What happens when a Christian accepts science?
- Thread starter GT WT
- Start date
C
Coelacanth
Guest
mcbrett,
As an outsider looking in I find church response to dissent interesting. Given the dismal history of church persecution of 'heresy', I wonder that today's church doesn't bend over backwards to accomodate honest dissent among members.
The RCC has been in the news very recently for just that thing.
A committee of American Roman Catholic bishops announced Wednesday that a popular book about God by Sister Elizabeth A. Johnson, a theologian at Fordham University in New York, should not be used in Catholic schools and universities because it does not uphold church doctrine.
Link
Also, I'm not sure that accepting evolution is a violation of the 'bed-rock'ideas of Christianity.
It's not. It may be for a current subset of evangelical fundmantalists, but accepting evolution isn't a violation of any bed-rock of Christian ideals or dogma. Frankly, it's pathetic that some think it is.
The RCC has been in the news very recently for just that thing.
A committee of American Roman Catholic bishops announced Wednesday that a popular book about God by Sister Elizabeth A. Johnson, a theologian at Fordham University in New York, should not be used in Catholic schools and universities because it does not uphold church doctrine.
Link
Also, I'm not sure that accepting evolution is a violation of the 'bed-rock'ideas of Christianity.
It's not. It may be for a current subset of evangelical fundmantalists, but accepting evolution isn't a violation of any bed-rock of Christian ideals or dogma. Frankly, it's pathetic that some think it is.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
I don't think it is bedrock in the sense that you can't be saved and believe in theistic evolution. The evolution/creation debate is a 2nd or 3rd tier subject. It is still important though. There are theological and interpretational implications which Christians must consider. Currently, with what I know about the bible and science I believe in special creation and a young earth. At the same time, I do reevaluate those positions when I read something new. So far that's where I am though and I do agree with Coel on the wish that others would accept the reality that faith is as logical as atheism.
If you are surprised with the outcome maybe your assumptions are completely false.
My assumption is that we have a vast swath of scientifically ignorant members of the public whose scientific ignorance largely stems from their religious views.
On that, I find my assumption to be very, very accurate.
It is somewhat disconcerting that the level of science ignorance in the US is so great.
My assumption is that we have a vast swath of scientifically ignorant members of the public whose scientific ignorance largely stems from their religious views.
On that, I find my assumption to be very, very accurate.
It is somewhat disconcerting that the level of science ignorance in the US is so great.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
Scientific ignorance is not the deciding factor in my case as I have tried to explain.
I could spell out why I think your assumptions are incorrect, but that would just continue to give us things to disagree about. I am not trying to be coy. But I think it would be much more productive for you to reread the statements that I call into question. Consider how they could be based on assumptions. Consider how they could potentially be incorrect. Maybe evaluate them. Are they true or not? The point is to think through your own assumptions and understand yourself a little better. I have to do that when going through these discussions. I have found that some of my assumptions were wrong. Sometimes I just identify assumptions when previously I didn't know they were there. I don't expect you to reverse your beliefs but you will understand why you believe what you do better and hopefully you may be able to understand why I believe what I believe better. Because right now you are a bit off. You are correct that the Bible is important to me and I think about what it says when trying to decide what is true.
I could spell out why I think your assumptions are incorrect, but that would just continue to give us things to disagree about. I am not trying to be coy. But I think it would be much more productive for you to reread the statements that I call into question. Consider how they could be based on assumptions. Consider how they could potentially be incorrect. Maybe evaluate them. Are they true or not? The point is to think through your own assumptions and understand yourself a little better. I have to do that when going through these discussions. I have found that some of my assumptions were wrong. Sometimes I just identify assumptions when previously I didn't know they were there. I don't expect you to reverse your beliefs but you will understand why you believe what you do better and hopefully you may be able to understand why I believe what I believe better. Because right now you are a bit off. You are correct that the Bible is important to me and I think about what it says when trying to decide what is true.
Scientific ignorance is not the deciding factor in my case as I have tried to explain.
You are like the serpent chasing his tail and swallowing it for your argument is circular.
What you seem to be saying is that your scientific ignorance is not because you are scientifically ignorant.
Here is my position, a fairly straightforward one: anybody who rejects evolution and the evidence that the earth/cosmos is very old (billions and billions of years) in favor of creationism and a young earth is by definition scientifically ignorant. As such, science ignorance necessarily is involved.
