1 of 4
1
Poll
Can a person be a good scientist if they are a devout evengelical Christian?
Yes 4
No 7
I don’t know 4
I don’t care 1
Total Votes: 16
You must be a logged-in member to vote
Christians in science
Posted: 17 June 2010 10:59 AM   [ Ignore ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  88
Joined  2010-02-04

FYI-

It seems to me that many atheists think evangelical Christians are naive about science.  According to some recent events, there is some ongoing discussion happening between Christians in science with secular scientists, that are addressing the topics of religion and science. 

See his for more info:
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2010/0614doser.shtml?sa_campaign=Internal_Ads/AAAS/AAAS_News/2010-06-14/jump_page

The secular science group is AAAS; the evangelical “Christians in science” group is ASA.

...Bernie

[ Edited: 17 June 2010 11:20 AM by Bernie_Dehler ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2010 11:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  88
Joined  2010-02-04

By the way, the article didn’t mention that Jennifer Wiseman is also the current President of the evangelical Christian group called ASA ( http://www.asa3.org ).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2010 11:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1332
Joined  2010-06-07
Bernie_Dehler - 17 June 2010 10:59 AM

FYI-

It seems to me that many atheists think evangelical Christians are naive about science.  According to some recent events, there is some ongoing discussion happening between Christians in science with secular scientists, that are addressing the topics of religion and science. 

See his for more info:
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2010/0614doser.shtml?sa_campaign=Internal_Ads/AAAS/AAAS_News/2010-06-14/jump_page

The secular science group is AAAS; the evangelical “Christians in science” group is ASA.

...Bernie

I think there is no necessary conflict between religion and science. Science is a tool that can be use in the determination of what is true anywhere.

However I think religion is going to have to be willing to question the authority it has given to it’s leadership in the past. Reality is the basis of what is true, not an interpretation of religious documents.

Religion accepts the occurrence of communication with God. However they do take liberties with the interpretation of that communication. They’ve guessed and created conflicting stories to explain what they don’t understand.

I think if you stick to the authority of reality and then go back to try to understanding the intended meaning of the authors of the Bible you get a different picture then one of “primitive superstition”.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2010 11:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  88
Joined  2010-02-04

FYI- the Christian group (ASA) has young earthers, old earthers, evolutionary creationists, and those who like ID.  But I think most of the leadership is old earth and evolutionary creationist, and reject the Discovery Institute’s version of ID.  But still , they officially welcome them all and have no policy against young earthers, although I don’t think young earthers feel very welcome there.  I think macroevolution is the big debate within that group; some for, and some against.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2010 11:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  276
Joined  2010-05-17
Gnostikosis - 17 June 2010 11:30 AM
Bernie_Dehler - 17 June 2010 10:59 AM

FYI-

It seems to me that many atheists think evangelical Christians are naive about science.  According to some recent events, there is some ongoing discussion happening between Christians in science with secular scientists, that are addressing the topics of religion and science. 

See his for more info:
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2010/0614doser.shtml?sa_campaign=Internal_Ads/AAAS/AAAS_News/2010-06-14/jump_page

The secular science group is AAAS; the evangelical “Christians in science” group is ASA.

...Bernie

I think there is no necessary conflict between religion and science. Science is a tool that can be use in the determination of what is true anywhere.

However I think religion is going to have to be willing to question the authority it has given to it’s leadership in the past. Reality is the basis of what is true, not an interpretation of religious documents.

Religion accepts the occurrence of communication with God. However they do take liberties with the interpretation of that communication. They’ve guessed and created conflicting stories to explain what they don’t understand.

I think if you stick to the authority of reality and then go back to try to understanding the intended meaning of the authors of the Bible you get a different picture then one of “primitive superstition”.

 


Have you read the entire Bible…....or the Koran?

 

gulp

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2010 11:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  88
Joined  2010-02-04

Toombaru said:
“Have you read the entire Bible…....or the Koran?”

