Religion and Science

[Numenor]

Maybe not always in words but in deeds and actions I most certainly try to live that out.

And yet you hold scientists to a higher standard, and proclaim them "Atheists" when they don't live up to it.

Bingo. One standard for himself, another entirely different standard for scientists.

 

[vossler]

Could it be that what you're saying is not all that convicting at all?

Well if that is true, then there wouldn't be much need for you to twist and distort my statements or outright lie.

And a scientist who does earnestly seek His guidance and direction, and still fails to make any revolutionary or world-changing breakthroughs... are they simply not praying hard enough?

I guess his work just isn't as blessed.

The world is full of talented people, people who make things happen... as well as those who do not.

Similarly, the world is full of spirit-filled Christians... as well as those who are not.

Alas, there is little to no correlation between the one and the other. A Christian who practices science has as much possibility to come up empty as anyone else.

If there isn't, then there is definitely something wrong. If there is no difference between a Christian and a non-Christian why should anyone ever become one? Which just goes to prove part of my point, there are so few God honoring and fearing Christian scientists that they are not even noticed and have little to no impact.

Another possible reason is that somewhere out there, a nonbeliever is smarter than we are, and figured out on their own what God was trying to tell us, and simply did it first.

Wow, now your'e saying God isn't involved in the believer's life. That believers and non-believers have equal access to God's truths and that it's just a matter of who is the smartest.

If only you could see, it's not about how smart you are, it's about who lives in your heart.

Then it would probably be best if you stopped judging others' faith.

So if someone tells you they are a Christian and everytime you see them they are displaying non-Christian characteristics you never look at their faith as weak or non-existant. You just claim its none of your business, right?

How so? Christ clearly said judge not, lest ye be judged, so you've merely made the claim that you did not judge anyone when you said Christ had a limited influence on them.

Again, I asked you to provide the Scripture, you haven't, nor have you at any point in the past. Yet you judge me!

You certainly won't repent so long as you insist that you've done no wrong.

It's pretty difficult to repent if one hasn't scripturally pointed out the error. Again, you judge me!

Judgement of other people's faith?
...oh, I forgot, you didn't judge anyone, right? So it's a moot point.

Obviously you judge me, yet you don't hold yourself to the same standard.

Have you been displaying that to scientists? Or shall we refer you to Matthew 7:1-5?

Ahh finally some Scripture to back up the accusations.

Let's take a look at those Scriptures:

"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."

If you've read this properly you will notice that it is referring to accusing a brother of something you are being hypocritical about yourself.

Please show me where I am being hypocritical!

Verse 5 clearly states that it is right to judge as long as one doesn't have a log in one's own eye.

And yet you hold scientists to a higher standard, and proclaim them "Atheists" when they don't live up to it.

I'm not holding anyone to a higher standard, where you draw that claim from I haven't a clue, it is totally unsubstantiated.

I haven't proclaimed them atheists, they've done so themselves.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Well if that is true, then there wouldn't be much need for you to twist and distort my statements or outright lie.

You have accused me of lying. Substantiate your claim.

I guess his work just isn't as blessed.

Or just isn't as good.

If there isn't, then there is definitely something wrong. If there is no difference between a Christian and a non-Christian why should anyone ever become one?

Because people don't become Christians because they believe it will make them better or smarter than anyone else.

They become Christians because they believe it is true.

Which just goes to prove part of my point, there are so few God honoring and fearing Christian scientists that they are not even noticed and have little to no impact.

You're still hung up on this idea that the majority of scientists are not Christians. What do you base your assumption on?

That they don't pray loud enough?

Wow, now your'e saying God isn't involved in the believer's life.

Now where did I say that?

That believers and non-believers have equal access to God's truths and that it's just a matter of who is the smartest.

Precisely... insofar as it regards God's creation and how it works. There's more than one way to learn how God did what He did.

One man prays, another experiments, a third does both.
God promises answers, but He's never promised quick answers.

If only you could see, it's not about how smart you are, it's about who lives in your heart.

