Religion and Science

[vossler]

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.

I'm not confused, at least not about this. I'm glad to hear someone finally say there is nothing wrong with God inspiring your research. This in turn means He should be actively involved in the process.

What I'm asking, and what you seem to be hinting, is how to add God to the scientific method.

The scientific method is of no concern of mine, at least when it comes to this issue. What is my concern is that many people here wish to take God out of the scientific process, meaning looking to Him for our guidance and direction. He should be an active part of the process.

You keep complaining that scientist remove God from science, so how do you include him in the experiments and conclusions?

I couldn't imagine a better way than how Carver did it.

When I do science, I don't put in my papers that God allowed the protein to activate gene B.

Neither did Carver.

So how do you actually include God into science? You still haven't answered that question.

I really don't know how much clearer I can state my position other than how it has been repeatedly done. Look to God for inspiration and direction, trust Him to open the doors to His Creation.

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

Well, I don't think God is in the Alien, fairy, etc. business, so I think you're going to strike out there.

You still haven't answered my question, why not?

 

[random_guy]

I'm not confused, at least not about this. I'm glad to hear someone finally say there is nothing wrong with God inspiring your research. This in turn means He should be actively involved in the process.

The scientific method is of no concern of mine, at least when it comes to this issue. What is my concern is that many people here wish to take God out of the scientific process, meaning looking to Him for our guidance and direction. He should be an active part of the process.
I couldn't imagine a better way than how Carver did it.
Neither did Carver.
I really don't know how much clearer I can state my position other than how it has been repeatedly done. Look to God for inspiration and direction, trust Him to open the doors to His Creation.
Well, I don't think God is in the Alien, fairy, etc. business, so I think you're going to strike out there.

You still haven't answered my question, why not?

I think I'm getting where you're going now. I think this entire thread is nothing more than a misunderstanding. No where in science does it not say you can't be inspired by God. My research I do is inspired by Him. I study science to learn more about his Creation.

Again, there's nothing wrong with this. Each to their own. Some of my colleagues may not believe in God, but they know that my beliefs do not interfere with my research. However, just like they respect my beliefs, I respect theirs by not forcing God on them. I don't tell them that they can be better scientists if they followed God, and they don't tell me I can do better science if I don't follow God.

I think the misunderstanding is the idea of the scientific process. To me, that means observation, research, collecting data, hypothesizing, testing, etc... Basically the actual scientific method. This is completely religion neutral.

However, science doesn'exist without the people driving. Here, people can have whatever inspires them to drive them to do science. No one advocates removing God from people. Science doesn't dictate what can and can not inspire someone. Again, I have kooky physicist friends that believe in UFO's and are inspired by that belief. I don't see anything wrong with that. Carver was inspired by God to do his research. Nothing wrong with this.

Basically, God is not a part of the scientific method. However, God can be a part of a scientist's belief. This is what you're driving at, right?

If so, I agree.

 

[Numenor]

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

Try asking some who believe in God then.

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

Ok then lets go through all your fallacious arguments:

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.

You seem to think that every time a Christian has a stage then they should give a homily. I give presentations all the time at my work and I suppose you think that every time I do I should be giving a 10 minute testimony? Do you have any idea how much of a turn off that is for people to have religion shoved down their throats? I've already pointed this put to you but it seemed to go over your head.

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.

How many times must this be explained to you? Scientist do not look for supernatural explanations whether they are atheists or not. If a scientist is a Christian, then the very fact that they are a Christian means that they cannot leave God out of their science...but not in the way that you think!!

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.

Naturalism shows how things happen naturally, it is then a philosophical leap to say that God was not involved, one which is not supportable scientifically. Your beef doesn't seem to be with the atheists in science, but with the Christians who don't live up to your double-standard.

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.

We are already blessed more than others! Worldly material blessings don't make a jot of difference. Yup, sounds like health and wealth to me because you are equating that with worldly blessings aren't you. I'd love to hear you say that to the Christians who are being persecuted in China and the Middle East, or those living in abject poverty in Africa. Yes Id like to hear you tell them that they're lack of material blessings means they are probably not taking their faith seriously. Why not just tell them that they're atheists while you're at it.

