Double Helix Double Helix Opinion Series

Evangelicals’ surprising view of science and what it may mean

Photo illustration courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

(RNS) — Ask fans of New Atheist scientists Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris what religious Americans think of science and there’s a good chance you’d get something to the effect of “religious people hate science.”

Yet what do we actually know about what religious Americans think about science, particularly evangelicals, who are often the implicit or explicit focus of such discussions?

Not much, it turns out.

Sure, there are loud voices that seem to feed into certain conclusions about what religious people think about science and scientists. (Consider creationist Ken Ham’s attempts to discredit the theory of evolution.) But, as with any issue, the loudest or most prominent voices are not necessarily the most representative.

Over the past five years we have conducted hundreds of interviews, visits to houses of worship and a survey of over 10,000 U.S. adults representing a wide range of religious perspectives, all with the goal of better understanding how Americans understand the relationship between religion and science. What we found does not support the conclusion that religious people are hostile toward, disinterested in or pessimistic about science.

We asked our survey respondents how they personally view the relationship between religion and science. Rather than saying that the two are in conflict, evangelicals were the most likely to say that they view religion and science as having a collaborative relationship in which the two spheres support each other (48 percent of evangelicals) or that religion and science are each independent and refer to different aspects of reality (21 percent of evangelicals).

Indeed, our in-depth interviews showed us that many evangelicals see support for their faith in science. As one evangelical we talked to said, “Science is fantastic and I thank God for this. … It isn’t as if He didn’t want us to find out about His incredible creation.”

Our research does show, though, that for evangelicals in particular, interest in science increases when they can see it connecting to concerns informed by their faith, such as serving others or alleviating suffering.

For instance, we asked survey respondents if they would recommend young people enter basic and applied science occupations such as biology or physics. Evangelicals were less likely to say they would recommend a young person pursue such careers compared with the nonreligious.

But when it came to more applied scientific occupations, such as medicine, evangelicals were just willing to recommend a career as a physician.

Of course, both career paths involve significant scientific education, but one is seen as more obviously redemptive (medicine). This provides insight into potential ways to leverage the interest and energy of evangelicals in support of science.

Our survey and interview data do highlight tensions. For example, our survey asked whether people thought “scientists should be open to considering miracles in their theories and explanations.” About 60 percent of evangelicals agree with this statement, a much higher rate of support than among people of other religions.

This makes sense given that evangelicals — and many other religious Americans –believe in a God who has been and can be involved in the world and in their lives. This starting assumption inevitably shapes how they view and interpret the scientific process and scientific claims.

Many religious Americans, though, are quite willing to try to reconcile their starting assumptions about God with any scientific claims presented to them.

For example, our interviews and survey data show that, when it comes to issues like the origins of the universe and life, religious Americans appear rather flexible in their willingness to say that different origin narratives could be true as long as they leave room for God’s role in the world, even if this role is part of their personal and private interpretation of that origin narrative.

To be clear, we are not suggesting that scientists or science classrooms can or should start talking about miracles. Nor are we saying that only applied forms of science are worthwhile. But any attempt to connect scientific and religious communities, including the evangelical community, will be more productive if it begins by shedding the stereotypes presented by the loudest voices in society, and also understanding those communities’ core interests and worldviews.

(Christopher P. Scheitle, a sociologist at West Virginia University, and Elaine Howard Ecklund, a sociologist at Rice University, are the authors of “Religion vs. Science: What Religious People Really Think.” The views expressed in this opinion piece do not necessarily reflect those of Religion News Service.)

A DNA strand next to the title of the series.

About the author

guest

548 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • No need to hate science. Christ created it also. It just has not caught up to His wisdom and probably never will.

  • The sentence “religious people hate science” isn’t quite right.

    The Vatican encouraged research in science for a long time. Humans needed to discern the intentions of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Doing research in science was one way for humans to discern those intentions.

    The phrase “book of nature” for science was invented in a deliberate manner. Recall that the Bible is termed the “Book of the Word”. Replace “the Word” with “Nature”; the phrase “Book of the Word” becomes “Book of Nature”. Theologians wanted Christians to respect the Book of Nature in the same way that Christians respected the Book of the Word.

    During this time it was not possible to say that “religious people hate science”.

    Things changed after Galileo and Darwin. After Galileo and Darwin, it became possible to say that “religious people hate science”.

    In order to create debating topics for school children, we create simple binaries like science vs religion. But the binary isn’t quite correct.

    Things become even more complicated when the social sciences began to be taught in non-Christian cultures, e.g., India.

  • I am skeptical of the usefulness of metrics like “evangelicals would prefer their children be physicians rather than biology lab techs.” Wouldn’t this apply to most parents regardless of religion? The authors ascribe it to medicine’s “redemptive” value. But doctors have prestige and make a lot of $ too.
    Also, a supernatural event like a miracle is by definition not a scientific explanation. That’s not to say scientists can’t be religious or even that they can’t believe in miracles. But it wouldn’t be a *scientific* theory or explanation.

  • I’ve got a feeling the problem isn’t that religious people can’t accommodate science. Science approaches the natural world humbly and with the expectation that it might teach us something if we strive to understand. Science draws conclusions reluctantly and always with willingness to admit that those conclusions could be proven wrong. Christianity is largely a revealed religion so those who lean toward literalism see no need for humility; all you need to know has been perfectly revealed. Of course this works fine until reality contradicts your understanding of what was revealed. Better to approach revelation with the same humility which which the scientist approaches his study.

  • You are confusing the issue by making “science” and “the theory of evolution” interchangeable. They are not the same thing. I love science. Evolution is a philosophical worldview interpretation of the evidence, nothing more. We know what an eye is, what it does, and how we treat it for disease. That is real science. When we get into how we got our eyes and why we have them, we are entering into a discussion of something that is not observable, testable, or reproducible. It is based on worldview interpretations, and require a certain amount of imagination and story-telling.

    Medicine comes under the heading of operational science, and I don’t mean that as a pun. Anything that supposedly happened millions or billions of years ago is historical in nature and requires a certain amount of story-telling. The question is: Do you accept the Bible as a narrative given by Someone that was actually there? We should be skeptical of stories given by people who were not there, have limited knowledge, and have been known to occasionally make up stories. Which one do you choose to put your faith in? Do you really care what actually happened? What place does the reality of what actually happened fit into your worldview?

  • I don’t think your ending questions are consistent. Which story you choose to have faith in may or may not be what actually happened. Faith does not equate to fact.

  • People hear the word “Science” and assume science is synonymous with objectivity.

    Interesting article about the reliability of DNA testing —

    www dot cracked dot com/personal-experiences-2522-inside-shady-world-dna-testing-companies dot html

    I remember when “Carbon Dating” was the hot new Scientific Discovery.
    The Cultural Marxists have weaseled their way into Universities and just said evolution is science and POOF…………….now it’s an absolute. What a joke.
    Because a Text Book said so…………therefore it is so.

  • You are confusing the issue by making “science” and “the theory of evolution” interchangeable. They are not the same thing. I love science. Evolution is a philosophical worldview interpretation of the evidence, nothing more.
    Well stated aedgeworth. But sadly you won’t be getting any standing ovation on this site. Hang on to your hat………..you are about to get thrashed in the comments. Peace to you.

  • I think many people equate science with the attempt to find objective truths rather than default to supernatural truths. Yes, scientific beliefs may change over time as new discoveries are made but isn’t that a good thing? I believe that is a strength of the scientific process that theories can become discarded if it conflicts with testing.

  • It will – whether I have an opinion on it or not Navy. Christ said that homosexuality is a sin. All sin leads to death.

  • but isn’t that a good thing?
    Absolutely! The problem I have is when evolutionists dogmatically assert their belief is based on science. Because a book told them so. I have no problem with science as long as one understands that science isn’t always absolute. There is human bias in almost everything.

  • Agreed sandi………..but Navy was pointing the finger at ‘you’ being the cause of one’s death. I love how they can slander with no remorse, and never get called out on it by their peers.

  • Btw…great book if you can get your hands on it —
    “He Offered Himself; or Priestly Sacrificial Atonement” by Malcolm Lavender.
    You can find his works at — www dot lavendersnewtestament dot com
    Peace.

  • Great example of Science catching up with Scripture: Google — Male Microchimerism in the Human Female Brain.

    I’ve been to probably 20 weddings in my life. At every wedding — even Agnostic weddings — the officiant always quoted, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”
    Paul didn’t understand ‘one flesh’ the way in which Science has now proven it to be. Paul called it a ‘mystery’. But now we can see that it is sexual intercourse that creates two flesh into one. As per Malachi — For the child.
    Fascinating!

  • The “unreliability” of DNA testing through Hair and Saliva. The article said nothing about refuting DNA. Why don’t you take the time and actually read it.
    I suppose you are of the belief that the magazine “Playboy” didn’t have serious articles???

  • Not to mention………….this is not the first mention of “unreliable” DNA testing through hair and saliva. Many others have done the same study. That particular article was the first one to pop up when I did the search. I’ve read it plenty of other places. Reading Comprehension is a lost art these days. And I am guilty as well. We’ve forgotten how to “slow down”. We are always multitasking.

  • “Be perfect, for your father in heaven is perfect”. Jesus.
    It is possible. One just has to understand “sin”. Not all sin is equal.
    Only the works of the flesh will cause spiritual death instantly.

    Get your hands on that book. Peace.

  • Is Navy pointing the finger at sandi or rather those inclined to be dogmatic. In a previous response you criticized those who view science as absolute. Wouldn’t that hold even more true for those who believe in a religion simply based on faith? At least science attempts to find objective truths and has a self-correct mechanism built-in.

  • lol…..I don’t take Navy seriously….she needs prayer though. Remember, as they are slandering you and lying about you that you are really being blessed, Roy:
    Matthew 5: 11 “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

  • Since the gospels were all written by people that weren’t actually there you reject them too? Genesis also wasn’t written by anyone that was there. Biblical studies can tell you an approximate date for when the passages were written, long after the Big Bang.

    You may believe that God wrote the Bible but we know that isn’t true.

  • Certainly we can strive to be perfect but outside of Jesus who has yet to achieve this?

    If sins of the flesh rank so highly (or lowly), where do sins of the heart come in?

  • Scripture reveals all. Keep studying.
    “Lust” is a good example. But one must understand the meaning of ‘lust’ in light of David and Bathsheba. I do not believe “lust” in and of itself separates one from the Lord; but only when that lust is acted upon.

  • If they did, they would be drawn away from their sin by the Holy Spirit. You cannot be a homosexual and a Christian.
    Christ will help them with their sin, if they are sincere in rebuking it and then, they wouldn’t be homosexuals they would be Christians.
    1 Corinthians 6:11 – And such were some of you.

  • There wasn’t a question. I was stating my opinion that Navy may have been criticizing sandi’s dogmatic viewpoint. Your defense of sandi however can be seen as a defense of religious dogmatism which is just as problematic as scientific dogmatism.

  • You said it yourself — eyes are wondrous and complex (irreducibly complex, yes). Especially human eyes. So we Christians need to use what God gave us — our eyes — to destroy the mistaken and atheistic theory of evolution, and focus public attention back on the God of the Bible. Your eyes are a rational disproof of evolution.

    “Ears that hear and eyes that see—the Lord has made them both.” (Prov. 20:12)

    Why destroy the theory of Evolution? Because while science is compatible with Christianity, evolution as currently taught is absolutely incompatible with Christianity. Therefore it’s okay to destroy Evolution. It’s way past its expiration date already.

  • I wouldn’t say that the religious hate science…when it suits them. They use science in every day observations, at work, and at home. But then they believe scripture that is Absolutely Irreconcilable with science and it dictates aspects of their life and others’ lives around them. But there’s always two pathways around the irreconcilable: 1: “God works in mysterious ways”…always a cop out (science NEVER lands on “well…just a mystery) and 2. “THAT part of scripture is not Literally true; it’s there to tell a story or teach a lesson”…but not everyone interprets it the same way, meaning god would have to put things up for interpretation to whomever. A frail, subjective interpretation is not something to live by and cannot reconcile with science.

    So “hate” science is wrong…but they definitely cannot live by both. One MUST be brushed aside to suit the situation.

  • Mark you made a good point and pointed out a major flaw with Revealed Religions–the inability to allow for change. People and societies have progressed, and Religions have shown that they are unable to adjust for changes as those people and societies grow and learn more about the world and how it works and people and how they work.

    Science has built mechanisms into their structure that allows for change, for criticisms, and suggestions that lead to more ideas and growth. Religions haven’t done that

  • Jesus/Christ never mentioned homosexuality in the Bible. Paul talked about it, not Christ. You need to get your stories straight.

  • Can you be a Christian and full of greed, pride, violence, etc? There are plenty of sins that are prominent among Christians. Are the sins of the flesh worse than those of the heart?

  • There are many paths to salvation in the Bible–belief in Jesus, good works alone, works and beliefs, works/beliefs and grace, grace alone (no belief required). Read your Bible

  • Don’t see what you see. I just get rather tired of being slandered and or being compared to other people who have called themselves ‘christian’ in the past.
    Just because witches were burned at the stake in the name of “Christian” does not make them so! The Scriptures make this perfectly clear.

  • John 14:16 – English Standard Version

    Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

  • Your science literacy could be improved. All scientific theories are the product of science, and like it or not (you don’t) ToE is a valid scientific theory, and it’s not up to the lay public to decide otherwise.