Does this mean that all true spirit-filled Christians should have a natural talent for science... since they are in touch with Him who set it all in motion?

Clearly that is not so, so what are you saying?

So if someone tells you they are a Christian and everytime you see them they are displaying non-Christian characteristics you never look at their faith as weak or non-existant. You just claim its none of your business, right?

I don't make a point to "out" them as frauds, phonies, or not-true-Christians, if that's what you mean. What do I gain by proclaiming a person, or a group of people... say, for example, the scientific community, as "False Christians," or other such nonsense?

Again, I asked you to provide the Scripture, you haven't, nor have you at any point in the past. Yet you judge me!

I provided Matthew 7:1-5. Let that suffice.

It's pretty difficult to repent if one hasn't scripturally pointed out the error. Again, you judge me!
Obviously you judge me, yet you don't hold yourself to the same standard.

Have I made any, and I do mean any statements whatsoever regarding your faith?

Ahh finally some Scripture to back up the accusations.

Let's take a look at those Scriptures:

"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."

If you've read this properly you will notice that it is referring to accusing a brother of something you are being hypocritical about yourself.

It is also a warning not to sit in judgement of others unless you would want that same standard applied to you.

Please show me where I am being hypocritical!

Bolding, underlining, and italicizing your own words isn't enough? I could put them in a large sparkly font if it'll help...

I haven't proclaimed them atheists, they've done so themselves.

The majority of the scientific community has publicly proclaimed their Atheism? Or was that you doing it for them?

 

[Numenor]

I'm not holding anyone to a higher standard, where you draw that claim from I haven't a clue, it is totally unsubstantiated.

No it is substantiated from your own words. You reserve for yourself the right to witness with your words, actions and deeds but expect scientists to be making grandiose statements of faith otherwise you can only assume that they are atheists as witnessing with their actions and deeds is not enough.

I haven't proclaimed them atheists, they've done so themselves.

No, you have proclaimed them atheists because they don't live up to your double-standard.

I was willing to believe earlier that you just didn't understand how a Christian could be a scientist without having to make constant reference to their faith every five minutes, now I'm afraid that it seems to me this thread was nothing but an attempt to write off the scientific community as atheistic and Science as anti-God.

 

[vossler]

You have accused me of lying. Substantiate your claim.

If you insist, here are three outright lies you attributed to me:

anyone who doesn't make a public show of glorifying God is probably an Atheist

you say if Carver was an Atheist, he would've failed

And yet you hold scientists to a higher standard, and proclaim them "Atheists" when they don't live up to it.

 

[vossler]

No it is substantiated from your own words. You reserve for yourself the right to witness with your words, actions and deeds but expect scientists to be making grandiose statements of faith otherwise you can only assume that they are atheists as witnessing with their actions and deeds is not enough.

No I don't expect anything more from them than I do of myself. If given a stage to comment on my work, you can believe me that I will and have given God the glory.

No, you have proclaimed them atheists because they don't live up to your double-standard.

I was willing to believe earlier that you just didn't understand how a Christian could be a scientist without having to make constant reference to their faith every five minutes, now I'm afraid that it seems to me this thread was nothing but an attempt to write off the scientific community as atheistic and Science as anti-God.

I haven't proclaimed them to be atheists, they've done so themselves, remember the gallup pole that showed 55% of scientists didn't believe God had anything to do with evolution. Maybe in your mind you see a Christian or some other deist when you see those words, I don't.

 

[The Lady Kate]

If you insist, here are three outright lies you attributed to me:

Oh, I insist... now, let's look at what prompted these responses.


Let us begin with "anyone who doesn't make a public show of glorifying God is probably an Atheist."

Now, what could've prompted me to this conclusion?

For starters, you've already stated your belief that the majority of scientists are Atheists... on what did you base this claim?

Or these?

"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."

"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?

"I didn't say all scientists were atheists, only most were."

Second, "you say if Carver was an Atheist, he would've failed."

