Why do we doubt science?
- Thread starter GT WT
- Start date
C
Coelacanth
Guest
C
Coelacanth
Guest
Coelacanth,
I'm glad to see you read the Old Testament as allegory. It's people of faith that insist on a 6,000 year old earth, special creation, and Noah's flood (and teaching such nonsense as science in the public school classroom) that I take issue with.
I am happy to be allied with the non-literalist in opposing teaching fundamentalist silliness to our children. Welcome aboard!
I'm glad to see you read the Old Testament as allegory. It's people of faith that insist on a 6,000 year old earth, special creation, and Noah's flood (and teaching such nonsense as science in the public school classroom) that I take issue with.
I am happy to be allied with the non-literalist in opposing teaching fundamentalist silliness to our children. Welcome aboard!
C
Coelacanth
Guest
GT, as usual you don't get it. (For one, we're not discussing "the Old Testament", which clearly does contain many historical accounts, which were written and intended to be read as history. We're discussing the opening sections of Genesis.)
I have no problem with people believing in the literalist account. That issue is quite secondary to the core tenets of Christianity. If belief if the literalist account facilitates a person's life in Christ, I'm fine with it. I even encourage it, for certain people.
What I have a problem with is atheists acting as if they've proven Christianity to be irrational if they demonstrate certain problems with the literalist account.
The atheist crowd believes that the notion of "rational" is synonymous with the notion of "scientific". This, in itself, is an irrational view.
I have no problem with people believing in the literalist account. That issue is quite secondary to the core tenets of Christianity. If belief if the literalist account facilitates a person's life in Christ, I'm fine with it. I even encourage it, for certain people.
What I have a problem with is atheists acting as if they've proven Christianity to be irrational if they demonstrate certain problems with the literalist account.
The atheist crowd believes that the notion of "rational" is synonymous with the notion of "scientific". This, in itself, is an irrational view.
In just the last few posts we have a perfect microcosm of one of the many problems with Christianity: two believers who can't even agree on a basic reading of the foundational text of their faith.
Take it literally or read it as allegory, it's all the same in the end, right? Sure, except when it's not. Buckhorn's point is important: when you claim that the bible is true and you think it's good for others to share your belief and you intend to defend the faith, then you should expect reasonable people to have reasonable questions about these stories and how they play out in the world we live in.
As for the talking snake I don't think the bible ever actually says it was satan, does it? Maybe Adam and Eve had been chewing on some peyote buttons and just thought they saw the snake talking. One time at a party in south Austin I had a couple 'shrooms and I swear my girlfriend's ferret told me to bring him the Oreos.
Why can't Christians agree on the meaning of their sacred book? Why do we have so many different denominations and schools of thought with respect to Christian doctrine? Why the need for Christian Apologetics at all? Maybe this is a topic for another thread, but it's very interesting and it seems to me this should be problematic for believers, but apparently it's not.
Take it literally or read it as allegory, it's all the same in the end, right? Sure, except when it's not. Buckhorn's point is important: when you claim that the bible is true and you think it's good for others to share your belief and you intend to defend the faith, then you should expect reasonable people to have reasonable questions about these stories and how they play out in the world we live in.
As for the talking snake I don't think the bible ever actually says it was satan, does it? Maybe Adam and Eve had been chewing on some peyote buttons and just thought they saw the snake talking. One time at a party in south Austin I had a couple 'shrooms and I swear my girlfriend's ferret told me to bring him the Oreos.
Why can't Christians agree on the meaning of their sacred book? Why do we have so many different denominations and schools of thought with respect to Christian doctrine? Why the need for Christian Apologetics at all? Maybe this is a topic for another thread, but it's very interesting and it seems to me this should be problematic for believers, but apparently it's not.
C
Coelacanth
Guest
C
Coelacanth
Guest
C
Coelacanth
Guest
In "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", Thomas Kuhn states that scientists themselves doubt science if the new paradigm undermines their world view. It's only after people who believe in the new scientific paradigm take over the centers of power for research that general beliefs change.
It seems to me that new science is more readily accepted if there is a product involved that can be marketed or otherwise put to practical use (NASA). Science that is theoretical without immediate practical use or findings that may produce an initial disruption in economic activity (cigarette smoking/cancer risk) may take longer to be accepted.