    Of course, you give up the game when you refer to “operational science” and allude to “historical” science, neither of which is actually a term of art used by scientists. Both are used by creationists (e.g., Ken Ham) and creationist orgs like Answers in Genesis or the Institute for Creation Research. Actual scientists work in the formal, natural, or social sciences, and others apply knowledge gained thereby. Hence, applied science is the proper term to use when talking about medicine.

    The relevant portion of your Bible, by the way, was not written by “someone that was actually there.” According to the Talmud, Moses is the author of the Pentateuch, and even according to your mythology could not have “been there.” If, as I suspect, you actually want to say your god authored it, you’re shouldering quite the burden of proof. Just sayin’.

  • It wouldn’t surprise me if many religious people think that science and religion are compatible – but I question what they mean by “science”. There are, undoubtedly, situations where science and religion co-exist peacefully, if you don’t restrict your investigations to those limited areas the picture is one of incompatibility built into the competing thought structures.

    “Science” is a process of moving from a question (an hypothesis) to the best possible answer given the data available to us. Sometimes, when more data becomes available, scientific solutions change.

    Religion is different – it limits the pool of answers to those which fit it’s particular belief system – no solution which justified the non-existence of their deity would be permitted, as would no solution which ruled out the possibility of divine intervention/miracles.

    I believe there are two unbridgeable differences between “science” and “religion”.

    1 – They operate with different (and incompatible) methodologies.

    Science is a process which works from question to answer, and accepts that the answer may change, No answer is off limits if it is what the consensus of expertise considers that the data reveals. It is fundamental to science both that solutions could be disproven (a human fossil discovered in a strata older than that in which velociraptors are found would disprove the scientific theory of evolution) and that any conclusion does not violate the laws of physics.
    Religion works from a limited range of solutions (those which permit the existence of their deity/can be made to fit with at least one extract of the true scripture etc). The religious process is therefore an attempt to find a path through a swamp which leads from question to acceptable answer rather than a linear pursuit of a rational outcome. If the religiously acceptable answer needs a suspension of the laws of physics/is incompatible with the evidence/questions something written hundreds of years ago this is circumvented by being taken as proof that miracles exist/god-moves-in-mysterious-ways/were-you-there/we-don’t-know-everything. Science rejects all these fudges as false.

    2 – The position of humanity within the universe is diametrically opposed.

    Science interprets the evidence to say that humanity evolved as a consequence of random mutation moderated by natural selection.
    Humanity is a result of the universe’s existence.

    Religions tend to place humanity at the centre – the universe was created to accommodate us/we are positioned between the animals and the angels/we are charged with (mis)managing the earth as god’s surrogates.
    The universe is a result of humanity’s existence.

    Since science has logic, reason and evidence on its side I suggest that the unification of the two incompatibilities will happen only when religion evolves into science – and that means it ceases to be religion.

  • Immorality is the one sin that Christ specifically taught to flee, as one sins against themselves and the Lord.
    Christians fall in all matters of ways, the idea is to repent and not continue with the sin.

    1 John 3: 7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

  • “…everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

  • You don’t see people outside of the voices in your head that are confused by this. Science can be perverted for selfish gains. That’s not a shocker and why we have peer review and methodologies.

  • yes He did.

    Leviticus 18:22 – 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

    Leviticus 20:13 – If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

    Paul was taught by Christ, Susan

  • Yeah – like “spilling his seed” because until Fallopius demonstrated otherwise the woman was seen as the potting tray into which the man deposited the fully formed (in potential) “fruit of his loins”. You’d think the entity which invented sexual reproduction would have understood it wouldn’t you.

    A little knowledge?

  • “My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel or devil is going to interfere with its course; and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career. I should therefore be intellectually dishonest if I were not also atheistic in the affairs of the world.” population geneticist J. B. S. Haldane

  • Wrong – Evolution is incompatible with your particular version of what you think is Christianity. Your version, your choice, your fail.

  • Why don’t you take the time and actually read it

    Because Cracked is a humor website. Why did you link to it? Were you trying to show something about DNA testing?

  • this is not the first mention of “unreliable” DNA testing through hair and saliva.

    What does that have to do with anything?

  • Ok…I wasn’t there. You win. Good for you on your ‘secular celebrant’ title. You must be in demand.

  • There are many ways to interpret that statement sandi and it does not conflict with Susan’s statement.

  • The problem I have is when evolutionists dogmatically assert their belief is based on science.

    Well, evolution has been observed, so there’s that.

  • I did 11 weddings last year (which I had to file a lawsuit to be able to perform in my home state, Illinois), and I’m doing a memorial tomorrow.

    I’m doing just fine, thanks.

  • Evidently you don’t love science enough to accept its findings and over a century of its accumulated research and study. You certainly don’t love it enough to understand why scientific ideas are accepted by the community.

    Evolution is a scientific framework which is used to interpret findings in the field of biology. It has no rival theories to date and the sole objection to it is coming from a subset of Protestant Christianity which are entirely irrational.

  • I’m replying to your comment about lust only being a sin when acted upon. Jesus contradicts that when he points out that the intent of lust is already a sin.

  • And now for some science religion will have trouble with:

    What we do know: (from the fields of astrophysics, biology, biochemistry, archeology, nuclear physics, geology and the history of religion)

    1. The Sun will burn out in 3-5 billion years so we have a time frame of human life on earth.

    2. Asteroids continue to circle us in the nearby asteroid belt. Why would an all-powerful deity allow this?

    3. One wayward rock and it is all over in a blast of permanent winter.

    4. There are enough nuclear weapons to do the same job.

    5. Most contemporary NT exegetes do not believe in the Second Coming so apparently there is no real concern about JC coming back on an asteroid or cloud of raptors/rapture.

    6. All stars will eventually extinguish as there is a limit to the amount of hydrogen in the universe. When this happens (100 trillion years?), the universe will go dark. If it does not collapse and recycle, the universe will end.

    7. Super, dormant volcanoes off the coast of Africa and under Yellowstone Park could explode cataclysmically at any time ending life on Earth.

    8. Many of us are part Neanderthal and/or Denisovan.

    Bottom line: our apocalypse will start between now and 3-5 billion CE. The universe apocalypse, 100 trillion years?

    “And the day will come,
    when the mystical generation of Jesus,
    by the Supreme Being as His Father,
    in the womb of a virgin,
    will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva
    in the brain of Jupiter.”

    — Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
    Letter to John Adams, from Monticello, April 11, 1823

    Some references:
    http://www.universetoday.com/18847/life-of-the-sun/
    solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Asteroids‎
    http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/30/us/wus-supervolcanoes-yellowstone
    Search for Paul, book by Professor JD Crossan
    Rabbi Paul, book by worProfessor Bruce Chilton
    https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/
    http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com/2011/08/22/study-finds-star-formation-declining-throughout-the-universe/
    http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/

  • One of the meeting’s most outspoken participants, Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical physicist and director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University, says definitely not.
    “One gets the impression from a meeting like this that scientists care about God; they don’t,” he says.
    “You can’t disprove the theory of God. The power of science is uncertainty. Everything is uncertain, but science can define that uncertainty.
    That’s why science makes progress and religion doesn’t.”

    The most practical and dramatic victory of science over religion occurred in the 17th Century, when churches began to put up lightning conductors – Issac Asimov

    Supernatural thinking is simply the natural consequence of failing to match our intuitions with the true reality of the world – Bruce Hood Supersense

    “In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.”
    Journal of Religion and Society reported in The Times, 27sept2005

    “I wish to propose for the reader’s favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. I must, of course, admit that if such an opinion became common it would completely transform our social life and our political system: since both are at present faultless, this must weigh against it. I am also aware (what is more serious) that it would tend to diminish the incomes of clairvoyants, bookmakers, bishops and others who live on the irrational hopes of those who have done nothing to deserve good fortune here or hereafter. In spite of these grave arguments, I maintain that a case can be made out for my paradox, and I shall try to set it forth.”
    Bertrand Russell, 1935. On the Value of Scepticism

    ..The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things, though that is great enough; but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them; for then it must sink back into savagery.
    W. K. Clifford, “The Ethics of Belief” (1877)

  • Is it a sin which leads to instant spiritual death? I think not, ONLY based on other passages. But if you think “yes”….that is your right.

  • “Just because witches were burned at the stake in the name of “Christian” does not make them so!”

    Ex 22:18 ” Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.”

    Nope, nothing in scripture about it at all.

  • To follow through on your train of thought, any scientific theories that are incompatible with Christianity should automatically be rejected?

  • If I may rephrase: Indian Christianity’s course is not exactly like the course of Vatican-style theology. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has intentionality, has a plan—the consequences of this were not worked out by Indian Christians in the same way as Vatican-style theology.

  • Science developed as enlightenment culture (first appearing in Greece and then continuing in Europe) rejected the validity of revealed “knowledge” and naive intuition in favor of empirical data. The character Christ in your storybook is directly personified as revealed knowledge “The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us”. This is antithetical the very nature of science. Therefore, claiming that Christ created science is silly and demonstrably false.

  • Evolution is science. Period. It is an entire branch of biology that has made numerous predictions about life in the past and continues to make predictions about how life will change in the future. It has been proven many times over. It has made many predictions about the types of creatures which would be found in the fossil record, predictions which were later proved correct. Evolution by natural selection has been shown in the lab many times over. Speciation has even been documented in the wild in real time. It is very much real science and cannot be dismissed as a mere philosophical worldview. Your “love” of science is clearly selective if you ignore one of the most central principles of the biological sciences.

  • No – an observation.

    Paul didn’t understand – nor did the translators of the Bible – because the scripture is wrong. It needed the scientific method to correct erroneous ideas promulgated in the Bible. (I assume you are familiar with the story of Onan – and know that his crime wasn’t masturbation).

  • “scientists should be open to considering miracles in their theories and explanations.” It appears the authors have asked the wrong questions or are glossing over some hard realities. This statement shows that evangelicals are in conflict with science and they don’t even realize it. SMH.

  • Sandi, I don’t understand how Christ created science but yet science has not caught up to his wisdom. How does that make sense?

  • If eyes had been designed by a human, they would have sent them back to the drawing board. What an incompetent engineer ‘god’ must be. Hey Chuck – do you or any of your family wear glasses? Proof of ‘god’s’ failure.
    Your people have had 150 years to disprove Evolution. What are they waiting for? Collect their evidence- have it peer reviewed – collect their Nobel Prize. Simple.

  • Evolution isn’t a belief.

    “Because a book told them so. I have no problem with science as long as one understands that science isn’t always absolute.”

    Is the Bible absolute?

  • Romans 11 The Mystery of Israel’s Salvation

    25 Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers:[d] a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,

    “The Deliverer will come from Zion,

    he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”;

    27 “and this will be my covenant with them

    when I take away their sins.”

    28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now[e] receive mercy. 32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

    33 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!

    34 “For who has known the mind of the Lord,

    or who has been his counselor?”

    35 “Or who has given a gift to him

    that he might be repaid?”

    36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

  • “But now we can see that it is sexual intercourse that creates two flesh into one.”

    It can, but it’s not required.

    Did scripture “understand” in-vitro fertilization?

  • Sandi, I don’t think the idea of Jews only getting to heaven because Christ can somehow use them there. Most evangelicals I know would flatly state no jesus no heaven. That is why I asked you to explain how Jesus was going to use them there and the basis for your belief.

  • “An explanation with no supporting evidence is an explanation that cannot ever be accepted as true. There must be evidence before providing an explanation for a phenomena. If there’s only a belief, then it’s not science. If evidence that conflicts with belief is ignored, then it’s not science. Presenting an idea or explanation as science when it’s not, is pseudo-science. People who claim to follow the scientific method, but do not, are pseudo-scientists.”

    Religion is not compatible with science.

  • Evangelicals want scientists “…to be open to miracles…”

    Well here is one miracle God/Jesus/whatever — can show scientists…Rapture these same miracle-loving evangelicals out of here…I’m sure most scientists will then change their minds and consider miracles !!

  • Christ could have told people about germs and saved untold millions of lives…but he didn’t. He saved his own ass instead. Some wisdom !!

  • Sandi, Paul appears to be saying that Jews have a hard heart but will eventually receive mercy. I don’t see how they will get to heaven so to be used by Jesus.

    By the way, how does anyone stomach Paul? For god has consigned all to disobedience so that he may have mercy?

  • The two are not related. The only people challenging the efficacy of radiological dating are religious based l!ars pretending their beliefs have objective credibility.

    Creationists are dishonest by intent. The sole purpose of it is to cajole people into accepting their belief. It requires adherents to l!e about their faith and its basis in their belief.

    Your lack of understanding as to how science is accepted is obvious. Evolution has over a century of support. You do not offer support for a suitable counter theory.

  • It’s only ideologues on both sides of this debate that think science and religion are “incompatible”. The Vatican for instance has both a Pontifical Academy of Science and Observatory of Science dedicated to scientific research. Both have produced over 50 nobel prize winners in chemistry and physics. The current Pope, Francis, as a masters degree in chemistry. The founders of modern genetics and the big bang theories were a Catholic monk(Gregor Mendel) and a Catholic priest(George Lemaitre). The person who currently runs the human genome project Francis Collins is a devout evangelical Christian who converted to Christianity and saw science as enriching his faith.

    So yes, science and faith can be compatible. Only shallow thinkers who subscribe to petty stereotypes think they aren’t.

  • Uhm, ‘Shallow, Petty Thinker’ here (your words)…

    First, none of the examples you provide have anything to say about the “incompatibility” of science and religion. It only demonstrates that people are able to compartmentalize their thinking. This is not news.