At the time, I missed your response which was:

"Failed is a strong word, I would say he wouldn't have been nearly as successful."

six in one hand, half a dozen in the other... but I'll concede this to be an error on my part... For which I apologize.


And the last one: "And yet you hold scientists to a higher standard, and proclaim them "Atheists" when they don't live up to it."

Which you claim to be a lie. Now, let's look at the facts:

Back to... "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?"

Combined with:

"Do I proclaim that each and everyday, yes. Maybe not always in words but in deeds and actions I most certainly try to live that out."

Cerainly looked like a double standard to me.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

In any event, the crux of the issue seems to be that scientists do not publicly glorify God enough, and that you are unhappy with that.

Whatever conclusions, reasons, motivations, I attributed to you throughout this thread were the result of interpretation of posts from all parties concerned. Clearly there was some miscommunication from all parties. For my part, I apologize for the misunderstandings...but I never lied.

 

[Numenor]

No I don't expect anything more from them than I do of myself. If given a stage to comment on my work, you can believe me that I will and have given God the glory.

Then why aren't scientists allowed to bear witness to God in the way that seems best to them? Why must they follow your standard. There is a tinge of the pharisaic about this.

I haven't proclaimed them to be atheists, they've done so themselves, remember the gallup pole that showed 55% of scientists didn't believe God had anything to do with evolution.

You said in post #21: "Most scientists don't even give God a second thought as they do their work"
How you can even substantiate that is beyond me however, is 55% 'most scientists' in your mind? Is assuming a naturalist methodology the same thing as saying God wasn't invloved? The two are not mutually exclusive. That quote from #21 just confirm for me that you are willing to believe the worst about Scientists with scant evidence to back up with you believe. One gallup poll wont convince me but it has you it seems.

You also said this in #21: "With God as your co-pilot you won't face as many obstacles."
This is the product of a false "health and wealth" gospel. Just because we have faith does not automatically mean we will have success in our profession. We can be unsuccessful or not as successful as others and still give glory to God. You assertion that faith leads to worldy success is unbiblical.

Maybe in your mind you see a Christian or some other deist when you see those words, I don't.

Ad hominem and irrelevant.

 

[vossler]

Then why aren't scientists allowed to bear witness to God in the way that seems best to them? Why must they follow your standard. There is a tinge of the pharisaic about this.

I didn't say they couldn't bear witness in another way; the thing is in order to bear witness there has to be a witness. Besides, it's pretty difficult to do if they don't believe in Him.

The standard is pretty simple, and btw it isn't mine, it's God's. It goes something like this; Jesus Christ must be your Lord and Savior, after repenting of your sins and receiving Him into your heart you then must love and follow Him through faith and obedience. One of the ways He asks us to obey Him is to go out and be a witness to the world. It would then stand to reason if given an opportunity to give your Savior the credit He's due, one shouldn't hesitate to do so. That's part of what being a witness is all about.

Yet you wish to take God out of science totally. You haven't given even a hint of support for having scientists incorporate God within their work. It would appear, from everything you've said, that God has no role to play in the work of a scientist. It is very difficult to be a witness when God isn't allowed into your vocabulary. If this statement is false, I would love for you to prove me wrong and correct it.

You said in post #21: "Most scientists don't even give God a second thought as they do their work"
How you can even substantiate that is beyond me however, is 55% 'most scientists' in your mind? Is assuming a naturalist methodology the same thing as saying God wasn't invloved? The two are not mutually exclusive. That quote from #21 just confirm for me that you are willing to believe the worst about Scientists with scant evidence to back up with you believe. One gallup poll wont convince me but it has you it seems.

I think the majority of people in the world would equate 55% with most. It's not a far fetched thought.

Are you now saying that the naturalism spoken of by the majority of scientists somehow actually involves God? You'd be hard pressed to make that case, but I'd like to hear it.

You also said this in #21: "With God as your co-pilot you won't face as many obstacles."
This is the product of a false "health and wealth" gospel. Just because we have faith does not automatically mean we will have success in our profession. We can be unsuccessful or not as successful as others and still give glory to God. You assertion that faith leads to worldy success is unbiblical.

