Christianity: Friend or foe to science?

[Unknown Soldier]

Many parts of the Bible are written from the perspective of the ancient viewer.

Actually, all of the Bible is written by people who lived long before most of our basic knowledge of geology and cosmology was discovered. Since they didn't have that knowledge, then if they wrote of what we today know to be myth, then we can take what they wrote literally.

If meteors fell from the sky it would appear that stars were falling from the sky to an ancient viewer.

Yes. That's an example of their ignorance of the true nature of celestial bodies. People in some cultures in antiquity like Hellenistic Greece had much better knowledge of the world then the Jews because they had developed much better science.

He on extremely rare occasions He does suspend His laws.

So rare that science has not one example of any such suspension of a known law of nature.

But we know from the Bible that at least 99.9% of the time He operates according to natural law.

So if disorder only occurs 0.1 percent of the time, then we can expect "order in the cosmos." At that rate God suspends a law of nature 8.76 hours per year. That's a significant amount of time. If you knew a bridge can collapse 8.76 hours a year, would you cross it?

How is phenomenological language confusing?

I already pointed out that if that language looks identical to primitive superstition and ignorance, then it's easy to interpret it as primitive superstition and ignorance. I would expect an all wise God to know better than to express Himself that way.

Modern humans use it everyday.

Yes, but today we know better than to think that a "falling star" is a star like the sun. The Bible writers had no such knowledge as far as we know. So your mistake here is to assume that what's true of modern cultures is true for the cultures of antiquity.

Yes, if the subject that we disagree about is serious enough.

No way am I going to denounce anybody as a fool merely because they disagree with me. I value the free exchange of ideas and respect the right of others to come to their own conclusions.

 

[El Cid]

That's fine. I'd say that the one person we owe the most to for scientific thought is Aristotle. In fact, much of Bacon's thinking is based on the works of Aristotle. Aristotle laid the basis for all scientists including the Christians you keep citing.

Aristotle was the first person to systematize the laws of logic and that is very important to modern science, but he never conducted any experiments.

It obviously is not.

I fail to see the difference.

Well maybe you are right. Maybe Christianity is the basis of science or rather the Christian worldview is the basis of science because it is the only religion that taught that there is an objective reality that operates according to natural laws.

May I ask you to take care to clarify your posts?

I thought you could understand them. I guess I was wrong.

You're misrepresenting what I said. I posted: "...Christian apologists...are quick to deny the responsibility of Christianity for the evil done by Christians." Do I need to point out that straw-manning is not only illogical but unfair and dishonest?

How did I strawman?

A few? There's tons of such Christians and not all of them are uneducated. Their faith is at the forefront of their opposition to science. That's why I find your claims so outlandish.

If that's true, then I must be encountering a lot of very unusual Christians who not only deny evolutionary theory but science in general.

You are, because I have been an evangelical Christian for over 40 years and I have never met one that was opposed to science because of their faith. Of course, there are many that do not believe in evolutionary theory. But I have never met one that denied non-theoretical science. Theoretical science can be influenced by a persons philosophy or political views.

That's a poor analogy because we know that calculus is intelligible but we don't know if some natural phenomena are intelligible. It seems probable to me that much of the cosmos will remain unintelligible to us. Your "orderly, rational" universe is an obvious "hopeful monster."

According to Stephen Hawking, he thinks that eventually we will develop a theory of Everything. So that confirms that one of the greatest scientists believes that the entire universe is intelligible and may ultimately be understandable.

That's incorrect. Scientists know that some physical systems like the atmosphere have future states that cannot be predicted even if we know everything about the present state of those systems. Such systems are said to be "chaotic."

Even if some massively complex systems cannot be predicted by limited beings like us does not mean that they are not orderly and intelligible.

Wait a minute--didn't you argue earlier that we know of God's nonphysical mind because it creates order in the cosmos? Now you're saying that nonphysical minds enable disorder.

Yes, free will minds can create disorder, but so far from what we know about the universe God has not done that.

You just contradicted your own position.

See above.