    If it involves “supernatural” claims it is by definition incompatible with science which is, as far as we know today, completely naturalistic.

    I’m not sure how that could be made more clear.

    The argument you are making (and its not new, which you should know if this is a topic of interest) is a form of:

    “religions people practice science, there are scientists who are religious, therefore religion is compatible with science.”

    That, my friend, is shallow thinking indeed.

  • No, science and religion are fundamentally opposed.
    One searches for answers. The other presumes the answer.

  • Science clings to materialism just like clinging to a religion – this is why they do not understand religion. Science forgets that questioning materialism is also science. This is hinted at in Dr. Rupert Sheldrake’s TED talk titled “The Science Delusion.” Science and religion also represent very different epistemologies (i.e., ways of knowing).

  • Red, science should have used, “Well…..just a mystery” when they thought the earth was flat.
    Science may catch up to the wisdom of scripture some day.

  • If science had used “Well…just a mystery” when they thought the earth was flat…we’d still think that. Science progresses based upon new information; it is always Descriptive. Scripture is stuck failing to reconcile itself with new information; it is always Prescriptive…closed to new findings. We should be thankful that science doesn’t just throw its hands up in mystery…we wouldn’t by typing on these computers.

  • I fail to understand why most of the focus around the question of “faith vs. science” is limited to evangelical Christians. (Squeaky wheels always get the grease?) If the media’s focus were broader, it would be clear that in certain religious, even Christian, quarters, some of the lines between science and theology have actually blurred, particularly with the revelations of quantum physics. I’m not well-versed in these developments, but I hope to become better informed. Scientist/ priest/theologian Teilhard de Chardin insisted on walking the line the world has drawn between science and faith and seemed to find it is not at all a solid divide. Ilia Delio is currently working in the same plane. I find their ideas and points of view more hopeful than just about anything else I’m aware of.

  • Same “science flies you to the [fake landing on the] moon”, though.

    And same “science [with deep state] … flies you into buildings” on 9/11.

    Religion is innocent of both charges.

    Your herd-mentality is showing.

  • Is it just me or is this such a nothing burger of an article?

    Evangelicals snow-shoveling would’ve been a more enjoyable satire to read!

  • Not at all. By definition, science only studies what can be studied, measured and observed. If something is truly immaterial, than it cannot be studied. If it could. It would be material.

  • One of them builds airplanes. The other flies them into buildings.

    One of them studies witches. The other burns them.

    One makes claims that can be verified or refuted. One makes claims that can neither be verified or refuted.

  • No fundagelicals !! I would love every minute of it…even if Satan was prodding me with hot sulfur pitchfork.

  • .
    Religion and Science Are Compatible, According to Researchers Paid to Say That

    “One thing that should bug everybody is that the article never once mentions that the authors wrote the article to promote their new book, Religion vs. Science: What Religious People Really Think, and that in the acknowledgments, they even thank the Templeton Foundation for funding the research that made the book possible.

    “The Templeton Foundation is an organization that explicitly tries to show that science and religion are compatible. Dawkins himself condemned the group’s famous ‘Templeton Prize’ in The God Delusion, calling it ‘a very large sum of money given… usually to a scientist who is prepared to say something nice about religion.’ He added, “Templeton’s money corrupts science.”

    “Religion News Service should have included that disclosure before publishing this piece.”

    Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2018/01/02/religion-and-science-are-compatible-according-to-researchers-paid-to-say-that/#AjpGlYw5UIDG3MPy.99
    .

  • Religionists seek legitimacy by name-dropping the word “science”.
    A vapid solipsistic stratagem.

  • But what if God Himself created science. Would you still contend that science and a belief in God are incompatible? Or are you saying that you have the inside info that God did not create science. Where did you acquire this info?

  • Science proves the existence of God, loud and clear. Many scientists, faced with this proof, distort it to be compatible with their lifestyle choices. Look, when I was a trial lawyer, very early on I realized that my strongest argument is the other side’s strongest argument, twisted and distorted by me. This technique was powerful and worked quite well. That is exactly what some scientists do.

  • How can you make such a ridiculous statement ?
    Paul never met JC.
    He had an entheogenic induced vision….
    ” Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds ”
    I know people who have met many prophets : Moses, Buddha, JC, Mohammad and even JK Rowling.
    Then there’s L. Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith and Fr Guido Sarducci….
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tdboz-tsQk

  • Didn’t Trump say the same thing at the last WH Prayer Breakfast – of course – referring to himself ?

  • Praise be the Lord and say Hallelujah Brother Gantry !
    (just don’t tell anyone about Sister Sharon)

  • sandi (several surnames) is a well known troll.
    She and Rob are as perfect in their self-inculcated Christianity as Cruise and Travolta in Scientology.

  • Give me one sensible reason (other than desperation) why anyone would think that an indemonstrable god (that is one who can only be shown to exist in believers’ imaginations) did anything and we can start talking about specifics such as the scientific process.

    However – those who claim that the Christian God made anything seem unable to provide any explanation as to why he such a mess of it. Not just as far as bodies are concerned (why do octopi have a more efficient version of human eyes, why build in a food/air choke option when two separate systems is easier, cheaper, safer and more efficient, why make koalas’ pouches with the entrance in the worst possible place for the cub(?)’s safety, why route my urethra through my prostate etc. etc.). but in terms of the violent, mass-murdering, unpredictable planet he made for us?

    In the meantime the lack of any grasp of the scientific method in religious writings from Genesis to the Book of Abraham (Dianetics anyone?) would cast grave doubt on any deity knowing about science – let alone creating it.

  • Yes…thank you for pointing out the hypocrisy of Broad road Christians, which confirms the Scriptures more and more. The Scriptures are prophetic in this regard.

    The Road is Narrow and ONLY a few will find it. “Many” will say to the Lord on that dreadful day, “Lord, Lord”…………..and He will simply say, “I never knew you.”

  • I am not a Creationist by today’s standards. So you are asking the wrong person. “Is the bible absolute”? In it’s entirety…….no. You would have to be more specific.
    One passage of Scripture says that a man’s faith could be such that he can move mountains. I do not believe this is meant to be ‘literal’. Obviously. As an example. Do I believe sexual intercourse is the vehicle by which two flesh become one? Yes. In this case I would say the Scriptures are absolute. Accept or reject. Then go your own way. Peace to you.

  • Huge difference between living life PRIOR to the Cross and AFTER the cross. If you care — pick up Malcolm Lavender’s “He Offered Himself; Or Priestly Sacrificial Atonement.”
    Otherwise……..go your own way. If you are not being led by the Spirit………there is really no hope for you.

  • “Yes…………..physics of controlled demolition.”

    No, physics of electronics to create YouTube videos.

  • “Is the bible absolute”?

    “In it’s entirety…….no.”

    Which parts are absolute, and how do you determine which are?

  • “Religion News Service should have included that disclosure before publishing this piece.”

    Because most religious people are dishonest in their beliefs, why would we expect them to be honest in anything?

  • “Do I believe sexual intercourse is the vehicle by which two flesh become one? Yes.”

    Actually, “two flesh” become three or more.

  • “I realized that my strongest argument is the other side’s strongest argument, twisted and distorted by me.”

    You fail to see the irony of your comment. The “religion argument” already is “twisted and distorted.” It stands on its own lack of merit.

  • Yes……….you are VERY right about that. Brothers, Sisters etc., etc. And each child proving the ‘union’ of husband and wife. Good point Tango.

  • Do you really care what I believe? Don’t want to waste my time if you are simply toying with me. If you have a specific question….ask.

  • Religion is only in conflict with science, to people who fail to understand and appreciate either.

    Evangelicals who have issues with science are those who dishonestly want to give their belief a level of credibility that can never exist. It is done through lying about their faith and ignoring how science is accepted in the world.

  • Well, start cleaning up your own self professed, holier than thou Christians and stay the hell away from my life.
    Why target non-Christians for unwelcome intrusion when your own house is in full conflagration?

  • “Do you really care what I believe?”

    Only to the extent that I “don’t want to waste my time if you are simply toying with me.” It seems that you are “simply toying” with everyone here when it comes to being honest and straightforward when challenged.

  • Science makes weapons that kills millions.

    Christians build hospitals, charities and schools.

    Science is constantly changing. When you think you know something, you don’t.

  • “Christians build hospitals, charities and schools.”

    Using “science,” because the xian god won’t do those things.

  • “Hopefully you are not an atheist because atheism cannot proved by any facts.”

    Hopefully, you aren’t an aleprechaunist, because aleprechaunism cannot be proved by any facts.

    “Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply an admission of the obvious. In fact, “atheism” is a term that should not even exist. No one needs to identify himself as a “non-astrologer” or a “non-alchemist.” We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.”

    -Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation (2006)

  • “Atheism is nonsense because there are no facts that prove it and it denies the obvious.”

    So, your disbelief in Zeus, Thor, Ra is nonsense? Got it.

  • The early scientists such as Galileo, JOHANNES KEPLER, ISAAC NEWTON all believed in God and was the creator the universe.

  • So what? None of them denied existing scientific knowledge because of their religious belief. Like Evangelicals do today.

  • You didn’t answer my question – which version of “Christianity” is responsible for “science?”

  • Science’s great strength is its logical, systematic exploration of a world governed by natural laws. Its weakness is that that is ALL it does — any explanation other than the workings of natural phenomena are unacceptable, even if true.

  • Which is why science is credible for the explanation of the world around us.

    “other than the workings of natural phenomena are unacceptable, even if true.”

    Which you can never prove it to be true. A statement attributing something other than natural phenomena can not even be demonstrated credibly, let alone proven. There is no universal method of divining the truth of such matters.

    Truth of religion is entirely subjective and personal. Truth in science is objective and universal. One can believe religion, one has to accept science.

    Science is only in conflict with religion where people misunderstand or misstate the purpose and credibility of religion.

  • The only honest answer won’t come from JP.

    You can say whatever sect Newton belonged to as he was one the first person to codify the scientific method that is used today. 🙂

    Of course I am being entirely facetious here. I would never even think of attributing science to a specific religious belief.

  • Give me a couple of examples for your belief in Zeus, Thor, Ra. I want to make sure you have something that can be examined.

  • “Belief in God does not mean you can’t do science.”

    Other than you, who’s claiming that?

    Yours is a straw-man argument.

  • “So what. You don’t believe there is a God. Lol”

    So what? You don’t believe in Zeus.

    (See how stupid your line of debate is?)

  • “Give me a couple of examples for your belief in Zeus, Thor, Ra.”

    What? I don’t have any such belief, nor I did claim to.

  • A case nobody was making.

    The only people who claim belief in God interferes with science are dishonest, science denying Evangelical Protestants. People who don’t do science or do so with grave limitations on their abilities.

    The overwhelming majority of religious believers are not delusional enough to put their religious beliefs in conflict with science. Science cannot be in conflict with religion unless one has a poor sense of the credibility of religion.

  • You can’t do science unless you have faith that the universe is orderly, the past is like the present and the laws of nature are the same throughout the universe at all times and places.

  • “Then why did you bring them up in a discussion about truth and historical claims?”

    To illustrate the stupidity of your comment.

  • Then there are these words of wisdom:

    “3. All doctrines are man-made. We humans live within a language-
    based culture from which we interpret our experience, including our
    experience of the physical world in which we find ourselves living. All
    language, cultures, philosophies, religions, sciences are humanly created. As
    cultures and religious traditions evolve they also borrow from one another
    wherever there is contact. No religious tradition is immune from this. Indeed a
    tradition usually becomes richer because of this kind of cross-fertilization.

    4. So this means that the Judeo-Christian cumulative tradition is always
    fuzzy round the edges. It has no protective wall though attempts to provide
    one were continually being made. It is this that leads to sectarianism. The
    idea that there is a pure essence of Christianity which can be traced back to
    a pristine source is a false myth.”

    Dennis Dean Carpenter

  • “Its stupid to bring up myths with his science and truth.”

    Your disbelief in them is stupid? Got it.

  • “You can’t do science unless you have faith that the universe is orderly, the past is like the present and the laws of nature are the same throughout the universe at all times and places.”

    Assuming that’s true, which it’s not exactly, how is that relevant to “Belief in God does not mean you can’t do science?”

  • So, are you saying that the god who created The entire natural universe is not actually a natural phenomenon?

    As noted below, By definition, science only studies what can be studied, measured and observed. If something is truly immaterial, than it cannot be studied. If it could, It would be material and natural. To claim something you cannot observe or measure or infer to explain something you don’t understand is just to double underline that you don’t understand it.

  • If you refuse to understand atheism, and refuse to listen to an atheist tell you what atheism is, you reallycannot expect science to explain it to you.

  • Whatever you say Tango. Sensitive much? Masculinity = the new endangered species. Hope to God you are not related to the Vikings.

  • “Obviously the analogy or poetic verse is completely lost on you.”

    Obviously my mocking of your completely irrelevant “analogy” is lost on you.

  • Tango….I asked you to be specific and you couldn’t do it. Prove my hypocrisy. I don’t want to accuse you of slander.

  • No, I’m not saying that God isn’t a natural phenomenon, It’s basic Mormon doctrine that God works through the manipulation of eternal natural laws. But your definition left out a couple of terms — replicable and predictable. When you add the manipulations of a sentient being to the equation, the result isn’t replicable or predictable by science. For an interesting look at the problems this can cause, check out Gregory Benford’s short story “Bow Shock” from 2006.

  • “I asked you to be specific and you couldn’t do it.”