No it's not health and wealth. It's putting your trust in your Father. I didn't say we wouldn't have obstacles, just that there would be fewer. Jesus Himself said in Matthew 7:11

"If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!"

So I can't see how it is false to say that God will bless his children more than others. If He didn't He would be lying and we all know God doesn't do that.

If you believe my statement is unbiblical, please support your accusation with biblical sources.

All of this is just sidebar information or a byproduct of the larger problem. The one no one wants to talk about and the main point of this thread. Why should science and God be considered oil and water? Scientists repeatedly state that God has no place in their work and many, many people here agree with that. Why?

 

[random_guy]

Yet you wish to take God out of science totally. You haven't given even a hint of support for having scientists incorporate God within their work. It would appear, from everything you've said, that God has no role to play in the work of a scientist. It is very difficult to be a witness when God isn't allowed into your vocabulary. If this statement is false, I would love for you to prove me wrong and correct it.

Science is the study of the natural world. Tell me, how does one incorporate God into science? Am I a better scientist because I believe in God than someone who does not? No. It's irrelevant whether or not someone believes in God when it comes to science.

What about math? Why aren't you against atheistic math? No theorems nor proofs mention God. Why aren't you railing against the evil of Cauchy Sequences and Series?

 

[Dannager]

Yet you wish to take God out of science totally.

God is already out of science totally. He has been for over a century. If your goal was to somehow prevent this, you're over one-hundred years too late.

 

[The Lady Kate]

I didn't say they couldn't bear witness in another way; the thing is in order to bear witness there has to be a witness.

We are the witness. We see His work and we respond with praise.... and we can do that just as well with or without an audience.

Besides, it's pretty difficult to do if they don't believe in Him.

It would be... but that's a rather large and unsubstantiated "if."

The standard is pretty simple, and btw it isn't mine, it's God's. It goes something like this; Jesus Christ must be your Lord and Savior, after repenting of your sins and receiving Him into your heart you then must love and follow Him through faith and obedience.

Agreed, with one small difference... I wouldn't say one must love and follow Him, but that one chooses to do so as a result of receiving Him.

IMHO, it's more than a rule... it's the natural result of accepting Him into your heart.

One of the ways He asks us to obey Him is to go out and be a witness to the world. It would then stand to reason if given an opportunity to give your Savior the credit He's due, one shouldn't hesitate to do so. That's part of what being a witness is all about.

He also told us that there's a right and a wrong way to witness, as well as right and wrong reasons. it would then stand to reason that there's a right and a wrong time, as well. Then it would stand to reason that not every time attention is focused on you is necessarily the right time.

It would then absolutely stand to reason that if people choose not to spend their public time in this manner, it should not been seen that their faith is in any way deficient.

Yet you wish to take God out of science totally.

Didn't you accuse me of twisting your words earlier?

You haven't given even a hint of support for having scientists incorporate God within their work.

You have no support that they don't already do so.... except that they don't proclaim it publicly.

It would appear, from everything you've said, that God has no role to play in the work of a scientist.

I haven't heard him say that. We've already agreed that God is not going to influence the methodology. If a scientist prays for guidance in private, receives guidance in private, and gives thanks for guidance in private, would you be satisfied?

I have a feeling God would.

It is very difficult to be a witness when God isn't allowed into your vocabulary. If this statement is false, I would love for you to prove me wrong and correct it.

It's completely unsubstantiated. Until there's some reason to believe it's true, there's no point trying to prove it false.

Are you now saying that the naturalism spoken of by the majority of scientists somehow actually involves God? You'd be hard pressed to make that case, but I'd like to hear it.

You've taken one poll question, and extrapolated it onto an entire belief system. Naturalistic evolution does not equal Atheism, no matter how much you'd like it to be.

Granted, it's not what I'd call a ringing endorsement for theism, but I'd want more evidence before making an assumption concerning 55% of the scientific community.