What I am saying, again not at all surprising given the facts, is that your scientific ignorance seems to be entirely caused by your religious beliefs (and as I have said, is sad and somewhat of a step back for America). I am not surprised at all that you reject this conclusion and attempt to formulate a circular, specious explanation to counter it, for you must defend your religion.
In addition to your young earth beliefs, this necessarily includes the belief that dinosaurs and man co-existed; and probably that there were dinosaurs on Noah's Ark.
Fascinating that people actually think this. It is one thing to accept the mythological aspects of one's religion, for all religions seem to embody aspects of the supernatural, but to reject well-regarded science in place of one's religious myth text is akin to the Greeks worshipping Zeus et al. But then, that was long before the scientific method was established, so I can see their excuse.
You are like the serpent chasing his tail and swallowing it for your argument is circular.
What you seem to be saying is that your scientific ignorance is not because you are scientifically ignorant.
Here is my position, a fairly straightforward one: anybody who rejects evolution and the evidence that the earth/cosmos is very old (billions and billions of years) in favor of creationism and a young earth is by definition scientifically ignorant. As such, science ignorance necessarily is involved.
What I am saying, again not at all surprising given the facts, is that your scientific ignorance seems to be entirely caused by your religious beliefs (and as I have said, is sad and somewhat of a step back for America). I am not surprised at all that you reject this conclusion and attempt to formulate a circular, specious explanation to counter it, for you must defend your religion.
In addition to your young earth beliefs, this necessarily includes the belief that dinosaurs and man co-existed; and probably that there were dinosaurs on Noah's Ark.
Fascinating that people actually think this. It is one thing to accept the mythological aspects of one's religion, for all religions seem to embody aspects of the supernatural, but to reject well-regarded science in place of one's religious myth text is akin to the Greeks worshipping Zeus et al. But then, that was long before the scientific method was established, so I can see their excuse.
So yes, MOP, ID is a religious movement. William Dembski sees ID as a restatement of scripture, and Wells sees ID as his sword in the fight against evil materialism.
Another poster above used that same word, "materialism", in defense of his views against evolution/old earth in favor of creationism/young earth. I would not be surprised if the religious organization to which that person belonged is using that as a buzzword to embue their cause with moral righteousness while simultaneously deriding science/evolution. They are, after all, not against "science" now but against "materialism", as if the two are the same thing. Fascinating how they twist, distort, and bastardize the language in order to justify their non-rational science beliefs.
We have seen an "evolution" of language like this before: what is Intelligent Design used to be called creationism. Once the concept is disproved a new term must be invented, and the cycle starts anew.
**** edit to add ****
Lauri Lebo's excellent book, "The Devil in Dover", covers that topic quite well. There was a school textbook that originally employed the term "creationism". When the courts ruled that that term was not valid, the publisher/editor/author did little more than a mass select-and-replace word processing function, removing "creationism" and substituting "Intelligent Design". They then attempted to explain why ID was not the same thing as creationism. Not surprisingly, they failed horribly.
Again, this is all very fascinating.
Personally, I don't think the supreme being is very impressed by those who use their holy texts in such a manner.
Another poster above used that same word, "materialism", in defense of his views against evolution/old earth in favor of creationism/young earth. I would not be surprised if the religious organization to which that person belonged is using that as a buzzword to embue their cause with moral righteousness while simultaneously deriding science/evolution. They are, after all, not against "science" now but against "materialism", as if the two are the same thing. Fascinating how they twist, distort, and bastardize the language in order to justify their non-rational science beliefs.
We have seen an "evolution" of language like this before: what is Intelligent Design used to be called creationism. Once the concept is disproved a new term must be invented, and the cycle starts anew.
**** edit to add ****
Lauri Lebo's excellent book, "The Devil in Dover", covers that topic quite well. There was a school textbook that originally employed the term "creationism". When the courts ruled that that term was not valid, the publisher/editor/author did little more than a mass select-and-replace word processing function, removing "creationism" and substituting "Intelligent Design". They then attempted to explain why ID was not the same thing as creationism. Not surprisingly, they failed horribly.
Again, this is all very fascinating.
Personally, I don't think the supreme being is very impressed by those who use their holy texts in such a manner.
THEU
2,500+ Posts
GT,
I don't think I would characterise the Creationist movement, or Creationism as an attack on science. At least not from the folks I know. Instead, it is an attempt to synthesize scientific data with a Biblical understanding of God.
I would guess you would say there is no need to synthesize anything, but rather the facts of science can stand on their own.