    Where?

    “Prove my hypocrisy.”

    “smugness is so ugly.”

  • Religion makes people reject climate change, vaccinations, civil rights, and birth control. All those are detrimental to people and society. Millions are and will be killed by religious belief.

  • The ‘immaterial world’ can be understood systematically. I suggest reading the following academic (open access) article to get an idea – suggest reading it when your mind is calm and collected (rather than with a combative attitude thinking “I have to win this argument.”
    Karunamuni, N. (2015). The Five-Aggregate Model of the Mind. SAGE Open, 5 (2).

  • The difference is Navy, Christians are forgiven and going to spend eternity with Christ….what about you? That is what fallible Christians offer.

  • Original Comment in Question —

    I am not a Creationist by today’s standards. So you are asking the wrong person. “Is the bible absolute”? In it’s entirety…….no. You would have to be more specific.
    One passage of Scripture says that a man’s faith could be such that he can move mountains. I do not believe this is meant to be ‘literal’. Obviously. As an example. Do I believe sexual intercourse is the vehicle by which two flesh become one? Yes. In this case I would say the Scriptures are absolute. Accept or reject. Then go your own way. Peace to you.

    I gave you an example of something I would consider Absolute and Not Absolute. I then asked you to be more specific RATHER than broad in scope. And you didn’t. Just ‘word gamed’ me.

  • Why would god create science? Science is a discovery of and an investigation into the universe around us, because human knowledge is finite. An omniscient being would have nothing new to discover.

  • Sir Isaac Newton was a heretical Christian – he was a Unitarian – even in those religion-blighted years the silliness of the Trinity was obvious to him!

  • And science upon every new believe declares it absolute, until the next comes along.
    Hebrews 13:8 – Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

  • You’re making the case you think you are opposing –
    “My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel or devil is going to interfere with its course; and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career. I should therefore be intellectually dishonest if I were not also atheistic in the affairs of the world.” population geneticist J. B. S. Haldane

  • Still lost. Btw….I’ve never heard the interpretation of Onan/masturbation. I believe that passage demonstrates Onan “pulled out” for a lack of a better term.

  • Paul didn’t understand “what”? What “Scripture” is wrong? Maybe then I can better understand your point. Thanks.

  • If we define science as what can be learned or demonstrated by repeatable experiments, there is no conflict between science and Evangelicalism. But does Christianity limit itself to that which is compatible to standard scientific understandings? No, it does not. No one guided only by what science has taught us would say that Jesus Christ rising from the dead comports with science. On the other hand, no one who calls himself a Christian who denies that Jesus rose physically from the dead is a true Christian.

  • Good point. They did ‘reject’ Him afterall. And they now believe Jesus is boiling in hot excrement

  • One of them builds hospitals and cares for the poor. The other gives us Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (By the way, I am not anti-science at all.)

  • If you are referring to “You would have to be more specific” I didn’t interpret that as a question, but as deflection to avoid answering the question.

  • Jesus didn’t actually die. He spent an unpleasant afternoon hanging around the cross and then a day-and-a-half later he’s all better. What kind of sacrifice is that?

  • One of them builds ever more glorious temples to god, and the best are worth millions. One of them tries to cure cancer.

    BTW, it was the politicians that gave us all of the wars, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. World war I was fought between the Christian nations, at least initially.

  • This “forgiveness” of which you speak is a self professed condition. An attempt at self preservation in order to remain in the clique, cult, or community.

  • “Huge difference between living life PRIOR to the Cross and AFTER the cross.”

    Kind of throws the idea of an eternal, constant, unchanging god out the window.

  • That seems to be the correct interpretation but I can assure you that many millions of teenage boys have been told otherwise and threatened with eternal damnation for even contemplating visiting with Rosie Palm and her five daughters.

    What don’t you understand – the OT writer and those who translated the Bishop’s Bible (subsequently lightly amended to curry favour with King James) believed that the male “seed” was the complete origin of a child – it merely required placing in a suitable receptacle to grow into a human being. The woman’s part in the creation of the child was purely passive – she was thought to have no input into the physical attributes of the child.

    That is wrong – science understands the function of DNA in producing a unique being from the DNA of both father and mother. Apparently the God who is claimed to have initiated this method of reproduction either didn’t understand it, couldn’t explain it, was happy with the lie or just forgot.

    Some God eh?

  • what? – “Paul didn’t understand ‘one flesh’ the way in which Science has now proven it to be. Paul called it a ‘mystery”

    What “Scripture” – the one you got what you said about Paul

  • Oh you’re just humoring me. Is your commitment to the truth of the gospel accounts such that you actually believe that he was nailed to a cross in the first place?

  • “you actually believe that he was nailed to a cross in the first place?”

    No, of course not.

  • Even the Jews admit they invented the mono god, there was no ‘god’ before the Jews. The jews invented a god (like all religions before them), wrote stories about it, wrote 613 rules (mostly from previous texts like the laws of Ur), and submitted it to the roman empire so they would be able to practice it legally (unlike what the christians did). But even then Jews still practiced the pagan religions and worshiped idols for centuries after, proven by archeological digs.

    The glaring truth is that ‘god’ never existed off the pages of those stories and was never intended to. The first mention of that new god was a talking burning tablet engraving god, that might have been the first clue. God no more exists than Harry Potter or Huckleberry Finn.

  • the OT writer and those who translated the Bishop’s Bible … believed that the male “seed” was the complete origin of a child
    Can you prove that? I’d be interested in reading those original quotes.

  • millions of teenage boys have been told otherwise
    That is no doubt unfortunate. Not the Scripture’s fault, however.

  • Which question. We have multiple conversations going on this one thread. If you truly care what I believe….ask it again. That is my responsibility to you. But since you already admitted to mocking me……..I may not answer if I deem your question to be again ‘mocking’.

  • God was OK with slavery before, but apparently it is bad now. Killing witches was OK before, but but apparently it is bad now. Stoning disobedient children was OK before, but apparently it is bad now. He has obviously changed his mind on a few matters previously, who is to say that he’s not going to change his mind again? Maybe he could say something about rape and pedophelia?

  • KT – “Is the bible absolute”?
    RH – “In it’s entirety…….no. You would have to be more specific.”
    KT- Which parts are absolute, and how do you determine which are?

  • “he was nailed to a cross in the first place?”

    Be thankful that the electric chair was not yet invented when the buybull was written.

  • If that were the case, (and I’m not convinced it is) Ben might wanna stop trolling “RELIGION” news services??
    My educated guess is, Ben’s here because he’s hoping to find something, or someOne Who has the capacity to give him what his heart is aching for…

  • Have you read it? In other words………..it is rather lengthy. Would you like me to start in Genesis, going verse by verse, and tell you which I find absolute or not absolute and continue all the way through Revelation? Should we throw in some Apocryphal books as well? Or could you just give me an example of something you have been contemplating over.

  • “Ben’s here because he’s hoping to find something”

    Or he simply enjoys shooting fish in a barrel.

  • “Or could you just give me an example of something you have been contemplating over.”

    How about how you determine which parts are “absolute?”

  • Glad you can read my mind. I am simply unconvinced. I have heard many arguments, none of which have been very compelling. Maybe you could be the one.

  • “Maybe you could be the one.”

    I don’t know if Roy understands how he has the opposite effect.

  • I agree… a pretty sad/hellish way to spend your life; trolling strangers to curse w your anger…

    Like I said, Jesus can liberate you from this curse, Ben. He really will!

  • “a pretty sad/hellish way to spend your life; trolling strangers to curse w your anger..”

    As opposed to being a member of a cult that does that as a part of their delusion of “spreading the gospel” through the indoctrination of children?

  • and neither do you.
    Akin to saying something like, “I know you are but what am I”. Has Christmas break resumed?

  • Are you saying that obnoxious Christians make up the entirety of religious belief? I am sure many Evangelicals believe that, but it is not something shared by the rest of the world.

    “My educated guess is…”

    That was an educated guess? Sounded more like tone deafness and a deliberate lack of understanding of others.

  • Most Christian scientists do the same in their experiments. Its just that when you want an understanding of the big picture that you need God as an explanation. Science can only take you so far.

  • “Akin to saying something like, “I know you are but what am I”.

    Of course it’s nothing at all like that. My comment is nothing more than indicating that your reference, whatever it is, is flawed – you have no idea what you’re talking about.

    Your red-herrings are so obvious and flawed.

  • So with god, why is there a desire to try to learn more? How do you know when to just give up and say “goddidit?”

  • Science only came about in Europe and not other places:
    “) The intellectual climate that gave rise to modern science (roughly three centuries ago) was decisively shaped by Christianity.3 Not only were most of the founding fathers of science themselves devout Christians (including Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, and Pascal),4 but the Christian worldview provided a basis for modern science both to emerge and to flourish. Christian theism affirmed that an infinite, eternal, and personal God created the world ex nihilo. The creation, reflecting the rational nature of the Creator, was therefore orderly and uniform. Further, humankind was uniquely created in God’s image (Gen. 1:26-7), thus capable of reasoning and of discovering the intelligibility of the created order. In effect, the Christian worldview supported the underlying principles that made scientific inquiry possible and desirable.
    Eminent historian and philosopher of science Stanley Jaki has argued that science was “stillborn” in other great civilizations outside Europe because of prevailing ideas that stifled scientific development, e.g., a cyclical approach to time, an astrological approach to the heavens, metaphysical views that either deified nature (animism) or denied it (idealism).” THE HISTORIC ALLIANCE
    OF CHRISTIANITY AND SCIENCE

  • “) The intellectual climate that gave rise to modern science (roughly three centuries ago) was decisively shaped by Christianity.3 Not only were most of the founding fathers of science themselves devout Christians (including Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, and Pascal),4 but the Christian worldview provided a basis for modern science both to emerge and to flourish. Christian theism affirmed that an infinite, eternal, and personal God created the world ex nihilo. The creation, reflecting the rational nature of the Creator, was therefore orderly and uniform. Further, humankind was uniquely created in God’s image (Gen. 1:26-7), thus capable of reasoning and of discovering the intelligibility of the created order. In effect, the Christian worldview supported the underlying principles that made scientific inquiry possible and desirable.

    Eminent historian and philosopher of science Stanley Jaki has argued that science was “stillborn” in other great civilizations outside Europe because of prevailing ideas that stifled scientific development, e.g., a cyclical approach to time, an astrological approach to the heavens, metaphysical views that either deified nature (animism) or denied it (idealism).” THE HISTORIC ALLIANCE OF CHRISTIANITY AND SCIENCE

  • Cute cut and paste. Too bad you are not honest enough to attribute it to a source.
    https://reflectionsbyken.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/the-historic-alliance-of-christianity-and-science/

    Its a complete load of garbage as well. There is no actual application of the “Christian worldview” to the beliefs and writings of the scientists cited. Its all simply affirmation and stipulation without support. Making silly declarations and trying to put a tramp stamp on science by Christians who have no actual use for its methods.

  • Of course its true. Scientists must assume (have faith) that the laws of nature are the same at all times in all places in the universe. Can never be proven.

    You don’t have to believe in God to do science. However, there are some issues that science will never solve without the existence of God. Things like the origin of the universe from nothing, origin of life. Natural forces are incapable of explaining these things.

  • There you go again. Telling me what I know or don’t know. I’m 50….but it feels like my Dad all over again. I know exactly who you are.

  • “Of course its true.”

    I wrote it’s not EXACTLY true, but that is actually irrelevant.

    What’s relevant is that your comment “Belief in God does not mean you can’t do science” is a straw-man that you created to intentionally misrepresent the comments made here.

    “However, there are some issues that science will never solve without the existence of God.”

    First a straw-man, now god of the gaps – pathetic.

    Oh, and which god?

  • “Just listen to Jesus.”

    Will do, but not listen you.

    I am always amused when someone like you thinks his god needs him to do his/her/its boxing. One would think a serious sky fairy wouldn’t need such help, or if they did, they could find someone with a bit more knowledge about what they were claiming.

  • See? I was right about the curse. It spreads & infects – from one to another. There’ll come a time when the Lord will put a final boundary around all who refuse to have the curse removed from their lives. That’ll be hell. My prayer is you learn how hellish the curse is before then, Spuddie.
    Until then – I’m putting up my own boundary ag your hostility. I wish you only the best.
    X

  • “My prayer is you learn how hellish the curse is before then”

    “More often than not, I’ve seen this phrase used by people who have ZERO intent to go home and use their hotline to God to save my soul. If you want to sound condescending and self-righteous, however, it’s perfect.” – David G. McAfee

    Meanwhile, your god ignores all the prayers about suffering and misery in the world that he actually imposes. If you expect for your god to listen to your prayer about us, then your faith, by any imaginable definition, is obscene. Your failure to see that is willful, intellectual dishonesty.

    “The man who prays is the one who thinks that god has arranged matters all wrong, but who also thinks that he can instruct god how to put them right.”
    — Christopher Hitchens, Mortality

    You fail to understand that if prayer actually works, it nullifies your god being omniscient.

  • Now you are just being nasty for its own sake.

    “There’ll come a time when the Lord will put a final boundary around all
    who refuse to have the curse removed from their lives. That’ll be hell.”

    Lark’s Law: When a fundamentalist Christian become flustered, they inevitably threaten a speaker with eternal damnation. Demanding God punish people who don’t take them seriously.

  • Would that be the same Jesus whose disciples were cursed by Paul, most of whose scriptures were destroyed and whose every saying has been amended over the years?