That might be true, but until it is proved true, you have a big problem on your hands if you choose to claim an orderly cosmos.

No, if the universe was not so orderly we would not know as much as we already do.

You keep twisting what I say. You claimed that the Bible passages that surely appear wrong are hyperbole. I'm pointing out that anybody can play that same game by arbitrarily asserting that anything in the Bible is hyperbole, and that includes the passages you want to believe are literally true.

No, you quoted Jesus who is a first century rabbi whom historians know often used hyperbole. Most of the Bible is not a first century rabbi speaking. So most of the Bible is not hyperbole. The Bible is made up of many different forms of literature, to correctly understand the Bible or any text, you have to know what type of literature it is.

Maybe not, but mental illness can surely cause an adrenaline rush that can result in great strength--no demons required. Modern psychology has never discovered even one genuine case of demonic possession, and it's sad that your Christian faith has inspired you to oppose that very important modern science.

Actually, there have been a few cases where a psychologist did think the person may have been possessed by a demon.

In that case God is creating disorder! You're contradicting yourself again claiming that a God of order can and does cause disorder at the drop of a hat because his conscious free will lets Him do so.

Actually if the suspension of a natural law is done for a logical reason, then it is not disorder.

And your claim above is very illogical: If God wants to save a person trapped under a car, then it would have been helpful if He had prevented the accident to begin with.

As I stated above, more than 99.9% of the time God does not intervene supernaturally. In order for Him to destroy evil forever, the universe must be primarily based on natural law and have free will beings. Someone driving the other car may have freely chosen to drink and drive.

And speaking of automobile accidents, they seem very disorderly to me.

No, they usually occur as the result of natural laws unless the driver freely chooses to do something with their car.

I don't recall your explaining why it took so long for Christians to invent "modern science." Maybe they made such a mess of Greek science that it took them well over a thousand years to pick up the pieces.

Beginning in the mid 4th century the church leadership began to become corrupt because it became part of the government and started to withhold the Bible from the laity. So that they did not know that they could learn from nature about God. But around the Reformation when the protestants started getting the Bible out to the people then people became more interested in learning about nature and Gods creation. That is why the founders of modern science were primarily protestants.

So you dismiss the work of any Christians who make huge scientific mistakes as "fundamentalism." I wonder where those mistaken fundamentalists get their ideas--what could that source be?

Misinterpreting the Bible.

I understand that when Darwin sailed on the Voyage of the Beagle the purpose of that voyage was to find scientific evidence for Biblical creation. I think it's safe to say that Darwin had hoped to find that evidence for creation. The evidence for evolution he actually did find supported the opposite conclusion. And when Darwin broke the news, all those Bible-inspired Christians of his day went bonkers opposing Darwin's scientific theory.

All that Darwin found was that animals adapt to the environment. That does not contradict anything in the Bible. Where he contradicted the Bible is when he extrapolated that time could magically use those adaptations to create whole new organisms. And not all Christians went bonkers, some accepted his theory. Such as the great Christian botanist Asa Gray.

LOL--I'm speaking of an ocean of liquid water that the Bible says is in the sky, of course. As any sensible person knows, clouds are not bodies of liquid water.

The Bible does not say there is an ocean of liquid water in the sky. It just says "waters" which in the hebrew can mean any of the different forms of water but which we learn from His creation that in this case it is referring to water vapor.

 

[Janice Bower]

Many people, including Christians, see Christianity as science's foe. Christianity is seen as based on faith while science is based on carnal unbelief which can destroy faith in Christ. Needless to say, many people criticize Christianity for its perceived opposition to science. But is Christianity really a foe to science? Most Christian apologists answer with a resounding no. They cite the many great scientists who have been Christians as evidence that Christianity poses no threat to legitimate science. In fact, apologists see the rise of modern science as to Christianity's credit.

But what do you Christians say about Christianity in relation to science? Do you like science and have interest in its discoveries? Is science good or bad in your estimation? Do any of you fear science and see it as a threat to your faith? Are any of you scientists or plan to become scientists?

Answers would be greatly appreciated!