 

[vossler]

I think I'm getting where you're going now. I think this entire thread is nothing more than a misunderstanding. No where in science does it not say you can't be inspired by God. My research I do is inspired by Him. I study science to learn more about his Creation.

I sure do hope it is a misunderstanding, because if it isn't the Christian belief system is really broken.

Yes, Carver was not only inspired by God, but led by Him. God directed his every step, as well He should for all of us. Yet many here advocate taking God out of the process. A natural byproduct of God's inspiration and leading is for us to give him all the glory and praise for what we accomplished.

Again, there's nothing wrong with this. Each to their own. Some of my colleagues may not believe in God, but they know that my beliefs do not interfere with my research. However, just like they respect my beliefs, I respect theirs by not forcing God on them. I don't tell them that they can be better scientists if they followed God, and they don't tell me I can do better science if I don't follow God.

How should my beliefs ever interfere with my work. The whole idea is that your beliefs direct your work, not interfere with it.

No where have I advocated pushing God on anyone. What I have said was that God should receive all the glory and praise. They don't need to hear you tell them you're a better scientist because you follow God, they'll see it in what you produce.

I think the misunderstanding is the idea of the scientific process. To me, that means observation, research, collecting data, hypothesizing, testing, etc... Basically the actual scientific method. This is completely religion neutral.

Couldn't agree more, never stated or wished to imply otherwise.

However, science doesn't exist without the people driving. Here, people can have whatever inspires them to drive them to do science.

Sounds great, I mean who's doing the inspiring anyway? God of course!

No one advocates removing God from people.

No I haven't heard that yet, but to tell you the truth, at this point I wouldn't be surprised.

Science doesn't dictate what can and can not inspire someone.

True inspiration only comes from God.

Again, I have kooky physicist friends that believe in UFO's and are inspired by that belief. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Can't really say I agree with this.

Basically, God is not a part of the scientific method. However, God can be a part of a scientist's belief. This is what you're driving at, right?

Mostly, except to say God is more than just a part of my beliefs, He's a part of everything I am and do.

 

[The Lady Kate]

I sure do hope it is a misunderstanding, because if it isn't the Christian belief system is really broken.

Yes, Carver was not only inspired by God, but led by Him. God directed his every step, as well He should for all of us. Yet many here advocate taking God out of the process.

Who? Now that we've finally understood what your complaint is, who is actually claiming not to let God inspire us?

A natural byproduct of God's inspiration and leading is for us to give him all the glory and praise for what we accomplished.

Indeed... but we both agree that the glory and praise need not be public. God hears us in private just as well.

How should my beliefs ever interfere with my work. The whole idea is that your beliefs direct your work, not interfere with it.

There are those who might skew their conclusions to better fit what their beliefs tell them they should be.

No where have I advocated pushing God on anyone. What I have said was that God should receive all the glory and praise. They don't need to hear you tell them you're a better scientist because you follow God, they'll see it in what you produce.

And how do we know that that's not already occurring?

Sounds great, I mean who's doing the inspiring anyway? God of course!

No argument.

No I haven't heard that yet, but to tell you the truth, at this point I wouldn't be surprised.

Now, now... don't get paranoid.

True inspiration only comes from God.

Which we Christians believe as a matter of faith.

Can't really say I agree with this.

Why not?

Mostly, except to say God is more than just a part of my beliefs, He's a part of everything I am and do.

True, but this thread is about science.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Mostly, except to say God is more than just a part of my beliefs, He's a part of everything I am and do.

now suppose you and an atheist are walking down the street. is there an obvious difference in how the two of you walk? is it obviously labelled "this person is a Christian" and "this person is an atheist" so that everyone can not only see a difference but knows the source of the difference.

now imagine the two of you working on dating a fossil. is doing good science labelled "Christian" or "atheist"? a committed YECist would say that no Christian can date anything greater than say 10K years ago. thus his Christianity would be obvious and obviously marked as such.

other people would say that there is no distinctively Christian way of doing science, of dating these things, that the dates from both sets of hands ought to agree with reality, and with each other.

the question is whether the faith requires a difference in technic. or only in the world view/metaphysical level where people talk about the ramifications and consequences of their scientific work, what does it mean, not how is it performed.