  • You agree with blatant nonsense and then whine about the fact that it is bound to attract criticism for being blatant nonsense? OK, if that’s what passes for critical thinking in your world……

  • “And science upon every new believe declares it absolute”

    Why do xians lie to support their delusion?

    “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.”

    Yes, imaginary.

  • The connections between the womb and the ovaries are called Fallopian tubes – after “Fallopius” who made the connection in the sixteenth century.

    Google away.

  • Seriously, what is it with religious people and discovering what their scriptures mean after the event? If it’s not muslims saying that the Koran predicted quantum theory, it’s this blatant post-hoc kidnapping of a new discovery. Why do you people never discover these things before actual scientists instead of blethering nonsense after the event?

  • I disagree – you need god(s) to create the big picture you want but can’t prove.

    Just because people have been lead to believe that there is more doesn’t mean that there is – and without evidence or rational need there can be nothing more than hope (a.k.a. faith).

  • So, what about the young boy that Jesus loved and lay with. Is Jesus in hell too? All in a scripture that is just as ‘authentic’ as any of the approved scriptures, just not as convenient. You seem to have done your research, how come you didn’t come across that one?

  • God did say something about rape and paedophilia. Hw wholeheartedly approved and there’s nothing in the bible (OT or NT) about slavery being wrong (as long as when you beat a slave, they don’t die within 3 days).

  • Then explain how universe came to be since there were no forces of nature before the big bang? Explain how the first cell came to be by the mindless-purposeless forces of nature.

  • As to the origin of the universe – I don’t know.

    As to the origin of life (which I assume you mean) – it seems likely that life is simply a chemical reaction which probably happened first in the vicinity of deep sea hydro-thermal vents. You might care to read about that.

    We can’t prove that’s how it happened but there is a lot of experimental evidence that supports the concept – there is no experimental evidence that god-did-it.

    I don’t know, you don’t know. I admit my ignorance, you try to obscure yours.

    Not having a first class answer does not permit you, me or anyone else to insist that a fifth-rate one, with neither evidence nor rational need to support it, be promoted to first rate.

    You might also care to ponder on the fact that, in the extremely unlikely event that there is a supernatural explanation, the likelihood of it having anything to do with the Christian God (as opposed to all the thousands of other gods and dozens of creation myths that humanity has imagined) is pathetically tiny.

  • Just because you don’t know doesn’t mean I don’t. God did it is the answer because it makes the most sense and the evidence of creation shows a great intelligence behind it. If a phone requires intelligence to create it and build it so would the universe and life which is far more complex than a phone.

    Only the Christian has revealed Himself in history. The record of it is found in the Bible. Read the gospels for starters.

  • I know we Evangelicals are monsters and it’s our comeuppance (just learned that word today from AlterNet) to be treated as monsters. But this article sure treats us that way in a superduperbbbbboooorrrrrriiiiiinnnnnggg drill! I should be offended by it but instead it actually lullabyed me to sleep – and THAT offended me!

  • Seriously, what’s-his-face Kahn_Tango still needs to get the point of that otherwise brilliant, brilliant comeback?

    That’s the thesis of Frankfurt School, Theodor Adorno & Habermas against positivism, and what’s-his-face Kahn_Tango doesn’t get it?

  • graduate on an Ivy Leaguer actually

    not bragging

    but your interrogation lamp was getting too bright, see

    get it – “bright”? as in are you or am i?

    obviously you rely on YouTube to smarten up still

    which makes you so much brighter than me – i do declare

  • Now now don’t get personal

    All I said was YOUR herd-mentality is showing

    In reference to your avatar

    What is that – were you trying to spell H – E – R – D? That jawline there – that’s where & when you were trying to enunciate the HHHHEEE-part in herd-mentality, right?

    So here let me validate that – YOUR herd-mentality is showing wonderfully and with flying colors

    Signed,

    HpO
    9/11 Truther When Moonlighting

    – moon – get it?

  • Wrong.

    “Just because you don’t know doesn’t mean I don’t” – correct – so what?

    “God did it is the answer because it makes the most sense” – no – it doesn’t. In fact it makes no sense – it’s just a cop out to avoid admitting ignorance. What are you comparing your unsubstantiated belief with?

    There is no evidence of “creation”. The great intelligence you imagine doesn’t exist – if there had been a designer it would have screwed up big-time.

    A four year old child would design separate air and food passages – avoiding the choking to death of dozens of people annually.
    A four year old child would have got our eyes right, instead of providing octopi with the good version and us with the second best.
    A four year old child wouldn’t route my urethra through my prostate or loop the nerve between brain and voice-box around one of the blood vessels entering the heart.
    A four year old child wouldn’t have given us teeth that wear out when we are around forty – before dentistry most people died because of their teeth, either through starvation or septicaemia due to rotting teeth and gums.
    A four year old child wouldn’t design koalas so that the pouch in which their young develop had the entrance/exit where the risk of falling out was maximum.
    A four year old child wouldn’t – but you think your “great intelligence” did.

    Your comparison between an inanimate object such as a ‘phone and the universe shows that you haven’t been taught how the universe developed. Please read up and learn so that you don’t expose your ignorance again.

    I have read the gospels – several times. They are a selected set of works (the others were rejected as inconvenient/not-on-message/heretical) written many years after the events they claim to describe by people who were not there. They were, and still are, marketed under false claims of authorship – a fraudulent act which immediately creates reasonable suspicion as to their veracity. (And the whole trip-to-Bethlehem bit is just plain wrong – a story cobbled together from unrelated facts, laced with fiction and intended to demonstrate that the writer’s incorrect understanding of an earlier text proved something that it didn’t).

    The Bible is a collection of religious stories. A little of it is provable true, some of it is provable wrong and most of it is not provable but often so unlikely as to require additional sources/confirmation which do not exist. It is a record of human thought and the manipulation of the gullible – it is not a factual book (it wasn’t intended to be) and only exists so that those in power can use it as a tool to manipulate and control those who are unable or unwilling to think critically.

  • lol……..lol……this is a first in a long time…..lol……cite your scripture Tony. I’d love to see what the homosexuals have bastardized now…..lol

  • Nope. Evangelicals are not monsters, and I’ve never thought so or said so. What I have said is that some evangelicals are obsessed with other people’s sex lives. with power money and dominion, will abandon their principles in pursuit of same, and don’t really care who gets hurt in that pursuit.

  • Mr. Brumo and Mr. Galileo will disagree with you.

    The Arabs civilization preserved our intellectual heritage while the church was busy burning people.

  • Totally self professed, not even anecdotal.
    To return means to have left …I was forced to attend Sunday school and church until I was too large to be beaten for refusing.

  • No. Scientists are NOT always willing to admit that “those conclusions could be proven wrong.” There is no magical spell that automatically causes scientists to self-correct themselves. (Kuhn pointed to this, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.)

    Ancient example: Ptolemy believed the planets move in perfect circles. But people saw that one or two planets didn’t quite obey that notion. So what does Ptolemy do?

    He simply draws more & more “perfect circles”, to try to clean up those pesky problems. He’s so into circles, that he can’t stop selling it. Can’t self-correct.

    It’s the same for evolutionists. Their teachings, careers, core beliefs, would shatter like glass. So they keep on selling evolution, even when the evidence says stop.

  • Actually I think you ALREADY know you’ve been presented with several irrefutable reasons, both Science & Scripture. No escape for you.

    YOUR belief in evolution is defeated by modern biology. Your own eyes have totally killed atheism. Prov. 20:12 (see link at end of post) is true.

    You and others mentioned human eyes. You say, “octopi have a more efficient version of human eyes.” But what you ain’t telling, is that octopus eyes only work good in water. Take the octopus outta the water and put him in the dry air, (on a microwave-safe plate with fresh onions and greens), and his eyes absolutely will NOT beat yours.

    So it’s actually YOU who has the superior eyes and visual-processing. You read everybody’s posts here. Octopi can’t. You can see well in swimming-pool water AND see well in dry air. Octopi can’t do both.

    Desperate evolutionists then try to attack your human retina in order to attack God the Creator. But it don’t work. Israeli physicist Erez Ribak of Technion-Israel, and colleagues, published that “The retina is revealed as an optimum structure, designed for improving the sharpness of images.”

    Looky that. “OPTIMUM.” The very best that you or any biophysicist can come up with, at all. (See the PDF link at the end of this post; you’ll see the entire journal article for free.)

    Desperate evolutionists still messing up. They try to get their big salesman Richard Dawkins to channel Nilsson & Pelger’s claim that the human eye is just step-by-step evolution from some tiny Whatnot’s weird “eye-spot” that ain’t even an eye. But Nilsson & Pelger’s mess got **zapped** by J.T. Baldwin’s brilliant step-by-step takedown of N&P’s weaknesses in Christian Scholar’s Review 1995. (Here’s the citation for both N&P and Baldwin. Baldwin’s article is not online but I have my own copy of that entire issue.)

    D. E. Nilsson and S. Pelger, “A Pessimistic Estimate of the Time Required for an Eye to Evolve,” Proceedings, Royal Society of London, 1994, B 256:53-58.
    J. T. Baldwin, “The Argument From Sufficient Initial System Organization as a Continuing Challenge to the Darwinian Rate and Method of Transitional Evolution,” Christian Scholar’s Review 24 (1995), pp. 423-443.

    Other evolutionists try to escape, saying, “Gene Duplication.” But Michael Behe had the right idea. Put your drivers license in a copier; make 50 copies.

    You received 50 sheets of paper with a photo of your drivers license on each. But if that last piece of paper not only has your drivers license but ALSO your January bank account transactions on it, DUDE THAT LAST ONE WAS INTELLIGENTLY CAUSED, IT WASN’T EVOLUTION OR EVEN NATURAL GENETIC DUPLICATION.

    And there you go. Prov. 20:12 is telling the truth.

    PDF link: Retina = Optimal Structure
    http://phweb.technion.ac.il/~eribak/LabinRibakGlialCells.pdf

    Prov. 20:12
    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+20%3A12&version=NIV

  • Oh please. All those oldie-moldie Skeptizoid sales-pitches have been bombed forever by Christian scholars just looking for good target practice.

    Get off those brainless Atheist websites, they’ve become the mental equivalent of LSD plus PCP plus RAT POISON. Half of America’s atheists look like cheapo versions of “The Walking Dead” anyway. Git outta there dude!!!

  • floydlee

    The good thing about your response is that all the time you spent writing this desperate nonsense you weren’t doing anything that might appear to make sense.

    Irrefutable in your eyes doesn’t equal irrefutable in the real world. Just because you are too ignorant, too biased or too digested within your religious beliefs to understand why those you quote are refutable doesn’t alter the fact that they are so.

    You are too heavily invested in your narrow, irrational and frankly very silly convictions to be able to stand back from them and see them for the mess of inconsistencies and untruths that they (largely) are. I get that.

    In the meantime you are a brilliant protagonist for the demise of Christianity and I welcome you as such.

    Now go and find blinkered, science-qualified failures who will abandon the scientific method to try to gain entry to a non-existent Heaven and come back with explanations for

    ” why build in a food/air choke option when two separate systems is easier, cheaper, safer and more efficient, why make koalas’ pouches with the entrance in the worst possible place for the cub(?)’s safety, why route my urethra through my prostate etc. etc.).”

    Then explain away the love that is shown by your pretend creator when it places those it cares for in an environment which is overwhelmingly toxic – where early death is likely from “Acts of God” (tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, volcanic eruptions, wildfires), where disease is rampant, where hunger is endemic and frailty and a painful death are the lot of those who avoid the rest of life’s nastinesses.

    Oh, just in case you want to try it – “It’s all the fault of some silly little woman who did something that she didn’t understand was wrong” is a very, very, very silly answer – since your imagined god made her, if you believe the Bible, knowing what would happen and still went ahead – he’d have to be a monster wouldn’t he?).

    Keep those fingers in your ears and whistle a happy tune – LOUDER.

  • I don’t have to have an explanation – for two reasons.

    1 – sometimes the honest, decent, moral and accurate answer is “Don’t know”.

    2 – I’m not the one making the extraordinary claim. The rule is very simple, you claim something – you demonstrate that it is reasonable/right. Otherwise I could expect you to believe that there’s a 6″ high, green and purple striped, invisible, weightless and in all physical ways undetectable unicorn sitting on your shoulder and telepathically communicating with you – because I believe that there is.

    And You Have To Believe It – or prove me wrong.

    Your explanation for your claim(s) doesn’t hold water. There may not be an explanation that we can ascertain that does hold water. Doesn’t mean that there isn’t one, doesn’t mean that we won’t find it, does it matter?

    Just because we don’t have a sensible, evidence-based and rationally-supported explanation doesn’t permit us to fill the gap with an idea that is without evidence and is rationally incompetent – otherwise every creation myth, every god that humanity has dreamed up, every demon that children have bee controlled by is equally valid and has to be believed in to the same degree as the one(s) you prefer.

  • As a Science teacher, (graduate from Physics department of NAU – National Athens University, Greece), I’ d say that some at least ‘peculiar’ form of ‘science’ is derived from some excerpts of this discussion that has necessary to collide with any kind of Christian (particular) belief.
    So in order to put a new thing on discussion-table, I am suggesting this quote:

    “We’ll gain such perspective only after we have a fundamental theory of everything—or perhaps when we detect signs of other universes. The urge to understand our universe from first principles and not ascribe it to some divine force compels us to seek scientific explanations for what seems to be an incredible stroke of luck.”
    does it sounds like ‘Science’ or ‘pseudo science’ to you folks?
    source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2012/03/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/

  • What ever floats your boat. Now, how about you actually do something for some innocent victims of Christianity, okay?