Some are Christian Scientists. Sorry --- couldn't resist. Scientists make lots of mistakes. I always think about the killer bees. But there are hundreds if not more mistakes. And there is good: the polio vaccine for one.

 

[Gary Mac]

Some are Christian Scientists. Sorry --- couldn't resist. Scientists make lots of mistakes. I always think about the killer bees. But there are hundreds if not more mistakes. And there is good: the polio vaccine for one.

If God doesnt need us then there is no need for a God is there?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Aristotle was the first person to systematize the laws of logic and that is very important to modern science, but he never conducted any experiments.

Neither did Hawking as far as far as I know, but he was a stellar modern scientist. So you really cannot disqualify Aristotle as a scientist that way.

Well maybe you are right. Maybe Christianity is the basis of science or rather the Christian worldview is the basis of science because it is the only religion that taught that there is an objective reality that operates according to natural laws.

You failed to demonstrate that claim.

I thought you could understand them. I guess I was wrong.

Please try to make what you say clear. I happen to like clarity. It's part of my scientific thinking.

You are, because I have been an evangelical Christian for over 40 years and I have never met one that was opposed to science because of their faith. Of course, there are many that do not believe in evolutionary theory.

Which is opposition to science rooted in Christian faith!

But I have never met one that denied non-theoretical science. Theoretical science can be influenced by a persons philosophy or political views.

Creationists deny fossil evidence for evolution, so you are wrong here.

Even if some massively complex systems cannot be predicted by limited beings like us does not mean that they are not orderly and intelligible.

I already corrected you on this issue.

Yes, free will minds can create disorder, but so far from what we know about the universe God has not done that.

But as a "free will mind" He can do whatever He chooses including making the world unpredictable and hence disorderly. So any apparent order in the cosmos cannot be said to be evidence for such a God. So your logic amounts to:

If A then B and if A then not B.

That's not valid logic.

No, you quoted Jesus who is a first century rabbi whom historians know often used hyperbole. Most of the Bible is not a first century rabbi speaking. So most of the Bible is not hyperbole. The Bible is made up of many different forms of literature, to correctly understand the Bible or any text, you have to know what type of literature it is.

But it is neither fair nor honest to interpret the Bible in such a way as to force it to be in accord with your preconceived notion that it is inerrant.

Actually, there have been a few cases where a psychologist did think the person may have been possessed by a demon.

Maybe, but such a case of demonic possession has never been proved by science. The concept of demonic possession is based in the myth and folklore of primitive, superstitious, and prescientific people. To claim cases of demonic possession is not in accord with modern science.

Actually if the suspension of a natural law is done for a logical reason, then it is not disorder.

Then you cannot claim that natural law is evidence for God if He can suspend it at will! Here's your logic:

If God then order, and if God then disorder.

As I stated above, more than 99.9% of the time God does not intervene supernaturally. In order for Him to destroy evil forever, the universe must be primarily based on natural law and have free will beings. Someone driving the other car may have freely chosen to drink and drive.

So God wants people to be able to get drunk and run people over while driving. Don't you see how ridiculous that is? I think it's sensible to disallow drunk driving because the freedom to drive drunk is less important than people's safety.

Here's your logic:

The freedom to do evil is more important than freedom from evil.

No, they usually occur as the result of natural laws unless the driver freely chooses to do something with their car.

Since auto accidents are for the most part unpredictable, I would define them as "disorder."

Beginning in the mid 4th century the church leadership began to become corrupt because it became part of the government and started to withhold the Bible from the laity. So that they did not know that they could learn from nature about God. But around the Reformation when the protestants started getting the Bible out to the people then people became more interested in learning about nature and Gods creation. That is why the founders of modern science were primarily protestants.

So blame the Catholic Church for centuries of ignorance! Actually, if you knew your history of science, the Roman Catholic Church has made perhaps more scientific contributions to science than any other Christian sect. They were also right when they said that making the Bible available for anybody to read would lead to tremendous discord in the Church. The result of doing so has resulted in thousands of different sects all claiming to be "true."

Misinterpreting the Bible.

