BleepingComputer.com: Christian Scientist?!?!

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.

This post has been edited by ussr1943: 15 January 2007 - 07:35 PM

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?"

This post has been edited by Heretic Monkey: 16 January 2007 - 01:04 AM

[quote name='Heretic Monkey' post='432092' date='Jan 15 2007, 10:03 PM']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?"[/quote]

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.

This post has been edited by Heretic Monkey: 16 January 2007 - 03:41 PM

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

This post has been edited by rsd79: 19 January 2007 - 05:59 AM

[quote name='Heretic Monkey' post='432427' date='Jan 16 2007, 02:39 PM']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.[/quote]

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 [u]both[/u]have 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

This post has been edited by jgweed: 19 January 2007 - 12:08 PM

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.

This post has been edited by inertiatic: 21 January 2007 - 01:50 PM

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

[quote name='inertiatic' post='435694' date='Jan 21 2007, 10:49 AM']...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.[/quote]

What about [url="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#introduction"]archaeopteryx[/url]? 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.