  • “Then explain how universe came to be…”

    Explain how god(s) came to be.

    “However difficult those simple beginnings may be to accept, they are a whole lot easier to accept than complicated beginnings. Complicated things come into the universe late, as a consequence of slow, gradual, incremental steps. God, if he exists, would have to be a very, very, very complicated thing indeed. So to postulate a God as the beginning of the universe, as the answer to the riddle of the first cause, is to shoot yourself in the conceptual foot because you are immediately postulating something far, far more complicated than that which you are trying to explain.” – Richard Dawkins

  • “Then they are using a CREATIONIST invention.”

    Why does a “CREATIONIST” need science to invent when he has a god?

    Why does a “CREATIONIST” need science to cure people when his god won’t?

    Why did the “CREATIONIST” god make a body that requires science to maintain it and correct its defects?

    “Go figure!”

  • “Just because you don’t know doesn’t mean I don’t.”

    Just because you don’t know that there’s an invisible purple gnome that only I can see who lives in dishwasher doesn’t mean there isn’t.

  • “If a phone requires intelligence to create it and build it so would the universe and life which is far more complex than a phone.”

    Phone -> man
    Universe -> god
    God -> ?

    Why can’t you see how your thinking is flawed?

  • “Only the Christian has revealed Himself in history. The record of it is found in the Bible. Read the gospels for starters.”

    Somehow you think the xian buybull explains the origins of the universe while ignoring that the people who wrote it wondered where the sun went at night!

    How do you know that your creation myth is correct, but the others aren’t?

  • Paper and gunpowder were invented by the Chinese. The Arabs were the best in math and medicine way before Christians. The saddle was invented by the barbarians on the Steppes. Actually, I do not know why I am even responding, you are a waste of time.

  • Xian creationists reject evolution, but believe:

    A donkey talked
    A man lived in a fish
    A woman turned into salt
    A snake talked
    A man rode a tornado to heaven
    The sun stood still for a day
    Hundreds of thousands of animals lived on a 500′ boat
    Zombies wandered around Jerusalem
    A disembodied hand scribbled on a wall at a party
    Half a trillion cubic miles of water fell as rain over 40 days
    Water droplets didn’t refract light be fore the time of Noah
    Blowing a horn and yelling will make city walls collapse
    Plants grew before there was sunlight

    All because stories invented in the imaginations of Bronze Age, Middle East desert dwellers who wondered where the sun went at night wrote a book in which they claim it happened that way.

  • actually i got that from news reports, I don’t go to atheist websites. the govt of israel came out last year and said the stories in genesis were mythical, and the Jewish ministry said there was no monotheistic god before judaism.

    https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/archaeology/.premium-1.723616
    “Abraham, the father, had been commanded, by the God he worshipped as supreme ABOVE ALL OTHERS, to sacrifice the young man himself, his beloved and only legitimate son, Isaac.
    http://www.bu.edu/arion/archive/volume-18/colin_wells_how_did_god_get-started/
    https://consortiumnews.com/2015/01/03/israeli-founder-contests-founding-myths/

  • Putting the kibosh on all religion in less than ten seconds: Priceless !!!

    • As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Abraham i.e. the foundations of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are non-existent.

    • As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Moses i.e the pillars of Judaism, Christianity and Islam have no strength of purpose.

    • There was no Gabriel i.e. Islam fails as a religion. Christianity partially fails.

    • There was no Easter i.e. Christianity completely fails as a religion.

    • There was no Moroni i.e. Mormonism is nothing more than a business cult.

    • Sacred/revered cows, monkey gods, castes, reincarnations and therefore Hinduism fails as a religion.

    • Fat Buddhas here, skinny Buddhas there, reincarnated/reborn Buddhas everywhere makes for a no on Buddhism.

    • A constant cycle of reincarnation until enlightenment is reached and belief that various beings (angels?, tinkerbells? etc) exist that we, as mortals, cannot comprehend makes for a no on Sikhism.

    Added details available upon written request.

  • Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life?

    Look at a water puddle. How could the hole be the exact shape of the water if it wasn’t designed that way?

  • “But what you ain’t telling, is that octopus eyes only work good in water.”

    But what you ain’t telling, is that human eyes only “work good” in air.

    But if you add science (diver’s mask), human eyes “work good” in water. Why didn’t the xian god think of that?

    Oh, and I didn’t even mention air tanks and regulators…

  • Give me some evidence for your “invisible purple gnome” that only you can see. If you have none then that means you are insane.

  • Explain the steps how the big bang came to be without referring to any laws of nature since these laws did not exist before the bang.

  • just a sneak of it …
    “Water is unique, as it can exist in two liquid states that have different ways of bonding the water molecules together. The water fluctuates between these states as if it can’t make up its mind and these fluctuations reach a maximum at -44°C. It is this ability to shift from one liquid state into another that gives water its unusual properties and since the fluctuations increase upon cooling also the strangeness increases.”

  • Your dishonesty is so obvious.

    What he wrote: Science draws conclusions reluctantly and always with willingness to admit that those conclusions could be proven wrong.

    What you wrote: Scientists are NOT always willing to admit that “those conclusions could be proven wrong.”

  • “God does not need a creator since He has always existed.”

    You cannot explain an unknown by appealing to an even bigger unknown, by something that is in itself unexplained. Or if you can, then that explanation is equally applicable to the universe itself – it always existed.

  • “Ever read the other creation accounts besides the Bible’s account?”

    Yes. Do you have a point?

  • We know the universe is eternal. Science tells us that.
    As for God, He has revealed Himself as eternal. If He is lying then we must ask who created Him and start an infinite regress.

  • “We know the universe is eternal. Science tells us that.”

    Show me where “Science tells us that.”

    “As for God, He has revealed Himself as eternal.”

    When and where?

  • “We asked our survey respondents how they personally view the relationship between religion and science. Rather than saying that the two are in conflict, evangelicals were the most likely to say that they view religion and science as having a collaborative relationship in which the two spheres support each other ”

    I’m not an evangelical Christian, but I’ve never liked the way they are portrayed as troglodytes in the mainstream media. I think it’s evidence of high intelligence to find that evangelical Christians as well as some mainstream Christians, honor Biblical truth and scientific knowledge resulting from critical scientific questioning.

    Thanks RNS Slingshot, for helping to dispel this bias in the mainstream media.

  • “I think it’s evidence of high intelligence to find that evangelical Christians as well as some mainstream Christians, honor Biblical truth and scientific knowledge resulting from critical scientific questioning.”

    Your comment just contradicted that claim.

  • How do you reconcile your comments about the Big Bang with the fact that a “Christian Scientist,” Georges Lemaître, first theorized it?

  • I’d like to give you an upvote, because you make the essential point in how a scientist and a theologian approach any question, including reconciliation of their theories. But I’m afraid your prejudice against faith having any validity is showing. Of course you’re into endless arguments about the likes of intelligently designed eyes.

  • I don’t know if faith is valid or not.
    In the absence of evidence or rational demonstration of need for its existence the logical attitude, as far as I’m concerned, is to treat it as unlikely and irrelevant.

    The problem I have with religious (and pseudo-scientific alt-med etc.) faith is that it is used to damage decent human beings by others who, deliberately or not, offer false (or at minimum unjustified) hope. Hope which beguiles people who would be better served working for the benefit of themself and their families in the one life we know we have rather than pursuing an unevidenced, irrational and expensive (in money, time, dignity and allegiances) diversion of resources to the benefit of others.

  • You did not dispute Kahn’s claim that hospitals are about science. You just listed an unrelated fact.

  • Won’t ever solve or haven’t yet? Certainly scientists have made discoveries about phenomenon that were previously attributed to God.

  • JP, your whole argument is that God wins by default. As others have pointed out, wouldn’t it be more honest to admit not knowing something?

  • “Why are people so uncomfortable with stating they don’t know.”

    Weak minded people love a good strongman. Be it an authoritarian president or an invisible sky-daddy, stupid people feel comforted by the notion that there is someone in absolute control. Even if the controller is destructively insane and a threat to everything that actually matters.

  • Roy, I think that was a very legitimate question. How does one determine which parts of the bible are absolute.

  • Good question – I don’t know!

    It’s rather like pretending one is never wrong – we all are sometimes, we all know everybody is sometimes and it’s usually impossible to turn wrong into right without admitting the error – but being believed to be right is often more important than actually being right.

  • Not knowing how the universe started and not believing in a supernatural god are two different things. I don’t know how jellyfish glow, but I know that unicorns aren’t real. Since I don’t know how jellyfish glow, does that mean I’m not really sure about unicorns?

  • “Why are people so uncomfortable with stating they don’t know.”

    Xians are dependent on their delusion for both their sense of identity and their view of reality. Science, critical thinking, and reason are threats to their reality.

  • “Give me your best guess how you think the universe came into existence from nothing.”

    I neither guess about nor accept buybull stories for such things.

  • Then it can’t be eternal. This is all nitpicking but it caught my eye so I thought I would comment.

  • Have much time do you give religion before you accept that Bronze Age desert dwellers who wondered where the sun went at night cannot explain something?

  • Why do you insist on a time limit? Why is it so difficult to say that something is not yet known without jumping to a default answer?

  • JP, understand this – The “creation model” requires a creator. That’s an essential element for which there is no evidence at all.

    You first must define a “creator” and then provide scientifically-valid evidence of its existence before you even get to discuss Big Bang, abiogenesis, evolution, or any other science. Your religious replies are not scientifically-valid. When you can make “God” scientifically-valid, ONLY THEN can you discuss Big Bang, abiogenesis, and evolution.

    Because scientists don’t understand everything about the universe, therefore “God,” is not a scientifically-valid answer.

  • They don’t give the actual questions in this commentary, but for instance they’ve referred to “applied science” in both of a series of questions, the second presented as a refinement of the first. They also don’t make clear how big their sample was or how they were selected.

  • If that attitude is good for you, good for you. The problem is that none of us can have anything to say about the validity of anyone else’s experience. Religion has sprung up in many forms and in just about every culture. It doesn’t matter whether or what problem you or I might have with it. We’re all better off trying to understand each other.

  • Roy, I don’t believe my question was snarky. For the sake of the discussion, I was curious as to how one would discern what is absolute in scripture and what isn’t.

  • “The problem is that none of us can have anything to say about the validity of anyone else’s experience.”

    We can when it’s the basis of an ideology.

  • “Give me an example.”

    It doesn’t require an example. You either have a methodology for your determination or you don’t.

  • Not exactly sure how that helps children traumatized by Christians leaders they’re told to trust.
    Not sure how that helps a struggling family figure out how to work a budget or set reasonable goals. Not sure how that helps a teenager find a good used car so they can go to work and technical school.

  • Ptolemy example hardly represents a modern scientific method. People with a theory to their name naturally don’t like to be proved wrong. But peer review forces modern scientists to admit the flaws others find in their work. This forces a sort of professional humility on the scientist. If you will read my comment again you will notice that I’m calling for a certain humility in those who interpret revealed truth. Scientists have the advantage of repeatable experiments establishing the truthfulness of a theory. Proving a certain interpretation (as apposed to a contrary interpretation) is much more difficult; hence an even greater need on the part of the interpreter to say, “I could be wrong.”

  • “The problem is that none of us can have anything to say about the validity of anyone else’s experience.”

    I disagree.

    When the experience leads to consequences which impinge on the quality of life, especially for those other than the experiencee(?), the validity of the experience is important in determining how to respond to those consequences.

    If my mother had believed, and acted upon the belief, that she had a vision in which her deity told her to beat me until the demons left me I would have suffered real pain and possible long-term physical and psychological effects (as far as I know she didn’t have such a vision). Unless the existence of the deity and the alleged vision were beyond doubt I would have been entitled to question the validity of her experience. Dependant upon the outcome of the questioning I might have decided that she’d done me a favour and grown closer or decided that she needed locking up to protect myself and my siblings from further assault.

    That is why the scientific method is so valuable – it removes/minimises the ability to arrive at irrational results by demanding evidence and logic.

    You are free to do as you wish until your behaviour impinges on the lives of others. Belief is not a justification for bigotry, for harm or for hatred (nor for defining those terms).

    I encourage the children I talk with as part of their RE studies to compare the arrogance and selfishness of “Do unto others as you would have done unto you” with “Do whatever you want – provided that it harms no-one else” – they seem to get it.

  • Check out the following article published in Nature titled “The Mental Universe” [ref: Henry, R. C. (2005). Nature, 436, 29.] – it describes this whole world and the universe as being “entirely mental.” Also, you can think of it this way: It is the mind (consciousness) that knows about the existence of the natural world and analyzes it. It is the mind that knows about various organs of the body including the organ brain – remember that brains do not talk. Also, it is the mind (consciousness) that knows about the mind itself. You can also check out the following (open access) article to understand this better: Karunamuni, N. (2015). The Five-Aggregate Model of the Mind. SAGE Open, 5 (2).

  • If I learned you’d said that to my kid in RE (which I recognize as UUspeak), either you’d no longer be doing RE, or I’d no longer be part of that community. There’s no need to call a standard that gives a clear measure of morality “arrogan[t] and selfish[].”

    But we’re really way off the topic of this article, so I think I’ll ignore any further provocation from you.

  • UUspeak? what that?

    You would have no say in whether I was talking to children in RE lessons – their teachers are always present and I have had nothing but supportive feedback.