As a Christian, I believe that revealed truths about God have primary merit over discovered truths. That is how I would briefly explain the different ways in which we know truths. A simple way of saying I believe in the truths revealed by God in Scripture, before, I believe in the truths revealed by science.
So yes, you are correct in that Creationists are 'fitting' discovered scientific truths into a pre-existent framework. Now, I just don't know which frame work some are trying to fit it in. Depends on their understanding of Genesis as a framework. Old earth, young earth, 7 day literalists etc....
I don't think I would characterise the Creationist movement, or Creationism as an attack on science. At least not from the folks I know. Instead, it is an attempt to synthesize scientific data with a Biblical understanding of God.
I would guess you would say there is no need to synthesize anything, but rather the facts of science can stand on their own.
As a Christian, I believe that revealed truths about God have primary merit over discovered truths. That is how I would briefly explain the different ways in which we know truths. A simple way of saying I believe in the truths revealed by God in Scripture, before, I believe in the truths revealed by science.
So yes, you are correct in that Creationists are 'fitting' discovered scientific truths into a pre-existent framework. Now, I just don't know which frame work some are trying to fit it in. Depends on their understanding of Genesis as a framework. Old earth, young earth, 7 day literalists etc....
The rhetorical combat is very fun to read.
Any corruption to our scientific understanding has an accepted process for correction, but even new scientific ideas must contend with dogmatic defense mechanisms. There is no clear method in Christianity that is able to deal with questions about the validity of certain beliefs, so it is much harder to change religious views. Generally, it takes a revolution.
For example, the Protestant revolution deigned the original Christian bible was not the authentic word of God, and so Henry 8 (obviously influenced by Martin Luther) commissioned a new bible and religion. He was mad because the Catholics refused his annulment. His new bible wasn't perfect (the Puritans actually found some problems with it), so King James authorized a new-new version to be the “official” bible (still leaving out the parts Henry 8 didn’t like).
Such a thing was very revolutionary, but when you’re the king and can force people into your beliefs, it’s a lot easier. I myself question the validity of some translations in our current Bible and even some of the gospels, but heretical views are usually not examined or supported – or it would be a sin to do such things; thus, the Christian who accepted evolution as valid is fired.
The same thing happens in science. I would bet we could find a case of a scientist losing a job because he didn't believe in a scientific dogma (AGW as a novel popular example).
The one positive about science is you don’t have to be a king to successfully change the status quo in a (relative) short amount of time.
Any corruption to our scientific understanding has an accepted process for correction, but even new scientific ideas must contend with dogmatic defense mechanisms. There is no clear method in Christianity that is able to deal with questions about the validity of certain beliefs, so it is much harder to change religious views. Generally, it takes a revolution.
For example, the Protestant revolution deigned the original Christian bible was not the authentic word of God, and so Henry 8 (obviously influenced by Martin Luther) commissioned a new bible and religion. He was mad because the Catholics refused his annulment. His new bible wasn't perfect (the Puritans actually found some problems with it), so King James authorized a new-new version to be the “official” bible (still leaving out the parts Henry 8 didn’t like).
Such a thing was very revolutionary, but when you’re the king and can force people into your beliefs, it’s a lot easier. I myself question the validity of some translations in our current Bible and even some of the gospels, but heretical views are usually not examined or supported – or it would be a sin to do such things; thus, the Christian who accepted evolution as valid is fired.
The same thing happens in science. I would bet we could find a case of a scientist losing a job because he didn't believe in a scientific dogma (AGW as a novel popular example).
The one positive about science is you don’t have to be a king to successfully change the status quo in a (relative) short amount of time.
NickDanger
2,500+ Posts
Isn't ignorance simply the act of ignoring?
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
Controversial opinions
- Started by Driver 8
- Replies: 675
- Quackenbush's
-
The Bible was created by man
- Started by Crockett
- Replies: 90
- Quackenbush's
-
Random ignorant comments
- Started by Chop
- Replies: 3
- Quackenbush's
-
Happy Mother’s Day
- Started by Dionysus
- Replies: 6
- Quackenbush's
-
Reflections on Reaching Age 80
- Started by HornHuskerDad
- Replies: 14
- Quackenbush's
-
Eclipse 2024
- Started by Dionysus
- Replies: 36
- Quackenbush's
-
PSA
- Started by SabreHorn
- Replies: 12
- Quackenbush's
Prediction Results Threads