Is it safe to assume that you never misinterpret the Bible?

All that Darwin found was that animals adapt to the environment. That does not contradict anything in the Bible.

Where does the Bible mention evolution?

Where he contradicted the Bible is when he extrapolated that time could magically use those adaptations to create whole new organisms.

Sure, and that contradiction is supported by modern scientific evidence. Again, your Christian faith inspires you to oppose modern science.

And not all Christians went bonkers, some accepted his theory.

It was primarily Protestants who flipped out over evolutionary science. The Catholics decided to keep quiet because they already had a bad reputation for persecuting Galileo and Bruno.

The Bible does not say there is an ocean of liquid water in the sky. It just says "waters" which in the hebrew can mean any of the different forms of water but which we learn from His creation that in this case it is referring to water vapor.

To heck with what you say "Hebrew" means. I know what I've read in plain English.

But I do need to correct a misunderstanding I had about the firmament. It's not actually an ocean in the sky but a dome that holds up that ocean in the sky. In any case, the firmament is but one example of how the Bible gets science wrong.

 

[El Cid]

Many parts of the Bible are written from the perspective of the ancient viewer.

Actually, all of the Bible is written by people who lived long before most of our basic knowledge of geology and cosmology was discovered. Since they didn't have that knowledge, then if they wrote of what we today know to be myth, then we can take what they wrote literally.

God has told us that we can understand the Bible by studying nature. And it has recently been discovered that ancient peoples actually knew more than many historians originally believed.

If meteors fell from the sky it would appear that stars were falling from the sky to an ancient viewer.

Yes. That's an example of their ignorance of the true nature of celestial bodies. People in some cultures in antiquity like Hellenistic Greece had much better knowledge of the world then the Jews because they had developed much better science.

Actually ancient hebrew doesnt have a word for meteor, so even if they knew the difference they couldnt describe without using the word for star. So falling star is probably the word for meteor. Did the ancient Greeks know the difference between a meteor and a star?

He on extremely rare occasions He does suspend His laws.

So rare that science has not one example of any such suspension of a known law of nature.

Actually we do, the Big Bang. No known scientific law caused the Big bang. And since the universe is everything that physically exists, then according to the law of causality, the cause had to be non-physical.

But we know from the Bible that at least 99.9% of the time He operates according to natural law.

So if disorder only occurs 0.1 percent of the time, then we can expect "order in the cosmos." At that rate God suspends a law of nature 8.76 hours per year. That's a significant amount of time. If you knew a bridge can collapse 8.76 hours a year, would you cross it?

Not sure how you came up with that number and actually my number is probably actually more like 99.999%, but yes I would cross the bridge.

How is phenomenological language confusing?

I already pointed out that if that language looks identical to primitive superstition and ignorance, then it's easy to interpret it as primitive superstition and ignorance. I would expect an all wise God to know better than to express Himself that way.

So you think the weather man is ignorant because he says the sun rises and sets? He used ordinary humans to convey His messaage.

Modern humans use it everyday.

Yes, but today we know better than to think that a "falling star" is a star like the sun. The Bible writers had no such knowledge as far as we know. So your mistake here is to assume that what's true of modern cultures is true for the cultures of antiquity.

See above about the hebrew language. They knew more than we realize as recent research has shown.

Yes, if the subject that we disagree about is serious enough.

No way am I going to denounce anybody as a fool merely because they disagree with me. I value the free exchange of ideas and respect the right of others to come to their own conclusions.

Even if they endorse rape?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

God has told us that we can understand the Bible by studying nature.

That's illogical. If God spoke to us, then there would be no need for us to understand the Bible or study nature. He would tell us everything we need to know directly and unambiguously. He would know better than to have us read a book that is confusing millions of people who can't agree on what it says. Crafty people, on the other hand, frequently make false claims in books they write that they are speaking to some god who is revealing secrets to them. Joseph Smith is but one example of such a "crafty person."

And it has recently been discovered that ancient peoples actually knew more than many historians originally believed.