    Just because you consider the golden rule provides a clear measure of morality doesn’t make it good. The essence of the golden rule is “I’m perfect so treating you as I would like to be treated is the only morally correct option” – irrespective of a) your feelings/personality/needs and b) my lack of perfection.

    The golden rule is a simplistic justification for condescension, arrogance and a lack of consideration for others.

    Do you still maintain that “The problem is that none of us can have anything to say about the validity of anyone else’s experience.”?
    If so how do you counter my dismissal of it?

  • Mark, don’t expect a straightforward, honest answer from Roy – especially when he doesn’t have one.

  • “Only the Christian [god] has revealed Himself in history.”

    But never in the present. The buybull is required for a god who doesn’t exist and therefore never appears in the here and now.

  • “He did appear 2000 years ago and did miracles and rose from the dead.”

    According to the xian buybull. There are no other historical records to support the xian myth.

    Again, never in the present.

  • “Prove the gospels are myths with some facts then you will be taken seriously.”

    LOL! The fact that there’s no evidence for them IS the evidence.

  • You know Navy, there are more things than just on this Earth. We all have a future to look to. Not to lessen the severity whatsoever, but, bad things happen to a lot of people.
    That is a part of life and we are only here a short while.
    The most important thing one can do for oneself is develop a relationship with Jesus. Maybe things will fall into place afterward, maybe not, but one thing, you are guaranteed a good eternity.

  • Talk about cognitive dissonance…you just successfully lessened the severity. Those poor kids abused by Christian leaders just have to suck it up, eh? There are no guarantees…period. Your statement harbors absolutely NO COMFORT or CONCERN for the atrocities your religion inflicts upon the innocent. So, those who suffer cruelty at the hands of Christians should pray for an early death. This is your belief, right?
    Bad things happen to a lot of people so a lot of people need to be praying to die early so then can get some relief.
    THIS is the kind of tone deaf and blind dogma that is lethal for the innocent and unsuspecting. Nope, you can keep it. I’ll be known for my actions instead of blind and twisted sycophancy.

  • No doubt, the Earth has been placed in a perfect location in God’s expanding Universe to affirm and sustain human life.
    “And yet it moves.”
    And yet it cannot be moved from this perfect location.

  • Atheism denies the true God, and thus to worship any form of idol, even if you call it god, would be a form of atheistic materialism.

  • The xian god must be the least efficient deity in all of existence. It took him 13.82 billion years, over 100 billion galaxies, each with about 300 billion stars, spread out over a sphere 93 billion light-years across, to come up with grand old us, the obvious center, purpose, and highest achievement of all eternity. The rest of that time, material, and space? Just window dressing, pay it no mind.

  • First of all, children are abused by more than “Christian” leaders Navy, so pull the claws in.
    The rest of your comment is redundant.

  • “NEVER”?!

    According to Rudolf J. Siebert, The Critical Theory of Religion, Heathwood Institute and Press, 2015:

    “Science became itself an enormous ethical problem as it produced through the I.G. Farben Corporation the insecticide Cyclone B which murdered millions of Jews and the first atomic bombs which killed tens of thousand Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”

  • Your version is loco on many points. Science developed all over. Astronomy by the ancient Greeks and later in the Middle East. Meanwhile sophisticated structures for astronomical observation were found all over the world (except the poles). The Chinese developed gunpowder. Metallurgy was a skilled work all over. Medical care was practiced by the Ancient Greeks which was far better than that in Christianized (by the sword) Europe.
    Take your lunacy elsewhere. It’s a lie and everyone knows that Christianity stopped science at every turn. Medical science was held up for centuries. We could be far further ahead now but for Christian domination of people’s minds and options. What a loser.

  • Wrong, ceramics, and metallurgy flourished. And the concept of zero comes from the Arabs. You are utterly ignorant.

  • The Enlightenment project is under siege in the USA because of “the Republican War on Science” (book title) and the GOP/Dumpy trying to take us back to the 1820s.

  • Giordano Bruno??
    In any case he was executed for not knuckling under to backwards Catholic views on science. Mendel only succeeded in discovering how traits are passed down to successive generations by studying plants in the Convent garden. He was too small for the Inquisition and those that followed to bother with.

  • we wouldn’t have antibiotics if scientists had listened to religious authorities. They hampered and held every new finding back.

  • Right wing Christians have a theological doctrine called Natural Law contrived by their supposedly greatest thinkers but it has NOTHING to do with the Laws of Nature.

  • gimme a break….the big bang came from astrophysicists who were not Christian. Einstein was an agnostic at best. As for the foundations of Evolution go read the book Evo/Devo. It’ll explain it all to you. And “Why Evolution is True.”
    You sound like our Effing president who doesn’t know or just doesn’t read. Both of you are dangerous fools.

  • the simplest, most direct explanation is far more likely to be correct. The god concept is elaborate, abstruse, with many contradictions from different Christians and conflicting passages in the bible. There are even two versions of the Creation. Which do you believe??? one? both?

  • the bible is theobabble. It’s preached by fundamentalists who sprout theobabble from the pulpit. 96% is boring and practically unreadable.

  • Where did I claim that Christians astrophysicists came up with bang?

    What forces of nature make up evolution?

  • Without Christianity there would have been no science:
    “To be fair, the claim that Christianity led to modern science captures something true and important. Generations of historians and sociologists have discovered many ways in which Christians, Christian beliefs, and Christian institutions played crucial roles in fashioning the tenets, methods and institutions of what in time became modern science…today almost all historians agree that Christianity (Catholicism as well as Protestantism) moved early-modern intellectuals to study nature systematically.”

    Noah J Efron “Myth 9: That Christianity Gave Birth to Modern Science” in Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion (R Numbers ed.) Harvard University Press 2009 p 80

  • “As Rodney Stark tells us in his recent outstanding book, The Victory of Reason, when Europeans first began to explore the rest of the world what surprised the most wasn’t what they saw—it was “the extent of their own technological superiority.”
    What made the difference? Why was it that while “many civilizations,” such as the Chinese, had pursued alchemy, but only in Europe did it lead to chemistry?
    According to Stark, the answer ultimately lies in European Christianity. While other religions emphasized “mystery and intuition,” Christianity “embraced reason and logic as the primary guides to religious truth.” From the start, the Church Fathers “taught that reason was the supreme gift of God and the means to progressively increase understanding of Scripture and revelation.”
    This regard for reason wasn’t limited to theology. St. Augustine wrote of the “wonderful—one might say stupefying—advances human industry has made.” He attributed these to the “unspeakable boon” to our “rational nature.”
    This view of reason gave rise to the medieval universities of whose existence, or at least origins, Dawkins seems to be totally ignorant. As Stark puts it, “faith in the power of reason infused Western culture” in a way it did no other society. It prompted “the pursuit of science and the evolution of democratic theory and practice.”

    Christianity and the Origins of Science

    If the world was atheistic we would never have science.

  • Learned how to swim and dive in a YMCA swimming pool, 1000 years ago. Instructor had us keep our eyes open. No goggles. Your eyes actually do work in there.

    Now take an octopus OUT of the water, let his eyes do the dry air. Ain’t happening!!

  • Mark…….often, Disqus can be very confusing as it can be hard knowing where certain conversations began and ‘who’ said ‘what’ and ‘where’ and ‘when’ etc., etc.
    Perhaps we are talking about “absolute” in two different understandings. Is the word Absolute, “absolute”. As an example. Of course the Scriptures aren’t necessarily a science book. It would be more of a history book.
    Are you a Christian? If you are a Christian, I will have this conversation with you. I’m not sure what you mean EXACTLY when you are asking me if the Scriptures are ‘absolute’. I’m assuming you are referring to a more “Literal” vs. “Figurative” debate. As I gave my example — A passage claims we can move Mountains by our faith. Of course I do not believe this to be a literal rendering. Then I gave the verse — ‘and the two shall become one’. I believe this passage is “literal” from the perspective that a woman takes on her partner’s DNA. Paul didn’t understand as he didn’t have ‘science’ to back it up; but he knew it in his heart — which I believe was directed by the HS.
    Btw…………..did you get the book I recommended?

  • Only The True God, The God Who Created Time and Space, and Is thus not subject to The Laws of Physics, can exist outside Time and Space.

  • Sooo……. You are acknowledging that you are unable to provide a compelling response to :

    ” why build in a food/air choke option when two separate systems is
    easier, cheaper, safer and more efficient, why make koalas’ pouches with
    the entrance in the worst possible place for the cub(?)’s safety, why
    route my urethra through my prostate etc. etc.).”

    Then explain
    away the love that is shown by your pretend creator when it places those
    it cares for in an environment which is overwhelmingly toxic – where
    early death is likely from “Acts of God” (tornadoes, hurricanes,
    earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, volcanic eruptions, wildfires), where
    disease is rampant, where hunger is endemic and frailty and a painful
    death are the lot of those who avoid the rest of life’s nastinesses.

    Am I right?

    Oh, and please don’t just tell me that I am wrong. Save your energy, Just simply provide a compelling response.

    Peace and blessings.

  • “Science makes weapons that kills millions”

    Are you ignoring the fact that religion happily uses those weapons without a second thought!? And personally, I consider the weapon of religious indoctrination far worse.

    “Christians build hospitals, charities and schools.”

    The focus is on RELIGION-Science. Or are you just being inadvertently arrogant when you “suggest” that the only existing religion is Christianity? And what made hospitals possible again? Oh, right… Science! What’s the purpose of schools? To LEARN about things! Science included! (I wonder why?)

    “Science is constantly changing. When you think you know something, you don’t.”

    Wrong! When Science turns out to be wrong about something, it inherently and subsequently becomes MORE knowledgeable! Learning that something is wrong itself, becomes knowledge!

    That’s another difference between Science and Religion. According to your logic, religion doesn’t ascribe any “knowledge value” to the discovery of something proven/demonstrated as false. No wonder Religion perpetuates!

  • “Its because of Christianity that we have science.”

    I conclude by your statement that you have ascribed premium status and validity to Science (so far as it being a method). Please let us know if that conclusion is wrong.

    I also assume you have acknowledged, by your statement, that Science is a good thing. Again, please let us know if this assumption is wrong.

    Question for you: Is the scientific method of old, essentially the same as the scientific method of the present?

    If your answer is yes, then, can you answer why religion now, at best, insists on being selective about what proven/demonstrated scientific fact it accepts or doesn’t accept?

    If your answer is no, please support such an answer with details of any essential difference that you have identified.

  • It was Christians who started some of the great universities. Harvard, Yale and Princeton.

    I’m for science that seeks the truth no matter where it leads. I’m against scientists who give absurd theories to explain stuff.

  • When you spend time doing homework on evolution and atheism, you quickly learn that you can’t do a ton of topics all at once.

    So I just pick one topic, do the homework, and see if Give can handle it.

    In this case — human eyes — Give cannot. Hence, Give’s membership in the Cults of evolution and atheism, is NOT based on empirical science & rationality.

  • “The intellectual climate that gave rise to modern science (roughly three centuries ago) was decisively shaped by Christianity. Not only were most of the founding fathers of science themselves devout Christians (including Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, and Pascal), but the Christian worldview provided a basis for modern science both to emerge and to flourish. Christian theism affirmed that an infinite, eternal, and personal God created the world ex nihilo. The creation, reflecting the rational nature of the Creator, was therefore orderly and uniform. Further, humankind was uniquely created in God’s image (Gen. 1:26-7), thus capable of reasoning and of discovering the intelligibility of the created order. In effect, the Christian worldview supported the underlying principles that made scientific inquiry possible and desirable.
    Eminent historian and philosopher of science Stanley Jaki has argued that science was “stillborn” in other great civilizations outside Europe because of prevailing ideas that stifled scientific development, e.g., a cyclical approach to time, an astrological approach to the heavens, metaphysical views that either deified nature (animism) or denied it (idealism).” THE HISTORIC ALLIANCE
    OF CHRISTIANITY AND SCIENCE

    The scientific method as we know it: Roger Bacon (1214 – 1284) is credited as the first scholar to promote inductive reasoning as part of the scientific method.

    Do you accept every scientific claim you read about? I don’t because I think a lot of speculations is presented as facts.

  • None of that matters to the sandis of the world. My problem is more with the sandis than with the leaders per se. It’s people like her that led on of my patients that he had to burn his penis off because he couldn’t control his sexual thoughts. Another attempted suicide several times–if he was going to hell because he was gay, why not get there quicker. Several others were not so lucky. Many others learned to hate themselves so much that drugs and alcohol were their only friends. I’m one of the ones who has to pick up the pieces caused by the pieces of shit like sandi–pieces that never should have been broken in the first place.

  • I disagree bmayer504. Science did not give “Hiroshima” and “Nagasaki”.

    Mis-guided humans did! Don’t lose sight of the fundamentals.

    Science provides us with a method that enables us to determine how things work. It didn’t tell us to drop bombs.

    Or fly airplanes into buildings. Religion did that though!!

    Do you agree?

  • Science did not give “Hiroshima” and “Nagasaki”.

    Mis-guided humans did! Don’t lose sight of the fundamentals.

    Science provides us with a METHOD that enables us to determine how things work. There is nothing immoral or unethical about that process!

    Therefore, Science didn’t tell us to drop bombs. Or fly airplanes into buildings.

    Religion did that though!!

    Do you agree?

  • In other words, I was right.

    Floydlee, you’ve just demonstrated that you are unable to sincerely and constructively engage in honest intellectual discourse. I don’t have time to go round in circles with you.