Note: No religious beliefs were attacked or defended during this post. Politics, however, may be involved.
It seems to me that new science is more readily accepted if there is a product involved that can be marketed or otherwise put to practical use (NASA). Science that is theoretical without immediate practical use or findings that may produce an initial disruption in economic activity (cigarette smoking/cancer risk) may take longer to be accepted.
Note: No religious beliefs were attacked or defended during this post. Politics, however, may be involved.
THEU
2,500+ Posts
THEU, I've seen believers on various threads make statements about religion and rationality, and I have to wonder how you would define "rational" in this context.
Christian belief in a nutshell:
- An invisible, omnipotent and omniscient being (god) was lonely or bored so he created an enormous cosmos out of nothing
Christians don’t believe that God was lonely or bored and that is why He created. In fact, while some Christians have attempted to speculate on why God created, the Bible really doesn’t not give a reason why. One of the things that Christians do believe is that because God exists in three persons, God exists in relationship. God doesn’t need humanity for relationship, but God values relationship. Also, Christianity doesn’t believe that God is necessarily invisible. In fact, the Moses talked to God face to face as a man talks to another man. The Presence of God went before the Israelites as they were led out of Egypt in a physically visible way. And ultimately, God is revealed to humanity in Jesus, who was clearly a visible real flesh and bone human.
Also the terms ‘omnipotent and omniscient’ are actually Western terms that come from Greek philosophy that were developed as ways to talk about the Christian God. They aren’t really original Jewish ways of understanding God. While helpful, and not necessarily ‘wrong’ I wouldn’t say it is a really original way of understanding God.
- In one tiny corner of the cosmos he made a special planet and created beings there whose purpose it is to love and adore him (and he loves them too)
I don’t think that God created one special planet and only one type of being to love and adore him. All of creation is to glorify God and bring praise to Him. The question that I have had some raise is that doesn’t this make God some egotistical maniac. (probably a point alluded to in your question about the insubordination). The question is that IF God were powerful enough to create all out of nothing, wouldn’t He be worthy of such praise? The question about any worship to me, is the worthiness of a worshipped object to receive such worship. Adoring you Dion, as a great QB, is probably much more absurd that adoring VY as a great QB. Why? Because obviously VY is a better QB than you. (I am assuming you would agree). If God exists, and He is perfect wouldn’t He indeed be worthy of praise and worship? The word ‘worship’ is actually from a middle English word ‘worthship’, which is all about the worthiness to receive such.
- The very first of these beings were insubordinate so god placed a curse on all subsequent generations of his creation (i.e., everyone is born guilty of an offense they didn't commit, but are now complicit at birth)
The question is whether there was a curse on Adam and Eve and all subsequent generations, or whether it is about natural consequences. The Bible, more than saying that death is a curse because God hates us now, speaks to death being the consequence of sin.
If God is perfect, then anything imperfect would change that, correct? I mean if you have a sterile room (truly sterile), and one virus gets in, it is no longer sterile, correct? So it follows logically, to me, that IF God is perfect, then God cannot be in close relationship with that which is imperfect. Also, IF God is the one who gives life, and a human is cut off from God, which gives life, doesn’t death logically follow? If oxygen is necessary for life, and a person is cut off from oxygen, doesn’t death naturally follow?
- god eventually became so disappointed with humanity that he murdered everyone by drowning (including little children), except for one family
God isn’t disappointed so much as His heart is broken, and God doesn’t murder anyone given the point that death is the natural, logical progression of those who are out of relationship with Him. See answer above.
- After many centuries of human civilization god felt he needed to redeem this obviously screwed-up species by means of a brutal public execution of himself in human form
Redemption through blood sacrifice through a human is mentioned in Genesis 3. So it isn’t centuries later, but rather in Eden that God mentions redemption and in what form redemption would come.
- This story was eventually documented in a set of texts that was compiled by a special group of people who had to decide which stories really came from god and which ones did not
Jews are not special. In fact, they are made a people to bless all people, and to give glory to God. Period. The ‘specialness’ of the Jews is because of God, not them. See the story of Abram.
