Christian, Why Don't You Reject Modern Science, All of It?
It's simply amazing that Christians accept the findings of science in every single area except the few having to do with their ancient holy book. That's one of the reasons why David Eller argues there is no debate between science and religion. [Read and vote on my review of his book right here]. The debate is rather between specific local religions and specific scientific claims. Why the duplicity? Why the double standard? Why not just throw out all science in order to maintain faith? Why not?
7 comments:
Probably because Christians enjoy modern healthcare, driving cars, and surfing the internet for porn.
John, please stop this.
1. Which Christians exactly are you talking to?
2. Take a look at this thread: http://www.premiercommunity.org.uk/group/unbelievable/forum/topics/bean-good-lately
Now tell me who was throwing out scientific advancement for the sake of their worldview.
Do I need to mention "Steady State"?
Continually beating the drums like this makes the other arguments on this site look bad.
You wrote, "Why not just throw out all science in order to maintain faith?"
I don't see science or religion as being perfect --- both have drawn and put into practice some very real and very condemning conclusions. However, there is grace for human error whether it be in the area of scientific discovery or the practice of religion. It is possible for people to be discerning without being hypocritical. In fact, if people are not allowed the liberty to sort out between that which is constructive and that which is not, then we are, indeed, under the reign of a very cruel, impersonal and abusive system.
Take care,
3M
Brad,
I can introduce you to some of the Christians John is talking about. I have a few in my own family. Don't play dumb and claim that these people don't exist. As it is, even if you don't have a problem with science, there is no doubt in my mind that I can find serious flaws in your epistemology, which is effectively the same thing.
As for your second item. You're clearly reading far more into that than you should be. Within the abstract of the article you reference, the authors themselves are hedging their bets, calling their results "compelling" but not necessarily incontrovertible. From the abstract alone, it's obvious that more work needs to be done before you can validly level your accusation.
A single esoteric article without a lot of corroborating evidence does not spell instant paradigm shift. It may signal the start of a shift, but this alone is not enough for everyone to all of a sudden decide that it is time to start rewriting textbooks. Especially for a journal article that was published barely three months ago.
Einstein's paper on the photoelectric effect didn't automatically usher in the era of quantum mechanics even though it's findings clearly contradicted the classical interpretation. It was this paper plus a whole lot of other things that ultimately caused the break from classical physics. Until the shift actually occurred, most physicists of the time looked at these findings with a lot of curiosity, such curiosity and reserving judgment is not the same thing as throwing out advancement to uphold a worldview. It is, however, a hallmark of scientific conservatism to hold off throwing out well established theories at the first sign of trouble just because we encounter something that we don't really understand yet, or find something that doesn't appear to fit quite right.
I find that modern science has shown the creation story in the Bible to be myth. I just take that part out. I like the book of proverbs myself and the good teachings of Christ along with the love chapter. I sort of just pick out the good and realize that the bad is due to human error.
"I sort of just pick out the good and realize that the bad is due to human error."
And the good is also due to humans trying to get things right, no? Isn't the whole bible human?
Hey Andre,
I see Christ as showing divine love. I guess you could say it's just human if you wanted to. I don't see it that way.
Post a Comment