....

 

[vossler]

When I started this thread I was attempting to get a gauge as to whether or not the Christians who posted here believed that God and science should be separate. I had, at various times, seen many Christians state that science and God didn’t mix and they should be kept separate in order to assure impartiality. I gave, what I thought to be, an excellent example of how a Christian has incorporated his faith in the work of science with great success. My hope was that this would open people’s minds and hearts to the very idea that God belonged in science and wasn’t to be disregarded.

I expected some people to state their opposition to the idea, but I really didn’t expect it to be so strong and overwhelming. Of the posters who posted an opinion on the matter 11 came out against the idea, two were non-committal, and two were for it. I must say I am truly amazed that in a Christian forum that the support of having God involved in science is so strongly opposed. At this time I honestly don’t know what to make of it; I’m too shocked to truly grasp its meaning.

In the weeks ahead I hope to ask more questions in an effort to better understand and explain this, imo, rather remarkable position. In the meantime I wish to thank everyone for their honest and forthright answers, they’ve contributed much to this phenomena I’ve encountered.

 

[random_guy]

When I started this thread I was attempting to get a gauge as to whether or not the Christians who posted here believed that God and science should be separate. I had, at various times, seen many Christians state that science and God didn’t mix and they should be kept separate in order to assure impartiality. I gave, what I thought to be, an excellent example of how a Christian has incorporated his faith in the work of science with great success. My hope was that this would open people’s minds and hearts to the very idea that God belonged in science and wasn’t to be disregarded.

I expected some people to state their opposition to the idea, but I really didn’t expect it to be so strong and overwhelming. Of the posters who posted an opinion on the matter 11 came out against the idea, two were non-committal, and two were for it. I must say I am truly amazed that in a Christian forum that the support of having God involved in science is so strongly opposed. At this time I honestly don’t know what to make of it; I’m too shocked to truly grasp its meaning.

In the weeks ahead I hope to ask more questions in an effort to better understand and explain this, imo, rather remarkable position. In the meantime I wish to thank everyone for their honest and forthright answers, they’ve contributed much to this phenomena I’ve encountered.

The problem is where the line of separation should be drawn. I'm still not sure on your position on where that line should be drawn. I draw it at the scientific method, God doesn't belong in the lab, the experiments, the results, etc...

However, you said that Carver was able to do it just fine. So I'm still not exactly sure where you think God belongs in science.

 

[gluadys]

When I started this thread I was attempting to get a gauge as to whether or not the Christians who posted here believed that God and science should be separate. I had, at various times, seen many Christians state that science and God didn’t mix and they should be kept separate in order to assure impartiality. I gave, what I thought to be, an excellent example of how a Christian has incorporated his faith in the work of science with great success. My hope was that this would open people’s minds and hearts to the very idea that God belonged in science and wasn’t to be disregarded.

I don't think you ever showed that Carver incorporated God into his scientific work. I think what you showed is that Carver gave credit to God for inspiration on what ideas to explore. I don't have a problem with that. I don't think anyone does. But inspiration on what to do is not the same as incorporating God into the scientific work itself.

Yet you seem to be demanding that scientists give God credit for more than inspiration. I don't know what that more is supposed to be. Or why it is supposed to be.

Maybe I am misreading you.

 

[Numenor]

When I started this thread I was attempting to get a gauge as to whether or not the Christians who posted here believed that God and science should be separate.

Part of the problem is that you've used the words 'religion' and 'God' interchangeably like they are the same thing. Which of course, they aren't. You've helped create the confusion by not defining the terms properly.