No it's not health and wealth. It's putting your trust in your Father. I didn't say we wouldn't have obstacles, just that there would be fewer. Jesus Himself said in Matthew 7:11

"If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!"

So I can't see how it is false to say that God will bless his children more than others. If He didn't He would be lying and we all know God doesn't do that.

So... what's the difference between this and "health and wealth"?

If you believe my statement is unbiblical, please support your accusation with biblical sources.

All of this is just sidebar information or a byproduct of the larger problem. The one no one wants to talk about and the main point of this thread. Why should science and God be considered oil and water?

Who has made that claim besides yourself? We know nothing about the personal faith of scientists, and someone's personal beliefs should not influence their conclusions.

Scientists repeatedly state that God has no place in their work and many, many people here agree with that. Why?

Because they do not say that. Even you have agreed that God will not (note "will not," not "cannot") affect the methodology of a given scientific process. God is not going to change the properties of a chemical reaction, nor re-write the laws of physics, no matter how much a scientist prays.

That leaves the inspiration for a scientific idea... and inspiration for a good idea can come from many sources, including God. Which brings me back to my original point:

If a person prays for guidance in private, receives guidance from God in private, is there anything wrong with giving thanks in private as well?

granted, it may not be everyone's cup of tea, but is the man who praises God outside the spotlight any less faithful than he who does so in the spotlight?

It seems to me that your beliefs in this thread are connected to this issue.

 

[theFijian]

.

 

[Numenor]

All of this is just sidebar information or a byproduct of the larger problem. The one no one wants to talk about and the main point of this thread. Why should science and God be considered oil and water? Scientists repeatedly state that God has no place in their work and many, many people here agree with that. Why?

The problem you clearly have and so many other creatonists is that you think a naturalist methodology is antii-God or cuts God out of the picture. You've been around here long enough and it has been explained to you enough times to know that this is not the case.

Looking for naturalist explanations for natural phenomena is not excluding God from the picture, it is looking for God's fingerprints on Creation. Just because atheist scientists do not give the glory to God does not mean the methodology is wrong.

 

[vossler]

Science is the study of the natural world. Tell me, how does one incorporate God into science? Am I a better scientist because I believe in God than someone who does not? No. It's irrelevant whether or not someone believes in God when it comes to science.

Can't be all that difficult, Carver did it and was incredibly successful while doing it.

What about math? Why aren't you against atheistic math? No theorems nor proofs mention God. Why aren't you railing against the evil of Cauchy Sequences and Series?

This has nothing to do with atheistic anything, but has everything to do with glorifying our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. One of the best ways to do so is through our work.

 

[vossler]

God is already out of science totally. He has been for over a century. If your goal was to somehow prevent this, you're over one-hundred years too late.

God isn't totally out of anything!

 

[vossler]

Looking for naturalist explanations for natural phenomena is not excluding God from the picture, it is looking for God's fingerprints on Creation. Just because atheist scientists do not give the glory to God does not mean the methodology is wrong.

Funny, I don't hear scientists claim they are looking for God's fingerprints on Creation, rather it is quite the opposite.

I see you convieniently sidestepped my response to your claims and issued new ones.

 

[random_guy]

Can't be all that difficult, Carver did it and was incredibly successful while doing it.

So can you point out where in Carver's research did he add God into the equation? Remember, you're arguing all over the place, the problem with science is that it removes God from the equation. Please show me where Carver added God in his research? While you're at it, show me where mathematicians add God into their theorems.

Let's face it, you're entire argument isn't science removes God, it's why aren't those darn scientists praising God? They must all be atheist because they don't praise God publicly.

Your problem is that you want people to follow your beliefs. Some scientists would rather praise God in private, however, you think this makes them an atheist. All your posts in this thread supports this idea.

Again, let's see you back up this claim:

Yet you wish to take God out of science totally. You haven't given even a hint of support for having scientists incorporate God within their work. It would appear, from everything you've said, that God has no role to play in the work of a scientist. It is very difficult to be a witness when God isn't allowed into your vocabulary. If this statement is false, I would love for you to prove me wrong and correct it.