“Reading” and “interpreting” are two different things.  One hermeneutic principle (interpretation guide) is to interpret everything as literally as possible.  But most Christians don’t interpret that way.  Another view, one of many, is call “accommodation,” where God taught humans as if talking down to them, like a parent explaining things to a child.  They say to go “beyond the words” to the “big picture” ideas, such as sin and salvation.  Many of these types would agree with you that the Bible is not meant to be a science or history textbook, written according to modern science and history standards.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2010 12:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  276
Joined  2010-05-17
Bernie_Dehler - 17 June 2010 11:54 AM

Toombaru said:
“Have you read the entire Bible…....or the Koran?”

“Reading” and “interpreting” are two different things.  One hermeneutic principle (interpretation guide) is to interpret everything as literally as possible.  But most Christians don’t interpret that way.  Another view, one of many, is call “accommodation,” where God taught humans as if talking down to them, like a parent explaining things to a child.  They say to go “beyond the words” to the “big picture” ideas, such as sin and salvation.  Many of these types would agree with you that the Bible is not meant to be a science or history textbook, written according to modern science and history standards.

 

 

OK.
How do you interpret the command to kill your relatives…..by stoning no less…... who opt out of your religion for another God?
or…....The promise of eternal damnation for those who don’t buy into the story?
or…..the negative view of women woven into the Islamic-Judeo-Christian writings?
or….The entire idea of sacrifice that saturates the Bible?
How about the Bible’s views on slavery or hitting your wife with a stick no bigger then your thumb?
....I could go on and on and on…....

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2010 12:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  88
Joined  2010-02-04

Toombaru said:
“How do you interpret the command to kill your relatives…..by stoning no less…... who opt out of your religion for another God?”

Some of these difficult questions can be answered with “I don’t know, but God has a good reason I’m sure.”

Also, can the pot talk back to the Potter?  Doesn’t the Maker have the right to do whatever he wants with his creation?

Atheists think they can question the morality of God; but Christians are too humble to do that.

What gives the atheist the courage is to realize that there is no God; God is just an imaginary creature so there’s nothing to fear.  It is different for the Christian who thinks God is real.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2010 12:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1332
Joined  2010-06-07
toombaru - 17 June 2010 11:45 AM
Gnostikosis - 17 June 2010 11:30 AM
Bernie_Dehler - 17 June 2010 10:59 AM

FYI-

It seems to me that many atheists think evangelical Christians are naive about science.  According to some recent events, there is some ongoing discussion happening between Christians in science with secular scientists, that are addressing the topics of religion and science. 

See his for more info:
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2010/0614doser.shtml?sa_campaign=Internal_Ads/AAAS/AAAS_News/2010-06-14/jump_page

The secular science group is AAAS; the evangelical “Christians in science” group is ASA.

...Bernie

I think there is no necessary conflict between religion and science. Science is a tool that can be use in the determination of what is true anywhere.

However I think religion is going to have to be willing to question the authority it has given to it’s leadership in the past. Reality is the basis of what is true, not an interpretation of religious documents.

Religion accepts the occurrence of communication with God. However they do take liberties with the interpretation of that communication. They’ve guessed and created conflicting stories to explain what they don’t understand.

I think if you stick to the authority of reality and then go back to try to understanding the intended meaning of the authors of the Bible you get a different picture then one of “primitive superstition”.

 


Have you read the entire Bible…....or the Koran?

 

gulp

Not the Koran, only parts of it. Problem is people don’t read these for themselves or if they do, they understand it based on the religious paradigm it’s presented in.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2010 12:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1332
Joined  2010-06-07
Bernie_Dehler - 17 June 2010 12:16 PM

Toombaru said:
“How do you interpret the command to kill your relatives…..by stoning no less…... who opt out of your religion for another God?”

Some of these difficult questions can be answered with “I don’t know, but God has a good reason I’m sure.”

Also, can the pot talk back to the Potter?  Doesn’t the Maker have the right to do whatever he wants with his creation?

Atheists think they can question the morality of God; but Christians are too humble to do that.

What gives the atheist the courage is to realize that there is no God; God is just an imaginary creature so there’s nothing to fear.  It is different for the Christian who thinks God is real.

Perhaps part of the purpose is to say no to God. To think for yourself and determine the right course of action.

Would you go and agree to sacrifice your son as God requested of Abraham?  I don’t care if God makes this demand of faith from me. The answer is hell no.

You know the meaning given to Israel is he who struggles with God. What of Lot who argue with God to spare lives?

