of any sort.

Have we as Christians become so jaded and worldly that the very mention of God in a public setting sets off alarm bells within our minds? Have we pigeon-holed God to a compartment of our lives where He's allowed only a certain amout of freedom before we yank His chain?

I pray not!

 

[Numenor]

I won't argue with this either, except to say we're called to preach the gospel in all the earth. What better way to let people know who it is you love and honor than when given a stage to do so. Isn't that what countless actors, musicians, athletes etc., do when they are given the opportunity? Why shouldn't scientists do likewise? Could it be because they are primarily atheists?

If a scientists wants to give their testimony whenever they deliver a paper it may speak to some people it may not. That however is up to the individual in question. It seems that you would tar the majority of scientists as athiests (do you have figures to back this up?) just because they don't conduct themselves in the manner you want them to.

Have we as Christians become so jaded and worldly that the very mention of God in a public setting sets off alarm bells within our minds? Have we pigeon-holed God to a compartment of our lives where He's allowed only a certain amout of freedom before we yank His chain?

It depends how they do it. There are several soccer players in Scotland where i live who are Christian. Some are more outspoken and and claim God's hand when they win, yet dont say much about him when they lose. There are others who I know bear witness to their saviour in more circumspect ways.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Did you read the posts in this thread? If you did you would have noticed that Carver performed experiments as he was led by God to do.

So his faith tells him.

Given that, if you had a scientist who was an atheist, or for that matter a professing Christian who didn't seek God's direction, they wouldn't be performing the same experiments as someone who is being led by the Lord.

Assuming that the Lord was in fact leading him, this comes back to the point... you say if Carver was an Atheist, he would've failed.

Not only that he wouldn't have to use conventional science books to assist him. This is exactly what Carver did.

Are you suggesting that God assisted in inspiration and methodology?

True! We're on to something!

Very few people give God as much credit as He deserves... at least to your satisfaction. Why use this thread to single out scientists?

Again, we're in agreement.
I won't argue with this either, except to say we're called to preach the gospel in all the earth. What better way to let people know who it is you love and honor than when given a stage to do so.

Because the stage has been given for another purpose.

Isn't that what countless actors, musicians, athletes etc., do when they are given the opportunity?

A few do... and most do not.

Why shouldn't scientists do likewise? Could it be because they are primarily atheists?

Or could it be because a scientist needs to use their limited time on stage for other purposes?
Scoring a touchdown or winning an Academy award is self-explatory... making a scientific discovery is a little more involved.
Given that the average citizen has a limited attention span, I'd prefer that the scientist use their limited time to explain what the heck they did rather than launch a sermon.

However, all of this is secondary to my point. That is, why should science and religion (God specifically) be considered oil and water?

The bigger point is: What does this have to do with scientists making an instant pulpit at every oppertunity?

God is the author of science and should be consulted and drawn into everything that is science, not treated as if He were a leper.

And you haven't provided an ounce of evidence to prove that that has happened. Public silence proves nothing... especially when God can hear you just as well in pirvate.

You don't and probably won't ever get it. Again, if you had read my posts you would have clearly seen that that wasn't what I am advocating. Why is it you and others keep trying to put words into my mouth? I'm beginning to think that many people who call themselves Christians have a problem with God being publicly acknowledged. It appears as if it is fine for people to mention Him in church, Bible studies, one's home, etc; but God forbid we ever do so in a public forum of any sort.

Because it's simply not necessary. Public forums are places to be seen and heard by men... God can see and hear us just fine anywhere.

If one chooses not to use the public eye for God, the privacy of the Church, Bible studies, one's home, etc. is good enough for Him...regardless of whether it's good enoguh for you.

Have we as Christians become so jaded and worldly that the very mention of God in a public setting sets off alarm bells within our minds? Have we pigeon-holed God to a compartment of our lives where He's allowed only a certain amout of freedom before we yank His chain?

If you want to accuse people of yanking God's chain, that's your business.

But the rest of the world has been jaded to the point that such public grandiose displays usually look like someone's yanking their chain.

Given, scientists don't make public praises of God after major successes like professional atheletes do.

Of course, scientists also don't spike the ball or do victory dances in the end zone like professional atheletes do.

Nor do they have to in order to prove to me that they're not Atheists.

 

[vossler]

If a scientists wants to give their testimony whenever they deliver a paper it may speak to some people it may not. That however is up to the individual in question. It seems that you would tar the majority of scientists as athiests (do you have figures to back this up?) just because they don't conduct themselves in the manner you want them to.

No I wouldn't 'tar' scientists as atheists because they choose not to honor God. Again, you and others wish to twist my words to say what you'd like them to say. I don't know why that is, but it's not for me to figure out, I simply gave an observation on what it could be, obviously only God knows. Here's what I see! Countless athletes, actors, musicians praise God, yet I haven't heard a single scientist do so. What does that say, only God really knows.

Again, you conveniently skip over my most important point and focus on a secondary observation. Why won't you comment on that point? Do you agree with it?

 

[Marshall Janzen]

Here's what I see! Countless athletes, actors, musicians praise God, yet I haven't heard a single scientist do so. What does that say, only God really knows.

Maybe it shows that you don't have much interest in science? I think you've said that openly quite a few times.

I do have an interest in science, and I'm aware of many scientists who praise God, and have heard them do so. Just yesterday I watched a video of a talk Ken Miller gave where he was quite open about his faith and clearly said that he believes God created everything. The talk opened with a prayer by George Murphy, who is both a pastor and a scientist (he has a doctorate in theoretical physics).

For me personally, I rarely hear sports personalities praise God, but that's probably because I don't follow sports and certainly don't seek out athletes' comments on other issues. (I also think those "thank Jesus we won" statements are more common in the US than in Canada, though whether it's because of the athletes or the media, I don't know.)

 

[KerrMetric]

This is because most American athletes want to appear religious far more than their actions. This is an extremely American phenomenon - like many other questionable supposedly Christian things.