 

[vossler]

I don't think you ever showed that Carver incorporated God into his scientific work.

I've posted this quote from the article a couple of times already. It clearly shows how Carver incorporated God into his scientific work.

“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."

Yet you seem to be demanding that scientists give God credit for more than inspiration.

Shouldn't Carver have done so?

I don't know what that more is supposed to be. Or why it is supposed to be.

God clearly guided and directed Carver's work, that I'm sure you can see as more than just inspiration.

 

[The Lady Kate]

I've posted this quote from the article a couple of times already. It clearly shows how Carver incorporated God into his scientific work.

“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."

Shouldn't Carver have done so?

No reason he shouldn't... which is what we've been telling you.

But is Carver's method the only approved way for Christians to perfrom science?

Carver received inspiration and ideas concerning what to do and how to do it... and as a Christian, he decided as a matter of faith to believe that those ideas came from God. And as a Christian, Carver chose his own way to thank God for His help.

Now, whether or not Carver really was inspired by God... that's between God and Carver. It may very well be that Carver just had a really good idea without divine inspiration.

Whether or not Carver gave God enough credit, or did so in the proper (whatever that may be) way... is also between God and Carver. Public or private, Carver acted in accordance with his religious beliefs.

...just as it is between God and any man or woman of faith.

God clearly guided and directed Carver's work, that I'm sure you can see as more than just inspiration.

Did God tell Carver how to interpret the data? Because that is what scientists mean by leaving religion (not necessarily God) out of science.... follow the data no matter where it goes... and check religious presuppositions at the door.

Even in Carver's example... God may have told him what to do and how to do it, but He never told him what he should expect to find once he did it.

 

[random_guy]

Now, if Vossler believes that God did inspire Carver's work, one has to wonder if God also inspires other Christian scientists. Is God playing tricks on the geologists/biologists when nearly all sciences support an old Earth/evolution? Is Satan inspiring those scientists? Or is God playing favorites between the YECist and Christian scientists?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

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."

how is this any different than Joseph Smith gazing into his hat with two colored stones in it in order to translate golden plates?

it runs head long into the problem of continuing revelation, into the problem of a continuing prophetic messenger with authoritative revelation, it scraps natural theology and replaces it with divine revelation to prophets.

do you really intend to do all of this?

 

[vossler]

Now, if Vossler believes that God did inspire Carver's work, one has to wonder if God also inspires other Christian scientists. Is God playing tricks on the geologists/biologists when nearly all sciences support an old Earth/evolution? Is Satan inspiring those scientists? Or is God playing favorites between the YECist and Christian scientists?

God inspires those who genuinely seek Him. Yes, Satan could very well be inspiring or a better term would be misleading scientists.

I sure hope God plays favorites!

 

[vossler]

how is this any different than Joseph Smith gazing into his hat with two colored stones in it in order to translate golden plates?

The difference is the output!

it runs head long into the problem of continuing revelation, into the problem of a continuing prophetic messenger with authoritative revelation, it scraps natural theology and replaces it with divine revelation to prophets.

do you really intend to do all of this?

Why is the continuing revelation considered a problem? Why should divine revelation somehow be in opposition to natural theology?

 

[vossler]

Now, whether or not Carver really was inspired by God... that's between God and Carver. It may very well be that Carver just had a really good idea without divine inspiration.

Do good ideas exist outside of God?

Did God tell Carver how to interpret the data? Because that is what scientists mean by leaving religion (not necessarily God) out of science.... follow the data no matter where it goes... and check religious presuppositions at the door.

So in your opinion science trumps any and all presuppositions?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The difference is the output!

if you judge things by output, then J.Smith is eminently successful.

 

[vossler]

if you judge things by output, then J.Smith is eminently successful.

If that's your definition of success.

 

[The Lady Kate]

God inspires those who genuinely seek Him.

But there are many scientists (as well as people in all other fields) who come up with brilliant ideas, and are not Christians.

Obviously they're not seeking God, genuinely or otherwise. So where are their ideas coming from?