That's correct. Not long ago scientists discovered a computer created by Hellenistic Greeks. Those Greeks--they were amazing scientists, were they not? Modern science wouldn't be the same without them.

Actually ancient hebrew doesnt have a word for meteor, so even if they knew the difference they couldnt describe without using the word for star.

That's a good point. The Bible writers were very backward scientifically lacking terminology to adequately describe nature.

So falling star is probably the word for meteor.

Probably? We can't be very sure what the Bible writers were saying. It's sad that the Bible was written in dead languages that are difficult to translate into modern languages like English.

Did the ancient Greeks know the difference between a meteor and a star?

I don't know.

Actually we do, the Big Bang. No known scientific law caused the Big bang.

What law of nature did the Big Bang violate?

And since the universe is everything that physically exists, then according to the law of causality, the cause had to be non-physical.

About two years ago I read an article in Scientific American in which some scientists came up with a model in which our universe came from a four-dimensional star in another universe. If they are right, then contrary to what you assert the "cause" of our universe was indeed physical.

Not sure how you came up with that number ...

0.001 X 365 days per year X 24 hours per day = 8.76 hours.

and actually my number is probably actually more like 99.999%...

Move those goalposts!

but yes I would cross the bridge.

Good luck! You'll probably survive.

So you think the weather man is ignorant because he says the sun rises and sets? He used ordinary humans to convey His messaage.

Uh, no--the weather person is a human living in a modern culture predicting the weather to a modern audience. The words she chooses to use have a different meaning than the meaning that was in vogue 2,000 years ago, of course. Language evolves as old words take on new meanings, and it's often a mistake to assume otherwise. What was meant literally to people long ago can be meant figuratively today.

Even if they endorse rape?

It depends on what you mean by "endorse." Nobody should be attacked if they don't think rape is wrong. Only the actual act of rape is wrong as I see it. We do see instances of rape in the Bible practiced by the Hebrews with God's alleged approval. See Judges 21:10-24, for example.

 

[Theo1689]

You are, because I have been an evangelical Christian for over 40 years and I have never met one that was opposed to science because of their faith. Of course, there are many that do not believe in evolutionary theory. But I have never met one that denied non-theoretical science. Theoretical science can be influenced by a persons philosophy or political views.

Yep, which is why I don't find this discussion helpful in the least.

I don't know anyone, Christian or not, who denies science. I know of a Roman Catholic who is a geocentrist, but I'm sure he doesn't deny the rest of science.

Even if his accounts are accurate (about Christians denying science in general), they are anecdotal, and we have to remember that correlation does not equate to causation. And if the poster doesn't understand this, I have to question HIS understanding of science.

 

[Theo1689]

Which is opposition to science rooted in Christian faith!

You don't seem to have the ability to be the least bit objective.
You simply ASSUME whatever you want to come to the conclusion that you want.

The reason I reject evolution is NOT because I think it opposes my faith.
The reason I reject it is because it is bad science.

And we don't reject fossil evidence.
We reject the unsubstantiated (and untested) ASSUMPTIONS that fossil A "evolved" into fossil B.

I already corrected you on this issue.

Oh, the arrogance!

But it is neither fair nor honest to interpret the Bible in such a way as to force it to be in accord with your preconceived notion that it is inerrant.

It is also neither fair nor honest for YOU to interpret the Bible in such a way as to force it to be in contradiction with YOUR preconceived notions about what is true.

To heck with what you say "Hebrew" means. I know what I've read in plain English.

Again, you seem ignorant of the way language works.
If someone is going to get a degree in Russian poetry, the first thing they are going to do is learn Russian, so that they can read the original text, and not a translation. The original is going to be more nuanced and more informative than any translation. That's why Bible scholars study the Bible in Hebrew and Greek.

 

[Theo1689]

That's correct. Not long ago scientists discovered a computer created by Hellenistic Greeks. Those Greeks--they were amazing scientists, were they not? Modern science wouldn't be the same without them.

That's not "science", it's more along the lines of technology.
And IIRC, we have discovered an ancient mechanical model of the solar system, with the planets showing the retrograde motion of a geocentric understanding.

