A subject no one (that I can tell) has brought up is, do you think a christian can be a scientist and still believe in what he does?

Personally I think that it can but many people that I know do not think so. When people say scientist they think of an evolutionist but there are many branches of science.



Infact there are evolutionary scientists (what ever they are called) that are christians and still believe in what they do and not in evolution at all. Some say that it isn't possible because they will be biased but same thing if a person who believes in evolution is a scientist.



Just something to think of. (Not a discussion of evolution vs. creationism :D )



-Steve

indeed a scientist can belong to any religion and yet advance the field of science. take for example (forgot the name.. will look it up) was a muslim doctor/ scientist that figured out by hanging meat around the city and seeing where bacteria and maggots are he could determine a place for which to build a hospital so that it is sanitary. also many muslims ages ago built the first medical encyclopedia! im not saying all scientific discoveries are by muslims, but those were the examples i could think of. i believe god may have put us here, but we are still left with many questions that involve how the world works. also i believe i heard of a church (i believe its a christian church) called "science of mind" and its about science and god, or atleast that is what i have heard , please feel free to correct me if i am wrong.

As ussr said, ANYONE can be a scientist as long as they look at their field and subjects objectively, always keeping the scientific method in mind.

Science should always reflect the idea of "Here are the facts, now what conclusions can we draw from them?", not "Ok, here's the conclusion, now what facts can we draw to support it?"

That's the kicker. Sure, there are plenty of scientists who are religious...but "Christian science" seems to go about science backwards...they have the "truth," now they try and find research that supports it.

I think this brings up the difference between spirituality and religion. If you can hold your belief in g(G)od no matter what scientific discoveries you make, then sure, you can hold both. But if you adhere strictly to one literal interpretation of your religion, you'll probably have difficulty maintaining the integrity of both (strict scientific method as well as strict adherence to your religion).

A "spiritual scientist" might be one who accepts that a universe made by g(G)od is larger than anything we can understand; by studying the world around us we are getting closer to it's creator. That way he/she can remain objective and maintain scientific integredy; after all, no matter what results they find, it's all part of g(G)od's universe.

But "christian scientists" aren't the ONLY ones that accept a conclusion, then go about finding facts to support it. There can be blunders like that in EVERY scientific field....

I think the only time it's actually BAD to be called a "christian scientist" is when the person in question is dealing with matters that religion might play a role in, such as evolution, the beginning of the universe, ancient history, etc, because once you call yourself or labelled a "christian scientist", you're automatically giving yourself a bias and pre-determined conclusion.

Yes indeed HM, anyone can undermine scientific method. I think this particular subject has been brought up before, so I won't ramble on too much.

An individual who tries to find scientific data to prove pre-existing text in his/her religion; a company that tries to manipulate research to convince the public of the safety or usefulness of their product; a government who uses scientific advisors to find data that supports their platform; or even the honest researcher who spends his/her life following scientific method, only to discover that the theory he/she had worked on for the last 30 years must be abandoned...so he/she defends it or reinterprets the data so that the theory can survive.

What I find interesting is that when scientific method is followed, great feats (positive and negative) have been accomplished. Cars, computers, medicine, practically everything in our daily lives. But when the same systematic method of problem-solving is used on questions such as the origin of life or the universe, "science" becomes a threat to the beliefs of many.

Need TOS, I think I may have found someone who fits your criteria of being a believer of Christianity, and Evolution. Dr. Francis S. Collins appeared on the Colbert Report, which turned out to be a hilarious interview.

Part 1

Part 2

Typical. The automatic assuption that Christians in science are bad unless they agree with evolutionists. has anyone asked, What if the Christians are right? Where is the impatiality? As I have stated many times "regular scientists" and "Christian scientists" both look at the same data and evidence when it comes to origins research. and bothhave their own starting presuppositions that will interpret the data and evidence differently. The way Evolutionists Champion their point of view it does fit the 4th definition of religion.

Seafox14

"As I have stated many times "regular scientists" and "Christian scientists" both look at the same data and evidence when it comes to origins research. and both have their own starting presuppositions that will interpret the data and evidence differently."

I am not sure this statement is completely accurate. It seems to be the case that some Christian scientists (i.e., those who subscribe to the religious---not scientific---dogma of literal interpretation of the Bible as the word of the godhead), will give a validity to Biblical text that other scientists would reject.
If the latter were to consider the Bible as pertinent data, they would subject it necessarily to the SAME historical, textual standards of criticism as any document, and they would most likely concentrate on the best example of the original text and not translations. Scientific evidence must be subject to the same rules as any object of investigation, and not receive special "dispensation" from this procedure.
It seems also that while either group of scientists look at the "same data" they do not look at it in the same way, nor do their initial suppositions have the same force. A scientist will first look at the data, then make a hypothesis, and then re-examine the data in that light, modifying or rejecting the hypothesis as the investigation continues. Christian scientists may very well begin with a notion, but it doesn't seem from what I have discerned, that the initial assumption is ever meaningfully challenged or modified (but this is only because the TRUTH is already known with certainty).