- god declared in this story that anyone who did not accept his loving gift of redemption would, upon death, be cast into a lake of fire to suffer a never-ending burning and choking and screaming and torture and death for all eternity and forever and ever without respite or mercy (remember: he loves you)
I think I answered this above about the natural, logical, consequence of sin. Hopefully my answer about that can be extrapolated to apply to your questions here.
- This god also allowed other religions to exist and flourish throughout the world, damning billions of people to the eternal lake of fire because through no fault of their own they were raised in a culture that didn't teach the story that would save them from this horrible fate (i.e., too ******* bad for you Muslims and Jews and Buddhists and Hindus and all other non-Christians)
It isn’t that God damns people, it is essentially that people damn themselves. God is not a coercive God who forces love and obedience from people. He is a God who wishes people to freely choose Him. He has given us grace, and His Son to enable that choice to be made. People can worship all sorts of other things. In fact, I believe all people worship something. This is something that I often get chided on Hornfans for, but I believe it and Hornfans has challenged by ability to articulate it.
As someone who studied the history of religions while at UT and helped get religious studies to be a major, I believe that there is value in all the major world religions. I also believe they are all different with unique claims. There is a reason I am a Christian and not a Buddhist or Muslim.
- god loves you and has a plan for you
Dion, as a history major I learned to think differently than a science major, no doubt. History is never provable. It is always about reasonable assumptions. There is a reasonable assumption that George Washington was the first President of the United States, but it is not provable. Not in the sense that science would demand. I believe that would require an experiment with a single controlled variable that achieves reproducible results. That doesn’t happen with history. That doesn’t mean history is illogical, but it isn’t provable as much of science.
What would we need to introduce here for you to find something irrational about it?
Dion, I will admit my answers are short and not complete. I don’t know that I am the right person to fully flesh out an argumentation for you. This medium of a thread is not the best avenue either. I hope you can see my answers though and they will start or continue our dialogue. One thing I appreciate about you as a poster is your reasonableness in disagreement. Sorry it took me so long to respond. Been watching the two kids all day with my wife out for a conference.
Christian belief in a nutshell:
- An invisible, omnipotent and omniscient being (god) was lonely or bored so he created an enormous cosmos out of nothing
Christians don’t believe that God was lonely or bored and that is why He created. In fact, while some Christians have attempted to speculate on why God created, the Bible really doesn’t not give a reason why. One of the things that Christians do believe is that because God exists in three persons, God exists in relationship. God doesn’t need humanity for relationship, but God values relationship. Also, Christianity doesn’t believe that God is necessarily invisible. In fact, the Moses talked to God face to face as a man talks to another man. The Presence of God went before the Israelites as they were led out of Egypt in a physically visible way. And ultimately, God is revealed to humanity in Jesus, who was clearly a visible real flesh and bone human.
Also the terms ‘omnipotent and omniscient’ are actually Western terms that come from Greek philosophy that were developed as ways to talk about the Christian God. They aren’t really original Jewish ways of understanding God. While helpful, and not necessarily ‘wrong’ I wouldn’t say it is a really original way of understanding God.
- In one tiny corner of the cosmos he made a special planet and created beings there whose purpose it is to love and adore him (and he loves them too)
I don’t think that God created one special planet and only one type of being to love and adore him. All of creation is to glorify God and bring praise to Him. The question that I have had some raise is that doesn’t this make God some egotistical maniac. (probably a point alluded to in your question about the insubordination). The question is that IF God were powerful enough to create all out of nothing, wouldn’t He be worthy of such praise? The question about any worship to me, is the worthiness of a worshipped object to receive such worship. Adoring you Dion, as a great QB, is probably much more absurd that adoring VY as a great QB. Why? Because obviously VY is a better QB than you. (I am assuming you would agree). If God exists, and He is perfect wouldn’t He indeed be worthy of praise and worship? The word ‘worship’ is actually from a middle English word ‘worthship’, which is all about the worthiness to receive such.
- The very first of these beings were insubordinate so god placed a curse on all subsequent generations of his creation (i.e., everyone is born guilty of an offense they didn't commit, but are now complicit at birth)
The question is whether there was a curse on Adam and Eve and all subsequent generations, or whether it is about natural consequences. The Bible, more than saying that death is a curse because God hates us now, speaks to death being the consequence of sin.