Recall that Abraham did not kill his son. God turned his hand?... or was it his own conscience?

Demanding human sacrifice was popular back then. Israel outlawed it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2010 04:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  276
Joined  2010-05-17
Gnostikosis - 17 June 2010 12:33 PM
toombaru - 17 June 2010 11:45 AM
Gnostikosis - 17 June 2010 11:30 AM
Bernie_Dehler - 17 June 2010 10:59 AM

FYI-

It seems to me that many atheists think evangelical Christians are naive about science.  According to some recent events, there is some ongoing discussion happening between Christians in science with secular scientists, that are addressing the topics of religion and science. 

See his for more info:
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2010/0614doser.shtml?sa_campaign=Internal_Ads/AAAS/AAAS_News/2010-06-14/jump_page

The secular science group is AAAS; the evangelical “Christians in science” group is ASA.

...Bernie

I think there is no necessary conflict between religion and science. Science is a tool that can be use in the determination of what is true anywhere.

However I think religion is going to have to be willing to question the authority it has given to it’s leadership in the past. Reality is the basis of what is true, not an interpretation of religious documents.

Religion accepts the occurrence of communication with God. However they do take liberties with the interpretation of that communication. They’ve guessed and created conflicting stories to explain what they don’t understand.

I think if you stick to the authority of reality and then go back to try to understanding the intended meaning of the authors of the Bible you get a different picture then one of “primitive superstition”.

 


Have you read the entire Bible…....or the Koran?

 

gulp

Not the Koran, only parts of it. Problem is people don’t read these for themselves or if they do, they understand it based on the religious paradigm it’s presented in.

 

 

There is no other area of human knowledge in which we reference the understanding of a group of our ancestors that lived two to three thousand years ago.
And yet Islamic-Judeo-Christians…even Buddhists….. base their entire life on a handed-down mistranslated group of magical thinking from the Bronze Age.


Go figure. ohh

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2010 05:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1332
Joined  2010-06-07
toombaru - 17 June 2010 04:50 PM
Gnostikosis - 17 June 2010 12:33 PM
toombaru - 17 June 2010 11:45 AM
Gnostikosis - 17 June 2010 11:30 AM
Bernie_Dehler - 17 June 2010 10:59 AM

FYI-

It seems to me that many atheists think evangelical Christians are naive about science.  According to some recent events, there is some ongoing discussion happening between Christians in science with secular scientists, that are addressing the topics of religion and science. 

See his for more info:
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2010/0614doser.shtml?sa_campaign=Internal_Ads/AAAS/AAAS_News/2010-06-14/jump_page

The secular science group is AAAS; the evangelical “Christians in science” group is ASA.

...Bernie

I think there is no necessary conflict between religion and science. Science is a tool that can be use in the determination of what is true anywhere.

However I think religion is going to have to be willing to question the authority it has given to it’s leadership in the past. Reality is the basis of what is true, not an interpretation of religious documents.

Religion accepts the occurrence of communication with God. However they do take liberties with the interpretation of that communication. They’ve guessed and created conflicting stories to explain what they don’t understand.

I think if you stick to the authority of reality and then go back to try to understanding the intended meaning of the authors of the Bible you get a different picture then one of “primitive superstition”.

 


Have you read the entire Bible…....or the Koran?

 

gulp

Not the Koran, only parts of it. Problem is people don’t read these for themselves or if they do, they understand it based on the religious paradigm it’s presented in.

 

 

There is no other area of human knowledge in which we reference the understanding of a group of our ancestors that lived two to three thousand years ago.
And yet Islamic-Judeo-Christians…even Buddhists….. base their entire life on a handed-down mistranslated group of magical thinking from the Bronze Age.


Go figure. ohh

Technology and culture were different, that doesn’t mean they were stupid or believed in magic.

I don’t know that access to technology or accepting magic as a trick of mechanics makes us any smarter or wiser.

Science, geometry, medicine philosophy based on concepts that were developed and discussed in ancient Greece. There were some pretty smart thinkers in the past. There were also the masses that then like today believe in magic.