    If you can’t provide a compelling response at the present time, just say so and indicate when you will. Simple. It saves your time and mine.
    Unless it is that your intent is to indeed waste everyone’s time.

    I hope you are able to transition from “learning/homework” mode to mature discourse mode soon. Unitl then, stop wasting everyone’s time with half-baked irrelevant banter.

    Peace and blessings.

  • JP, are you serious!!?? That’s your response!?

    Well at least now we know that you’re just here to waste everyone’s time.

    Your approach of ignoring the questions asked and points being made and simply posting irrelevant banter is revealing of your character.

    Goodbye.

    Peace and blessings.

  • (1) “Our technical civilization has just reached its greatest level of savagery … [given] our scientific conquests. … [Our] world [is] already given over to all the convulsions of violence, incapable of any control, indifferent to justice and the simple happiness of men — a world where science devotes itself to organized murder”.
    – Albert Camus (reacting to Hiroshima’s atomic destruction), Combat, August 8, 1945, translated by Alexandre de Gramont.

    (2) “The double horror of two Japanese city names [Hiroshima and Nagasaki] grew for me into … a nauseating terror at the direction the natural sciences were going … [at] the end of the essence of mankind … brought nearer, or even made, possible, by the profession to which I belonged. In my view, all natural sciences were as one; and if one science could no longer plead innocence, none could.”
    – Erwin Chargaff, Heraclitean Fire: Sketches from a Life before Nature, 1978.

  • HpO, I really don’t have time to go round in circles with you. But I will entertain you this one time.

    I dislike when people provide a response while ignoring the questions posed and points being made. This you have done. I will assume you did it inadvertently however, and that you have enough intellect to understand where/how you are guilty of same.

    “…….. a world where science devotes itself to organized murder”.

    Don’t you understand the statements I previously made?:
    “Science didn’t tell us to drop bombs.” “Mis-guided humans did.”

    YOUR quoted statement above is fallacious and moronic. Science (the exercise of a process) doesn’t tell anyone to do anything!

    Humans do! Humans are to blame and can be held to account!

    What are YOU proposing!!?? A life sentence for a process?

    And please stop with the irrelevant quotes. I assume you are intelligent enough to give direct and relevant answers/responses to direct questions and points.

    Peace and blessings.

  • QUESTION: Scusi, Rohan Morris, but what is “the greatest scientific achievement in history” – like, EVER, dude?!

    ROHAN MORRIS: Uh… Can you repeat the question?

    ANSWER: “Dropp[ing] one bomb on Hiroshima, Japan”!

    THE MANHATTAN ENGINEER DISTRICT: “Statement by the President of the United States [Harry S. Truman]: ‘Sixteen hours ago an American airplane dropped one bomb on Hiroshima, Japan, and destroyed its usefulness to the enemy. That bomb had more power than 20,000 tons of T.N.T. It had more than two thousand times the blast power of the British Grand Slam, which is the largest bomb ever yet used in the history of warfare’. These fateful words of the President on August 6th, 1945, marked the first public announcement of THE GREATEST SCIENTIFIC ACHIEVEMENT IN HISTORY. The atomic bomb, first tested in New Mexico on July 16, 1945, had just been used against a military target.”
    – The Manhattan Engineer District, “The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki”, June 29, 1946.

  • ….just, damn. The carnage goes unrecognized, the cold indifference, the craven retreat to their tired religious cliches.

  • Wheaton College in Illinois – which has a highly regarded pre-med program – displays a mastodon skeleton in its science building. Excavating the mastodon was a joint project of the college and Chicago’s renowned Field Museum of Natural History.

    Sorry, but “the war of religion on science” is absolutely bogus. It keeps getting repeated ad nauseam, but it’s still a Big Lie.

  • “The God Who Created Time and Space”

    The “creation model” requires a creator. That’s an essential element for which there is no evidence at all.

    You first have to define a “creator” and then provide scientifically-valid evidence of its existence before you even get to discuss ” The Laws of Physics.”

  • “Science also builds bombs.

    Learn to think.”

    Science doesn’t make the decision to use them.

    God is imaginary.

    Learn to think.

  • “Rough weekend in the trailer park, eh? Did you run out of malt liquor?”

    I neither live in a trailer park nor drink malt liquor.

    Nor do I think there is a “war of religion on science.”

  • “Without your hatred for Christians, homosexuals would have no emotional life at all.
    Sad, angry little creatures.”

    I don’t hate xians, but apparently you hate homosexuals.

  • “Atheists always seem to be angry.”

    Theists always seem to make nonsensical comments when they can’t support their delusion.

  • “Statement by the President of the United States [Harry S. Truman]: ‘Sixteen hours ago an American airplane dropped one bomb on Hiroshima, Japan, and destroyed its usefulness to the enemy. That bomb had more power than 20,000 tons of T.N.T. It had more than two thousand times the blast power of the British Grand Slam, which is the largest bomb ever yet used in the history of warfare’. These fateful words of the President on August 6th, 1945, marked the first public announcement of THE GREATEST SCIENTIFIC ACHIEVEMENT IN HISTORY. The atomic bomb, first tested in New Mexico on July 16, 1945, had just been used against a military target.”
    – The Manhattan Engineer District, “The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki”, June 29, 1946.

  • “I dislike when people provide a response while ignoring the questions posed and points being made. This you have done.”

    I agree with you.

    “I will assume you did it inadvertently however, and that you have enough intellect to understand where/how you are guilty of same.”

    No, he didn’t. He’s dishonest. Because most religious people are dishonest in their beliefs, why would expect them to be honest in anything???

  • “It [atom bomb] was merely another powerful weapon in the arsenal of righteousness.” – Harry S. Truman

  • But if God is real it is not hard for Him to cause men to record what really happened, and to preserve it through the ages. He purposed to leave mankind a reliable record. God is someone who can see and observe quite accurately. And He talked with Adam, and Adam, being fresh from the Creator would be quite smart, able to formulate an alphabet and write. Thus you have a reliable record from a reliable observer, and Adam was contemporary with Noah’s father Lamech for 56 years. So the record could be passed down through very few hands to Moses, who assembled the book of Genesis.

  • “But if God is real it is not hard for Him to cause men to record what really happened”

    If god is real it should not be hard for him to record it himself, but for some reason he requires men to do it.

    “So the record could be passed down through very few hands to Moses, who assembled the book of Genesis.”

    Someone who was not there.

  • Could you give me the cite to the peer reviewed article that shows evolution by natural selection has been proved in the lab?

  • Adaptations are an example of deevolution, not evolution. I invite you to provide one example of scientific evidence that proves otherwise. Did Darwin really discover evolution, or did he discover adaptations predesigned in the DNA of Finches to prolong their survival on earth? How can you scientifically prove me wrong?

  • One article? Here’s a few journals that do nothing but that:
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1420-9101
    https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1752-4571
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1558-5646

    If that’s too much, here’s a youtube video showing it happening in real time:
    https://youtu.be/yybsSqcB7mE
    Here’s the full text of the paper charting the evolution by natural selection: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6304/1147

  • It is obviously just right for life since we are here. Since we have discovered that life forms including ours didn’t require a designer, we shouldn’t assume that the universe needed one either. It could very well be that other planets maybe similar to this one or not. have life forms similar or not to ours. Obviously without a designer these planets would be just right for the life forms that lived there.

  • Religion and Science are in conflict because science is based on facts discovered in nature.
    If a discovery is religious, it is based on faith. They are only compatible if they come to the same conclusion. Those with faith will not accept scientific facts that disagree with their faith. Science will not accept religious claims that are not supported by evidence.

  • Science is flatly *not compatible* with Christianity. Christianity specifically gives faith pre-eminence over reason.

    Faith declares it has every truth, even the ones that reason lacks. It declares itself complete, and by obvious logic relegates reason to incompleteness. The unfortunate logical fact is that this is faith’s downfall. Any system that is complete is also inconsistent. Any system that is consistent is also incomplete, Reason recognizes this, has actually *proved* it within itself.

    These are two separate systems that do not overlap in purview. They have distinct and different limits of authority, intention, and responsibility. They have separate and exclusive limits of vision, understanding, and cognizance.

    Faith should not allow *any* appeal to reason, because it is considered inferior. Reason does not allow any appeal to faith, because it is outside its realm.

    Faith is by definition not rational. Introducing it into discussions of the rational world breaks the fundamental premise of reason. Reason is by definition not outside of nature. It has no value, and no standing, discussing an afterlife, a soul, a deity, anything praeternatural.

    You cannot reason your way to belief in purported things which have no evidence, no *possibility* of evidence. You can argue that people certainly come to belief and religion, and what the underlying physiological influences might be that precipitate this, but you cannot establish the veracity of this faith. Only that people come upon it and fail to dismiss it, even embrace it. Arguing for some “proof of God” misses the fundamental fact that both systems deny that possibility.

    Likewise you cannot use faith to come to a trust in science, in logic, in reason. The fundamentals out of which it arises are so basic that it would be specious to view them as beliefs. *All* of Math, for instance, naturally evolves from the fundamental idea of a set. We recognize that is simple enough. We accept reason because it works. It may sometimes not be sufficiently strong, as there are things we cannot prove with it, even if by all indications we want and need them to be true. But we know that where it does bring us will be solid ground.

    The very possibility of *anything* being considered “irreducibly complex” is anathema to science. It doesn’t matter if that thing is either physical or philosophical, an eye or an idea. Accepting that notion breaks the whole system. Accepting irreducible complexity is inherent to faith — it rightly presumes anything that reason can’t explain, or directly contradicts, as a “mystery” and “beyond our ken.” It wrongly presumes that doing so lends even the faintest glimmer of truth in the real world.

  • Every scientific theory is incompatible with Christianity. There is no overlap between the suppositions of faith and the dispositions of reason.

    When the faithful delve into reason they risk uncovering pieces of reality so full of cognitive dissonance that their only resolution is to fall back on their faith. If they truly knew better, they wouldn’t try.

  • Is this because they cannot accept anyone challenging the mask they wear, obscenely penetrating the veil with which they hide their shameful core even from themselves, or they just can’t stand anyone having fun?

  • Prattle. Isn’t it assumed any human achievement is to God’s greater glory? Discovering something perverts the concealment intention, even as some fabulous game of hide-and-seek. If you can’t fathom *why* something was so well disguised and stashed away, how can you convince yourself it was legitimate to even look for it? Everywhere you go, another dead end.

  • Believers and non-believers of religion can be friends and compatible. They will often avoid topics where the are aware of the others conflicting view.

    However Religion and Science are incompatible when it is necessary to determine the likely truth of this reality. Science must be based on observation, experiment, prediction, and the understanding that the hypothesis must overcome tests to disprove it. Facts that are intuited, favored, or suspected can not be part ot the determination of scientific truth. Scientific knowledge is built on formerly discovered truth. Reason is then utilized to determine additional truth in this manner.

    Religious truths are based on religious faith. If a truth is discovered or explained without faith, it is not religious. To have faith is to pretend to know what you don’t know and this can not be accepted in science.

  • It is no accident that virtually all the major claims of all religions cannot be tested empirically–existence of god, soul, afterlife. Only one major claim of religions can be tested– efficacy of prayer–and has been shown to be nonsense.

  • Hmm. Those are some interesting questions. Why does God hide things in the scriptures? This is what I’ve noticed. When God “hides” things in the scriptures, they are usually hidden in plain view. It is not that they are hidden at all. Rather it is my own doubts and wickedness that prevents me from seeing what is right in front of my face. For example, in Genesis it says that God and God alone created the heavens and earth. Then a few sentences later it says “Let US create man in OUR image.” For years I couldn’t understand why this apparent “contradiction” was in the Bible, until one day it finally dawned on me: God was revealing his Triune character in the very first chapter of the Bible…An attribute of God, hidden in plain sight. Interesting, given the fact that God’s Triune nature was not formally revealed until a thousand years later when the New Testament was written.

  • I don’t really see how a mastadon skeleton is related to a war on science. At any rate, it is a war within science, between competing scientific views regarding the origins of humans that is going on. Only evolutionists call it a “religious war on science” because they want to discredit any point of view that differs from theirs.

  • This explanation of “us” flies in the face of every other Biblical reference, which all use discrete pronouns to emphasise the “mystery.” the separation but simultaneous singularity. It is, after all, a matter of faith. Your interpretation is not only wrong, but would likely be considered blasphemous.

  • You’re hinging a great deal of your belief here on one simple pronoun in one line, which disagrees with every other mention. It also disagrees with doctrine, in your interpretation of it. But you get to “know better.” I see no difference between your heresy, and make no mistake that that is exactly what this is, and someone “deciding” the Earth is flat, or there are mind-control chemicals in contrails. You’re delusional. Even within your delusion, you’re addled.

  • “scientists should be open to considering miracles in their theories and explanations.”

    I think we have misunderstanding about miracles. Bible says – “Be Still”. This is nothing but meditation. Bible also says – “If you have the ear then you will hear”. – This is all about yoga meditation. If you enhance your sense organs like ears, eyes, etc. by meditation, then nature will be revealed to you, and you will be able to see and create miracles with such yogic powers. Take a look at the yogic power chapter in the free book on soul theory at – https://theoryofsouls.wordpress.com/ Jesus gave eye sight to a blind person, this is not a miracle, this is yogic power. Modern high level yogis have shown that same power also. You probably know the placebo effect. It has been found that all diseases have been cured by placebo medicine. Again this is also yogic power that we all have inside us.

ADVERTISEMENTs