I wouldn't necessarily call that "good science".

Probably? We can't be very sure what the Bible writers were saying. It's sad that the Bible was written in dead languages that are difficult to translate into modern languages like English.

You need to do more Bible study.
You are simply wrong here.

Uh, no--the weather person is a human living in a modern culture predicting the weather to a modern audience. The words she chooses to use have a different meaning than the meaning that was in vogue 2,000 years ago, of course. Language evolves as old words take on new meanings, and it's often a mistake to assume otherwise. What was meant literally to people long ago can be meant figuratively today.

Yes, we are well aware of that.
A good example is the word, "πρωτοτοκος", which literally translates to "first-born", but by Jesus' time had evolved with the connotation of "pre-eminent", based (at least partially) on the pre-eminence a firstborn son had in Hebrew culture.

And yes, we can know what it meant, because of context.

All you're offering is self-serving speculation and baseless doubt.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

You don't seem to have the ability to be the least bit objective.

That's merely your opinion, of course.

You simply ASSUME whatever you want to come to the conclusion that you want.

That's merely your own assumption, of course. If you would bother to actually do some fact checking, then you'd see I'm right.

The reason I reject evolution is NOT because I think it opposes my faith.

It sure looks that way.

The reason I reject it is because it is bad science.

I think that most of what the scientific community has to say about evolution is essentially correct, but there has been some "bad science" done regarding evolution. Eugenics is but one example.

And we don't reject fossil evidence.
We reject the unsubstantiated (and untested) ASSUMPTIONS that fossil A "evolved" into fossil B.

What would convince you that some fossils are evidence for evolution? I'm especially impressed with the fossil evidence for horse evolution.

Oh, the arrogance!

I don't see correcting somebody as arrogance. On the contrary, it is helpful to correct a person when that person is wrong. Would you prefer to continue in your error with sinful pride, or would you prefer to humble yourself and accept what is right?

It is also neither fair nor honest for YOU to interpret the Bible in such a way as to force it to be in contradiction with YOUR preconceived notions about what is true.

That is correct, and that's why I don't interpret the Bible that way.

Again, you seem ignorant of the way language works.
If someone is going to get a degree in Russian poetry, the first thing they are going to do is learn Russian, so that they can read the original text, and not a translation. The original is going to be more nuanced and more informative than any translation. That's why Bible scholars study the Bible in Hebrew and Greek.

It's fine to study Hebrew and Greek. What I object to is people using those languages to deny good, commonly accepted translations to come up with something to fit their agenda.

By the way--your avatar looks like a really nasty guy. It is fitting!

 

[Theo1689]

It sure looks that way.

Congratulations!
You just destroyed your own credbility!

You have just proven that you refuse to accept facts, and have no qualms twisting them to bolster your own assumptions. So concerning your ludicrous claim about Christians allegedly rejecting science, even if there were some accounts you engaged in, there is no doubt that you twisted what they said to suit your own narrative.

What would convince you that some fossils are evidence for evolution?

If you want prove evolution is "scientifically" true, then you would need to engage in scientific experiments, selectively breeding to create an entirely new species.

It's not a difficult concept.

I'm especially impressed with the fossil evidence for horse evolution.

I'm not.

I don't see correcting somebody as arrogance.

Of course you don't.
Because you can't consider the fact that YOUR opinion is not the "correct" one.

On the contrary, it is helpful to correct a person when that person is wrong.

It's NOT helpful to "correct" a person if they already hold the truth, and you are trying to replace it with error.

Would you prefer to continue in your error with sinful pride, or would you prefer to humble yourself and accept what is right?

Constantly ASSUMING that you are "right" and everyone who disagrees with your OPINION is "continuing in error", is a perfect example of "sinful pride".

 

[Unknown Soldier]

That's not "science", it's more along the lines of technology.
And IIRC, we have discovered an ancient mechanical model of the solar system, with the planets showing the retrograde motion of a geocentric understanding.

I wouldn't necessarily call that "good science".