If God is perfect, then anything imperfect would change that, correct? I mean if you have a sterile room (truly sterile), and one virus gets in, it is no longer sterile, correct? So it follows logically, to me, that IF God is perfect, then God cannot be in close relationship with that which is imperfect. Also, IF God is the one who gives life, and a human is cut off from God, which gives life, doesn’t death logically follow? If oxygen is necessary for life, and a person is cut off from oxygen, doesn’t death naturally follow?
- god eventually became so disappointed with humanity that he murdered everyone by drowning (including little children), except for one family
God isn’t disappointed so much as His heart is broken, and God doesn’t murder anyone given the point that death is the natural, logical progression of those who are out of relationship with Him. See answer above.
- After many centuries of human civilization god felt he needed to redeem this obviously screwed-up species by means of a brutal public execution of himself in human form
Redemption through blood sacrifice through a human is mentioned in Genesis 3. So it isn’t centuries later, but rather in Eden that God mentions redemption and in what form redemption would come.
- This story was eventually documented in a set of texts that was compiled by a special group of people who had to decide which stories really came from god and which ones did not
Jews are not special. In fact, they are made a people to bless all people, and to give glory to God. Period. The ‘specialness’ of the Jews is because of God, not them. See the story of Abram.
- god declared in this story that anyone who did not accept his loving gift of redemption would, upon death, be cast into a lake of fire to suffer a never-ending burning and choking and screaming and torture and death for all eternity and forever and ever without respite or mercy (remember: he loves you)
I think I answered this above about the natural, logical, consequence of sin. Hopefully my answer about that can be extrapolated to apply to your questions here.
- This god also allowed other religions to exist and flourish throughout the world, damning billions of people to the eternal lake of fire because through no fault of their own they were raised in a culture that didn't teach the story that would save them from this horrible fate (i.e., too ******* bad for you Muslims and Jews and Buddhists and Hindus and all other non-Christians)
It isn’t that God damns people, it is essentially that people damn themselves. God is not a coercive God who forces love and obedience from people. He is a God who wishes people to freely choose Him. He has given us grace, and His Son to enable that choice to be made. People can worship all sorts of other things. In fact, I believe all people worship something. This is something that I often get chided on Hornfans for, but I believe it and Hornfans has challenged by ability to articulate it.
As someone who studied the history of religions while at UT and helped get religious studies to be a major, I believe that there is value in all the major world religions. I also believe they are all different with unique claims. There is a reason I am a Christian and not a Buddhist or Muslim.
- god loves you and has a plan for you
Dion, as a history major I learned to think differently than a science major, no doubt. History is never provable. It is always about reasonable assumptions. There is a reasonable assumption that George Washington was the first President of the United States, but it is not provable. Not in the sense that science would demand. I believe that would require an experiment with a single controlled variable that achieves reproducible results. That doesn’t happen with history. That doesn’t mean history is illogical, but it isn’t provable as much of science.
What would we need to introduce here for you to find something irrational about it?
Dion, I will admit my answers are short and not complete. I don’t know that I am the right person to fully flesh out an argumentation for you. This medium of a thread is not the best avenue either. I hope you can see my answers though and they will start or continue our dialogue. One thing I appreciate about you as a poster is your reasonableness in disagreement. Sorry it took me so long to respond. Been watching the two kids all day with my wife out for a conference.
LondonOllie
250+ Posts
I read an article (which I can't find right now) talking about how we believe people who we align ourselves with.
For example, a lot more republicans are AGW deniers. However, if republican politicians suddenly got on board and came out to say that they now believed in AGW, then you would see a massive public shift of deniers to believers.
The USA is a very religious conservative place when compared to a lot of western countries which are more secular and liberal.
Therefore it makes sense that a lot of what the scientific community suggests or proves, goes against both political and religious views that much of the US population believe.
That is just an example.
For example, a lot more republicans are AGW deniers. However, if republican politicians suddenly got on board and came out to say that they now believed in AGW, then you would see a massive public shift of deniers to believers.
The USA is a very religious conservative place when compared to a lot of western countries which are more secular and liberal.
Therefore it makes sense that a lot of what the scientific community suggests or proves, goes against both political and religious views that much of the US population believe.
That is just an example.
C
Coelacanth
Guest
C
Coelacanth
Guest
C
Coelacanth
Guest
C
Coelacanth
Guest
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