Show me how in science, would one incorporate God into science?

 

[vossler]

So can you point out where in Carver's research did he add God into the equation?

You must not have read this thread very thoroughly. The very first post of this thread is where I quoted this from an article about Carver:

At the end of his address, which ran an hour and forty-five minutes, the Committee chairman asked Dr. Carver how he had learned all the things he had spoken about. Dr Carver answered:

"From an old book."
"What book?" asked the Senator.
Carver replied, "The Bible."
The Senator inquired, "Does the Bible tell all about peanuts?"
"No, Sir" Dr. Carver replied, "But it tells about the God who made the peanut. I asked Him to show me what to do with the peanut, and He did."

Then later I posted this:

“Dr. Carver named his laboratory God’s Little Workshop. He never took any scientific textbooks into it. He simply went in, locked the door behind him and asked God how to perform his experiments. During one of his lectures, he told an assembly, "God is going to reveal to us things He never revealed before if we put our hands in His... The thing I am to do and the way of doing it are revealed to me. I never have to grope for methods. The method is revealed to me the moment I am inspired to create something new. Without God to draw aside the curtain I would be helpless."

I think it is safe to say that Carver added God to the equation.

Remember, you're arguing all over the place, the problem with science is that it removes God from the equation.

That's exactly right!

Please show me where Carver added God in his research?

See above

While you're at it, show me where mathematicians add God into their theorems.

I can't say that they do, I pray that is so, but I don't know.

Let's face it, you're entire argument isn't science removes God, it's why aren't those darn scientists praising God? They must all be atheist because they don't praise God publicly.

No my point is exactly that science removes God.

Your problem is that you want people to follow your beliefs. Some scientists would rather praise God in private, however, you think this makes them an atheist. All your posts in this thread supports this idea.

I don't want anyone to follow me, never said so nor implied it. I just don't want people to say that science and God don't mix and should be kept separate. Nothing should be kept from God.

Now I have a question for you.

Why do you think God shouldn't be a part of scientific research?

 

[random_guy]

You must not have read this thread very thoroughly. The very first post of this thread is where I quoted this from an article about Carver:

At the end of his address, which ran an hour and forty-five minutes, the Committee chairman asked Dr. Carver how he had learned all the things he had spoken about. Dr Carver answered:

"From an old book."
"What book?" asked the Senator.
Carver replied, "The Bible."
The Senator inquired, "Does the Bible tell all about peanuts?"
"No, Sir" Dr. Carver replied, "But it tells about the God who made the peanut. I asked Him to show me what to do with the peanut, and He did."

Then later I posted this:

“Dr. Carver named his laboratory God’s Little Workshop. He never took any scientific textbooks into it. He simply went in, locked the door behind him and asked God how to perform his experiments. During one of his lectures, he told an assembly, "God is going to reveal to us things He never revealed before if we put our hands in His... The thing I am to do and the way of doing it are revealed to me. I never have to grope for methods. The method is revealed to me the moment I am inspired to create something new. Without God to draw aside the curtain I would be helpless."

I think it is safe to say that Carver added God to the equation.
That's exactly right!See above
I can't say that they do, I pray that is so, but I don't know.
No my point is exactly that science removes God.

I don't want anyone to follow me, never said so nor implied it. I just don't want people to say that science and God don't mix and should be kept separate. Nothing should be kept from God.

Now I have a question for you.

Why do you think God shouldn't be a part of scientific research?

You're confused. He's saying that God inspires his research. There's nothing in science that says you can't allow God to inspire your research. I know physicists who are inspired by UFO's they've seen. Again, nothing wrong with that.

What I'm asking, and what you seem to be hinting, is how to add God to the scientific method. You keep complaining that scientist remove God from science, so how do you include him in the experiments and conclusions? When I do science, I don't put in my papers that God allowed the protein to activate gene B. So how do you actually include God into science? You still haven't answered that question.

If your reply is see George Washington Carver, I guess science also includes Aliens, UFO, fairies, astrology, and everything else that inspires scientists.