The "Antikythera mechanism" is a tool that Hellenistic Greek astronomers used to study the planets. How is Greek astronomy not good science?

You need to do more Bible study.
You are simply wrong here.

That's characteristically asserted without a shred of evidence!

Yes, we are well aware of that.

If so, then why am I reading posts where writing from antiquity is interpreted as if it was written today?

A good example is the word, "πρωτοτοκος", which literally translates to "first-born"...

That's an example of a word in the New Testament that the vast majority of people today don't know--few people today can speak New Testament Greek. It's part of a language barrier that hobbles people from understanding the Bible. Even those who claim to know "the Hebrew and the Greek" disagree about what the Bible is saying. It's a huge mess that's unlikely to ever be cleaned up.

...but by Jesus' time had evolved with the connotation of "pre-eminent", based (at least partially) on the pre-eminence a firstborn son had in Hebrew culture.

And yes, we can know what it meant, because of context.

All you're offering is self-serving speculation and baseless doubt.

You lost me here. What does any of this have to do with my pointing out how language evolves?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Congratulations!
You just destroyed your own credbility!

I have no idea how you have come to this conclusion. All I said is that it appears that you reject evolutionary theory because it violates your faith.

You have just proven that you refuse to accept facts, and have no qualms twisting them to bolster your own assumptions. So concerning your ludicrous claim about Christians allegedly rejecting science, even if there were some accounts you engaged in, there is no doubt that you twisted what they said to suit your own narrative.

Believe whatever suits you. I know I've encountered many Christians who reject science because of their faith.

If you want prove evolution is "scientifically" true, then you would need to engage in scientific experiments, selectively breeding to create an entirely new species.

Why is that impossible? Perhaps you are aware that speciation takes a long time, and you need not fear seeing it.

I'm not.

And here I thought you were going to disprove horse evolution!

Of course you don't.
Because you can't consider the fact that YOUR opinion is not the "correct" one.

You may correct me any time. I'd appreciate it.

It's NOT helpful to "correct" a person if they already hold the truth, and you are trying to replace it with error.

That is correct.

Constantly ASSUMING that you are "right" and everyone who disagrees with your OPINION is "continuing in error", is a perfect example of "sinful pride".

Again, you are right. So if I err, then please explain where my error lies, and I will correct that error.

 

[Theo1689]

The "Antikythera mechanism" is a tool that Hellenistic Greek astronomers used to study the planets. How is Greek astronomy not good science?

So you think the Sun rotates around the Earth?
Good to know.

Even those who claim to know "the Hebrew and the Greek" disagree about what the Bible is saying. It's a huge mess that's unlikely to ever be cleaned up.

A bogus claim without a shred of evidence.

You lost me here.

Why am I not surprised?

I have no idea how you have come to this conclusion.

Why am I not surprised?

All I said is that it appears that you reject evolutionary theory because it violates your faith.

And you are wrong.
Yet you refuse to accept this truth.

Believe whatever suits you. I know I've encountered many Christians who reject science because of their faith.

Nope.
Never happened.

Why is that impossible? Perhaps you are aware that speciation takes a long time, and you need not fear seeing it.

Okay, we can wait.
Let's see the experiment.

And here I thought you were going to disprove horse evolution!

There's nothing to have to "disprove".

Again, you are right. So if I err, then please explain where my error lies, and I will correct that error.

No, you never will.
That's why I don't feel like wasting my time, just so you will refuse to accept correction.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Yep, which is why I don't find this discussion helpful in the least.

Why are you discussing then?

I don't know anyone, Christian or not, who denies science.

It depends on what you mean by "deny." Almost all Christians enjoy the benefits of science (the Amish are one possible exception). But like it or not, it is a fact that many Christians deny scientific theories that they cannot easily reconcile with their beliefs. Creationism is one obvious example of such denial. More broadly, the observational and experimental aspects of science are hard for many Christians to live with because so much of what they believe is not observable or testable.

I know of a Roman Catholic who is a geocentrist, but I'm sure he doesn't deny the rest of science.

I knew a Catholic who said he opposed science, and my Christian sister used to mock my interest in science.