Regards,
John

The vast majority of scientists beleive in one God. They can be christian, muslim, budhist, etc. but science has evolved with their contribution. Even when they are dealing with matters that religion might play a role in, I think, most of the cases, they can be impartial, but...
Nowadays, science is seeing like a new rising faith and most of the time, some scientists, follow the pre-determined conclusions without asking themselves if they will be able to see new perspectives to analyze, especially if the matters are the beginning of the universe and creation.
I, personally, don't beleive in the beginning of the universe nor in creation, and for me, Universe is a closed system that always existed and like Lavoisier said, "In the universe nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is changed".
Like I said, the majority of scientists are God beleivers and in such limit cases like these, I think they are not able to get rid themselves of the sense of partiality.
Regards,
Darthy

I agree, Darthy. Everyone has beliefs. Even atheists have beliefs. They believe that there is no God. But anyways, no matter what you believe, your beliefs will influence you. There is no possible way to be 100% impartial, because your beliefs cause you to view science from a certain perspective. An evolutionist looks at a cell and thinks, "This is where it all began. This is the first form of life, everything has come from this." I look at a cell and think, "This is one of God's most amazing creations, the building blocks of His ultimate creation: Mankind." Your beliefs affect your judgement.
HereticMonkey, I have a question. Is evolution not a case of, "Okay, here's the conclusion. Now, what facts can we draw to support this?" Darwin looked at some different species of birds and said, "Based on my observations, these birds evolved from a single bird a few million years ago, and that bird evolved from lesser creatures, and so on..." and scientist took that and tried, and are trying, to come up with the facts to support it. For instance: Missing links. That's exactly what they are. Missing. Nowhere to be found. Scientists have been searching for them ever since evolution was invented. Have they really found any? Nope. Do they even exist? Chances are pretty good they don't.

wasnt Newton a christian along with just about every great scientist from that era??

What about archaeopteryx? It's a dinosaur with bird-like traits (or a bird with reptilian traits, depending on your point of view). Take a look, see what you think.

Also, though I am no expert on the subject, as I understand it missing links should be rare. In order to have a large amount of fossil evidence, you'd need a given species to be around for a while. If a transitional creature was plentiful and lasted a long time, it wouldn't be "transitional."

As far as religion and scientists go: yes, most people have some sort of religion; most scientists are humans...therefore the odds are, most scientists will be religious.

The question is: can someone hold their faith and simultaneously practice scientific method? I think it's possible, if the person is open-minded enough and has enough discipline. But again, we're human, and no one is "perfect" when it comes to holding a dispassionate view of the world.

I agree with most of the posters that it is most certainly possible to be a Christian and a Scientist. How ever for what its worth here is a quote I like;

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny ...'
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)

If I remember correctly, (someone stated somewhere else..) that God created science?

Sounds like an oxymoron to some.

Well, the argument may go something like this: g(G)od creates the universe, and along the way creates humans. Humans develop a tool called "science" to learn about the universe.

So in a sense, if you believe g(G)od created the universe, then he/she/it created science as well.

This again brings up the idea that if g(G)od exists and we use science to learn about the universe he/she/it created, how can science contradict g(G)od? In other words, science only contradicts tight religious interpretation. Such interperatation is created by humans, not g(G)od.

EDIT: Though if the above line of reasoning is true...that science is contained within the universe and is therefore created by g(G)od...I imagine all religious interperatations would have to be created by g(G)od as well. Hmm, the thot plickens...

i think that might have been me. i say that to myself a lot

of course a christian can be a scientist. my biology teacher knew her subject very well and she also knew her faith very well. when it came things like evolution, she would tell us what we needed to know. we all knew that she personally did not believe in evolution (she made that clear) but what i thought was amazing was how she could still teach it well. she approached it objectively, and never turned up her nose to say "well, some SCIENTISTS say this, but i dont really think so, because god. . ." or something like that. she knew what she believed and she also knew what she was supposed to teach and she seemed to be totally cool with it.

A christian scientist can still deal with evolution and not be doubted if he/she supplies facts to support the statement being made. I don't see anything wrong with it. What many do is look over evidence that can support christianity just because they have always taught it s being wrong and don't want to be wrong.

-Steve

yeah, its kinda like disbelief can make a scientist JUST as partial as belief can.

Belief is the DEATH of inteligence. (Robert Anton Wilson....i think?)

I think it should be...

Belief is the death of inteligence...BELIEVE ME!!!

