Religion and Science

[Paprika]

That's the problem. Too many pastors and parents don't say "I don't know". Instead they give the kids the standard YEC party line of disinformation that causes so many problems for the kids later.

Then the main lacuna of action lies with Christian scientists. Since for the layman acquiring of scientific knowledge is usually just accepting what authorities say, it is not surprising that many Christian parents turn to some of the more vocal and popular ones.

[rwatts]

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church...a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." - Martin Luther

Given the nature of God, according to Christian theology, I've never understood why God needs liars to do his work? Besides, at the end of the day, just how trustworthy does it make God?

If God can only do good, and Godly lies are by definition good, then what hope does any Christian have? The Bible is just as likely God's joke to humanity as it is his truth to humanity. Both are good, by definition.

[rwatts]

I will note that the proportion of Christians who believe it is acceptable to lie, cheat, or steal is small. But I must also note that they have led so many into any of a number of errors.

Yes.

We all tend to place a lot of trust in authority figures - e.g. magistrates, politicians, scientists, preachers, etc.

The big problem with the latter group is that they all to often insist that their authority comes from the greatest authority of all, namely God. And so divine sanction covers a multitude of sins, when a moment's reflection would have revealed the sin. However, the reflection is never done because even to think and reflect and to doubt, is seen as a sin.

Thoughtful, articulate, intelligent Christians are worth their weight in gold in a society as deeply religious as the US is.

[seer]

They can be. Most of the problem is not a lack of literacy, it's a rejection. They listen to folks like Ken Ham or Kent Hovind or Jonathan Sarfati and assume they know the science better than the scientist--or worse, they assume all the scientists are lying, part of a conspiracy.

Yes, and they generally trust those sources. And like I said, given the philosophical implications of these worldviews I don't believe pastors or parents are trying to harm these children - just the opposite. Though it may not be the best way. And as a Christian who believes in a dark, intelligent and powerful being we call the Devil, a worldwide conspiracy is not out of the question. Never-mind our natural tendency to sin and the rejection of a Holy God - that too can effect how we interpret evidence.

[seer]

How is the practice of ignorance, deceit or lying, offering protection to children?

Well they don't see it as lying. Listen I go to church with YEC - they tend just to read or focus on writers that agree with them.

Science has always changed as more knowledge has come to light.

Yes just as some of Newton's laws were found, not just to be lacking, but false. As the Steady State universe was found to be false, who knows what we will think of ToE in a hundred years. Will evidence emerge that could falsify the theory? How can we know. At this point, personally, I believe there is good evidence for an old earth, that the fossil record was not created by a universal flood and that RM+NS played a role in the diversity we see in biological life.

Our opinions of Scripture also changes, as more knowledge comes to light. Even more to the point, if scripture does not change then how come each of two groups can see themselves as the true Christian and hence saved and the other as the heretic and on its way to hell?

Silly argument. Men do, and have tended, to overlay their own biases on Scripture. As we do with most everything.

[Carrikature]

At this point, personally, I believe there is good evidence for an old earth, that the fossil record was not created by a universal flood and that RM+NS played a role in the diversity we see in biological life.

[seer]

?????

[Carrikature]

?????

I would never have guessed you believed these things. You've been pretty staunchly against them for as long as I can remember.

[seer]

I would never have guessed you believed these things. You've been pretty staunchly against them for as long as I can remember.

No, I have been an "open creationist" for years now. And an old earther. What I have a problem with is the idea that unguided, unaided natural forces created this universe, life on earth or all the biological diversity that we see.

[shunyadragon]

http://news.rice.edu/2014/02/16/misc....RnfdbH7P.dpuf

The following only reflects wishful thinking as to how Evangelical Protestants want science to be:

48 percent of evangelicals believe that science and religion can work in collaboration. - See more at: http://news.rice.edu/2014/02/16/misc....RnfdbH7P.dpuf

[Outis]

What I have a problem with is the idea that unguided, unaided natural forces created this universe, life on earth or all the biological diversity that we see.

Science doesn't say that. Actual science (as opposed to some scientists who hold to philosophical materialism, and are speaking from their metaphysical beliefs) never has said that. It's not an area science is competent to discuss.

[seer]

I consider the questions in the survey to be loaded and hypothetical. The one question I would like to have seen asked is: Are you wiling to accept Methodological Naturalism without theological presuppositions?

And methodological naturalism isn't a philosophical presupposition? Get real.

[seer]

Science doesn't say that. Actual science (as opposed to some scientists who hold to philosophical materialism, and are speaking from their metaphysical beliefs) never has said that. It's not an area science is competent to discuss.

Perhaps, but those would be problem areas for me nevertheless.

[Outis]

And methodological naturalism isn't a philosophical presupposition? Get real.

No, actually, it's not. It's an admission that science can only see so far, and can only comment competently on certain topics. Science does not have the capabilities to comment beyond its scope.

[Outis]

Perhaps, but those would be problem areas for me nevertheless.

"Problem areas"? If the scientist who held to philosophical materialism was using his authority as a scientist to promote his views (like Dawkins does), I would call such statements outright deceptive, not simply "problem areas."