Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Christian Scientist?!?!


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 need TOS

need TOS

  • Members
  • 888 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Akron,OH
  • Local time:06:27 AM

Posted 15 January 2007 - 02:39 PM

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
Forgiveness is forgetting about a past that could have been

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


m

#2 ussr1943

ussr1943

  • Members
  • 490 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Local time:06:27 AM

Posted 15 January 2007 - 07:34 PM

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.

Edited by ussr1943, 15 January 2007 - 07:35 PM.

"Ideas are far more powerful than guns."
"The only truly secure system is one that is powered off, cast in a block of concrete and sealed in a lead-lined room with armed guards -- and even then I have my doubts." --Eugene H. Spafford
"One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter"

#3 Heretic Monkey

Heretic Monkey

  • Members
  • 1,122 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NCSU
  • Local time:06:27 AM

Posted 16 January 2007 - 01:03 AM

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?"

Edited by Heretic Monkey, 16 January 2007 - 01:04 AM.


#4 locally pwned

locally pwned

  • Members
  • 489 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon
  • Local time:02:27 AM

Posted 16 January 2007 - 12:38 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?"


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.
"The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking." - Albert Einstein

"The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion." - Thomas Paine

"If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands." - Douglas Adams

#5 Heretic Monkey

Heretic Monkey

  • Members
  • 1,122 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NCSU
  • Local time:06:27 AM

Posted 16 January 2007 - 03:39 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.

Edited by Heretic Monkey, 16 January 2007 - 03:41 PM.


#6 locally pwned

locally pwned

  • Members
  • 489 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon
  • Local time:02:27 AM

Posted 16 January 2007 - 08:17 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.
"The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking." - Albert Einstein

"The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion." - Thomas Paine

"If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands." - Douglas Adams

#7 rsd79

rsd79

  • Members
  • 180 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oilers Country
  • Local time:03:27 AM

Posted 19 January 2007 - 05:57 AM

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

Edited by rsd79, 19 January 2007 - 05:59 AM.

Dustin Penner is the new Jaromir Jagr.

#8 seafox14

seafox14

  • Members
  • 266 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Location:Bossier City, Louisiana
  • Local time:04:27 AM

Posted 19 January 2007 - 06:22 AM

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.



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
5 So put to death the sinful, earthly things lurking within you. Have nothing to do with sexual immorality, impurity, lust, and evil desires. Donít be greedy, for a greedy person is an idolater, worshiping the things of this world

#9 jgweed

jgweed

  • Staff Emeritus
  • 28,473 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Il.
  • Local time:05:27 AM

Posted 19 January 2007 - 10:51 AM

"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

Edited by jgweed, 19 January 2007 - 12:08 PM.

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should be silent.

#10 Darthy

Darthy

    The red side of the Force


  • Members
  • 1,217 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Solar System of Ors
  • Local time:11:27 AM

Posted 19 January 2007 - 11:51 AM

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. :thumbsup:
Regards,
Darthy
Εν οίδα οτι ουδέν οίδα - Socrates
Thanks John

#11 inertiatic

inertiatic

  • Members
  • 13 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:05:27 AM

Posted 21 January 2007 - 01:49 PM

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.

Edited by inertiatic, 21 January 2007 - 01:50 PM.

"Kids need to learn how to weasel out of things. It's what separates us from the animals... except for the weasel."

#12 BlackSpyder

BlackSpyder

    Bleeping Big Rig


  • BC Advisor
  • 2,456 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Huddleston, VA USA (Home Sweet Home)
  • Local time:06:27 AM

Posted 21 January 2007 - 03:15 PM

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

Posted Image




#13 locally pwned

locally pwned

  • Members
  • 489 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon
  • Local time:02:27 AM

Posted 21 January 2007 - 05:43 PM

...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.


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.
"The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking." - Albert Einstein

"The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion." - Thomas Paine

"If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands." - Douglas Adams

#14 Constantine

Constantine

  • Members
  • 275 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Location:Byron Bay, Australia
  • Local time:08:27 PM

Posted 21 January 2007 - 05:56 PM

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)
I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.

#15 yano

yano

    I can see what you post!


  • Members
  • 6,469 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:05:27 AM

Posted 21 January 2007 - 06:59 PM

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

Sounds like an oxymoron to some.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users