We haven’t advanced that much in our intellectual capacity over the centuries. You can’t discount everyone then by tossing them all into the bucket of primitive magic thinkers any more then you can the discount the understanding of individuals today by tossing them all into the same bucket.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2010 05:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  88
Joined  2010-02-04

Gnostikosis said:
“Would you go and agree to sacrifice your son as God requested of Abraham?  I don’t care if God makes this demand of faith from me. The answer is hell no.”

Why “no?” Because it is simply your emotional, natural instinct to pass on your genes?  wink

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2010 05:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  88
Joined  2010-02-04

Toombaru said:
“There is no other area of human knowledge in which we reference the understanding of a group of our ancestors that lived two to three thousand years ago.
And yet Islamic-Judeo-Christians…even Buddhists….. base their entire life on a handed-down mistranslated group of magical thinking from the Bronze Age.”

There’s no reason not to believe the ancients unless you have better knowledge.  Therefore, the key to overcome false thinking is to get educated.  Some ancient knowledge is fine.  Who knows, maybe they even made better beer and wine back then.  There are some lost arts; but on the whole, obviously we are smarter and better off and live with fewer delusions (although no one is delusion free… everyone warps a little reality in one way or another).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2010 05:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  88
Joined  2010-02-04

Gnostikosis said:
“We haven’t advanced that much in our intellectual capacity over the centuries.”

One thing that has really helped us was the invention of thinking machines and storage machines.  We are now able to store massive amounts of data, and sift through it with advanced algorithms.  Once we design computers that can design other computers, we’ll become their slaves.  These supermachines are the next step in evolution and they will wipe out our species since we compete with them (they’ll keep some of us for lab experiments).  Evolution will jump from biology to machinery.  I wonder if these machines will also believe in God…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2010 06:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  276
Joined  2010-05-17
Gnostikosis - 17 June 2010 05:15 PM
toombaru - 17 June 2010 04:50 PM
Gnostikosis - 17 June 2010 12:33 PM
toombaru - 17 June 2010 11:45 AM
Gnostikosis - 17 June 2010 11:30 AM
Bernie_Dehler - 17 June 2010 10:59 AM

FYI-

It seems to me that many atheists think evangelical Christians are naive about science.  According to some recent events, there is some ongoing discussion happening between Christians in science with secular scientists, that are addressing the topics of religion and science. 

See his for more info:
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2010/0614doser.shtml?sa_campaign=Internal_Ads/AAAS/AAAS_News/2010-06-14/jump_page

The secular science group is AAAS; the evangelical “Christians in science” group is ASA.

...Bernie

I think there is no necessary conflict between religion and science. Science is a tool that can be use in the determination of what is true anywhere.

However I think religion is going to have to be willing to question the authority it has given to it’s leadership in the past. Reality is the basis of what is true, not an interpretation of religious documents.

Religion accepts the occurrence of communication with God. However they do take liberties with the interpretation of that communication. They’ve guessed and created conflicting stories to explain what they don’t understand.

I think if you stick to the authority of reality and then go back to try to understanding the intended meaning of the authors of the Bible you get a different picture then one of “primitive superstition”.

 


Have you read the entire Bible…....or the Koran?

 

gulp

Not the Koran, only parts of it. Problem is people don’t read these for themselves or if they do, they understand it based on the religious paradigm it’s presented in.

 

 

There is no other area of human knowledge in which we reference the understanding of a group of our ancestors that lived two to three thousand years ago.
And yet Islamic-Judeo-Christians…even Buddhists….. base their entire life on a handed-down mistranslated group of magical thinking from the Bronze Age.


Go figure. ohh

Technology and culture were different, that doesn’t mean they were stupid or believed in magic.

I don’t know that access to technology or accepting magic as a trick of mechanics makes us any smarter or wiser.

Science, geometry, medicine philosophy based on concepts that were developed and discussed in ancient Greece. There were some pretty smart thinkers in the past. There were also the masses that then like today believe in magic.

We haven’t advanced that much in our intellectual capacity over the centuries. You can’t discount everyone then by tossing them all into the bucket of primitive magic thinkers any more then you can the discount the understanding of individuals today by tossing them all into the same bucket.

 


Do you believe that prayer works?

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 4
1
 
‹‹ The Case for God      Bernie and Gnostikosis ››