Even if his accounts are accurate (about Christians denying science in general), they are anecdotal, and we have to remember that correlation does not equate to causation. And if the poster doesn't understand this, I have to question HIS understanding of science.

It is true that I cannot prove these cases of antiscientific thinking on the part of many Christians I've known. But that's not my point. What I'm saying is that I have reasons to doubt that Christianity enabled modern science. So you have failed to convince me otherwise.

 

[Theo1689]

It depends on what you mean by "deny." Almost all Christians enjoy the benefits of science

Almost all non-Christians enjoy the benefits of science discovered by Chrsitians.

But like it or not, it is a fact that many Christians deny scientific theories that they cannot easily reconcile with their beliefs.

You continue to be unable to provide ANY evidence for your bankrupt claim.

Creationism is one obvious example of such denial.

<Chuckle>
And what testable experiments have proven that Creationism is untrue?

The age of the Earth is a matter of history, not of science.

More broadly, the observational and experimental aspects of science are hard for many Christians to live with because so much of what they believe is not observable or testable.

More bankrupt claims without any shred of evidence.

I knew a Catholic who said he opposed science, and my Christian sister used to mock my interest in science.

Yeah, well your twisting of my experience and reasons show me that nothing you claim is reliable. You have destroyed your credibility.

And I almost missed another false claim you made about me, when you suggested I was "afraid" that evolution might be proven true. I have no such "fear". In fact, I WELCOME such experimentation. Too bad all the evolutionists are too afraid to try to do it.

Btw, sample size of ONE?
Give me a break.
I've never seen anyone as ignorant of science as you.

So you have failed to convince me otherwise.

I have no interest in "convincing" you of anything.
You are closed-minded, and therefore a lost cause.

 

[Theo1689]

I knew a Catholic who said he opposed science,

A sample size of ONE.
This is nothing but anecdotal.

and my Christian sister used to mock my interest in science.

Are you aware that "mock" doesn't mean "deny"?


If I had a brother who wanted to play the accordian, I'd mock him too. But I'm not denying the existence of accordians.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

So you think the Sun rotates around the Earth?
Good to know.

FYI: Something many people don't know is that absolutely speaking, it is not true that the earth orbits the sun. Einstein demonstrated that since space is not absolute, then how one celestial body moves about another body is a matter of which body is chosen as "still" and which body is seen as "moving."

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Almost all non-Christians enjoy the benefits of science discovered by Chrsitians.

I suppose so. But I also give credit to all the science other people have worked so hard to bless us with.

You continue to be unable to provide ANY evidence for your bankrupt claim.

If you assert that my claim is "bankrupt," then by definition you've made up your mind that there can be no evidence for it.

<Chuckle>
And what testable experiments have proven that Creationism is untrue?

You can do that yourself: Just pray that God creates a new "kind," and you'll have that proof.

The age of the Earth is a matter of history, not of science.

Scientists have used evidence from geology to date the earth as 4.6 billion years old.

More bankrupt claims without any shred of evidence.

So you have no evidence or experimental verification of your beliefs, and it doesn't bother you?

Yeah, well your twisting of my experience and reasons show me that nothing you claim is reliable. You have destroyed your credibility.

Oh gosh--and here I was hoping you would think I had credibility!

And I almost missed another false claim you made about me, when you suggested I was "afraid" that evolution might be proven true. I have no such "fear". In fact, I WELCOME such experimentation. Too bad all the evolutionists are too afraid to try to do it.

But what if there is then no afterlife, no heavenly reward? I would think that that would be a disappointment.

Btw, sample size of ONE?
Give me a break.

We need to go back to statistics class. If your claim that you've never known a Christian to reject science is true, then it is very unlikely that I would encounter them.

I've never seen anyone as ignorant of science as you.

I'm wondering if you've ever known anybody who knows any thing about science.

I have no interest in "convincing" you of anything.

That's good because otherwise you'd be very disappointed.

You are closed-minded, and therefore a lost cause.

Is it safe to assume that you are implying that you are open minded?