I think there are fundamental contradictions going on EVERYWHERE, i keep spotting them, its so funny

It may not really be a matter of can a Christian be a Scientist or vice vercer, but maybe more a matter of how valid are their conclusions? And THAT is a matter of belief!

The concept of evidence through consistency takes just as much belief as spirituality, its just easier, if anything it can consume people just as much also...weird

Society has become so caught up in the scientific "logical" evidence "bound" way of thinking that it can inhibit all sorts of other perspectives and explanations from being explored. I suppose it IS Sciences advancements that have brought a wealth of innovation and advancement into humanity, but while appreciating this it is often used to disreguard the things (practices, perspectives, phenomena etc) that both the scientific method and Christian beliefs can not apply or explain....THROUGH their lack of belief, yeeeah he he,

Aaaaaah, my brain is meltinggggg (strained voice).

RIGHT! thats definately enough thought on that topic he he he

BYE! nn23

That is my point nn23. If a christian found a way to disprove evolution that was correct then almost no one would believe him/her. Now if an atheist or an evolutionists 20 years down the road comes to the same conclusion then everyone would believe him/her. People would not trust the christian scientists because he/she went out to disprove evolution yet they would believe the other non-christian scientists. People do not seem to take the christians evidence seriously because they think that it all comes from the Bible yet there are a great number of facts that prove that the Bible is true and that disprove parts of evolution that have no root in the Bible at all. Seems odd that christians are called closed minded when atheists or evolutionists refuse to look at or take the evidence supplied by christians seriously or examine it closely enough.

-Steve

hmmm, that wasnt reeeaally my point (unless i've misunderstood what you just said he he) although what i was saying can be adapted nicely to fit in with what your saying, that is a possibility yes.

There will always be a conflict between christians and non-christians. My point wasnt in support of any particular perspective of science but infact questioning all of our methods of conclusion as a whole towards EVERYTHING !

NICE ONE!!! nn23

I know exactly what you mean, and I took it and used it to my purpose. I did like what you were saying very smart ideas.

-Steve

AWWWWWW CHEERS MATE



In that case i misunderstood that you understood

NICE ONE!!! nn23

It's ok

Simple misunderstanding. Dang electronic stuff that makes communication confusing.

-Steve

Faith and Science are definitely not mutually exclusive. It just so happens that some backward snake-dancers refuse to acknowledge it and have given Christians a bad rap... "Evolution" is a proven condition... within limits. It has been shown that living things adapt genetically to their environment. What has NOT been proven, is that I'm descended from a monkey. There are gaps in evolution that thus far have not been acceptably explained.

Now, science on the whole.... a rational medthod by which we glean greater understanding of the universe... if looked at objectively, science provides massive amounts of evidence to SUPPORT the idea of an intelligent creationary force.

The belief that our reality is the product of some infinitely unlikely cosmic accident? doesn't that seem a little ridiculous?

Just my thoughts

If you are interested in this topic, take a look at the book "The Language of God"

What if "truth" were not the same thing for science and religion? What if the "rules" and procedures for establishing the truth of one were completely different? We sometimes, I think, assume that because we use the same word for both science and religion, that it means the same thing, or one thing only.
It might be that what we call truth is actually a useful falsehood, what then?
It might be that what we call truth is not a destination to arrive at, but the process of "moving toward...".


Cheers,
John

What about Max Planck? Quantum leap?
It seems that Max Planck was pretty conservative man, and his conclusion that the energy emitted by a resonator could only take on discrete values or quanta disturbed him, as it was common belief at his time that nature doesn`t make leaps (old Roman proverb).
Well, his son wrote in Max Planck`s biography, about one walk he had with his father in august 1900, when MP spoked about quanta and was very disturbed because common theory could not explain why fotons/electrons behave as they do and quanta theory do. He did not imagine himself as a revolutionary of any kind.
I`m not sure, but I think Max Planck exposed his theory in november 1900. He knew that idea about quanta would be received from phisicists as a fist in the face, and it was, yet he had courrage and scientific honesty to stand for it. He was the only one who believed in it `till Einstein published his explanation of the photoelectric effect (1907 ?).
Think about, what if Max Planck decided to go for common beliefs instead for his conclusion?
And, IMHO, religion is about faith and beliefs, and science is about facts and conclusion. Feeling does not equal knowledge, and it is not a scientific approach to put an equity mark here.
This puts religious scientists in dillema: are they scientists and religious, or religious and scientists; at least in some scientific disciplines? And for the rest of us there is a question: how much are we ready to let go our outdated prejudices and think as we never knew anything about some subject (or should I say "object")?

Plain and simple, religion and science (logic) do not and should not mix. Religion relies on faith. Science relies on fact and logic. See why they don't mix?