What is the real reason christians join scientific forums?

M

Medicine*Woman

Jesus: Mythstory--Not History!
Valued Senior Member
*************
M*W: I asked this question when we were living at the refugee camp. This ended up being the most responded to question on that religion forum, so I'm asking folks here, what is the real reason christians join scientific forums? It can't possibly be to become informed, because they obviously don't want to know anything other than what they already believe. Perhaps it could indicate a flicker of doubt for some? Or is it truthfully just to try and convert the rest of us? That's my guess.
 
Last edited:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1034872,00.html

"'Science cannot provide all the answers'

Why do so many scientists believe in God? Tim Radford reports

Thursday September 4, 2003
The Guardian


C olin Humphreys is a dyed-in-the-wool materialist. That is, he is professor of materials science at Cambridge. He believes in the power of science to explain the nature of matter. He believes that humans - like all other living things - evolved through the action of natural selection upon random mutation. He is also a Baptist. He believes in the story of Moses, as recounted in the biblical book of Exodus. He believes in it enough to have explored Egypt and the Holy Land in search of natural or scientific explanations for the story of the burning bush, the 10 plagues of Egypt, the crossing of the Red Sea and the manna that fell in the wilderness -and then written a book about it.
"I believe that the scientific world view can explain almost anything," he says. "But I just think there is another world view as well."

Tom McLeish is professor of polymer physics at Leeds. Supermarket plastic bags are polymers, but so are spider's silk, sheep's wool, sinew and flesh and bone. His is the intricate world of what is, and how it works, down to the molecular level. He delights in the clarity and power of science, precisely because it is questioning rather than dogmatic. "But the questions that arise, and the methods we use to ask them, can be traced back to the religious tradition in which I find myself. Doing science is part of what it means in that tradition to be human. Because we find ourselves in this puzzling, extraordinary universe of pain and beauty, we will also find ourselves able to explore it, by adopting the very successful methods of science," he says.

Russell Stannard is now emeritus professor of physics at the Open University. He is one of the atom-smashers, picking apart the properties of matter, energy, space and time, and the author of a delightful series of children's books about tough concepts such as relativity theory. He believes in the power of science. He not only believes in God, he believes in the Church of England. He, like Tom McLeish, is a lay reader. He has con tributed Thoughts for the Day to Radio 4, those morning homilies on the mysteries of existence. Does it worry him that science - his science - could be about to explain the whole story of space, time matter and energy without any need for a Creator? "No, because a starting point you can have is: why is there something rather than nothing? Why is there a world? Now I cannot see how science could ever provide an answer,"
 
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html

"Evolution and Religion Can Coexist, Scientists Say
Stefan Lovgren
for National Geographic News

October 18, 2004
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein

Joel Primack has a long and distinguished career as an astrophysicist. A University of California, Santa Cruz, professor, he co-developed the cold dark matter theory that seeks to explain the formation and structure of the universe.

Email to a Friend

RELATED
Adolescence Came Late in Human Evolution, Study Shows
Fins to Limbs: New Fossil Gives Evolution Insight
Prehistoric DNA to Help Solve Human-Evolution Mysteries?
New Theory Drastically Rethinks Evolution of Early Life
Earth Gases May Provide Clues to Evolution of Life
When Did "Modern" Behavior Emerge in Humans?

He also believes in God.


That may strike some people as peculiar. After all, in some corners popular belief renders science and religion incompatible.

Yet scientists may be just as likely to believe in God as other people, according to surveys. Some of history's greatest scientific minds, including Albert Einstein, were convinced there is intelligent life behind the universe. Today many scientists say there is no conflict between their faith and their work.

"In the last few years astronomy has come together so that we're now able to tell a coherent story" of how the universe began, Primack said. "This story does not contradict God, but instead enlarges [the idea of] God."
 
Medicine Woman said:
*************
M*W: I asked this question when we were living at the refugee camp. This ended up being the most responded to question on that religion forum, so I'm asking folks here, what is the real reason christians join scientific forums? It can't possibly be to become informed, because they obviously don't want to know anything other than what they already believe. Perhaps it could indicate a flicker of doubt for some? Or is it truthfully just to try and convert the rest of us? That's my guess.
Click to expand...





"Famous Scientists Who Believed in God

Belief in God?
Is belief in the existence of God irrational? These days, many famous scientists are also strong proponents of atheism. However, in the past, and even today, many scientists believe that God exists and is responsible for what we see in nature. This is a small sampling of scientists who contributed to the development of modern science while believing in God.

Rich Deem
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.

Sir Fancis Bacon (1561-1627)
Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.

Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.

Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."

Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.

Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.

Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.

William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).

Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Imagine, all these theists pretending they desire to be informed? Deluded, yet they contributed, how is this possible? How do deluded men with bipolar disorder (quote from another thread) manage to contribute so much to science ?
 
Last edited:
So medicine woman, being as theists have contributed greatly to science and many scientists are theists is it ok if they join a science forum, with your permission of course................


Do be sure to copy and paste all your arguments from the other forum where you had this discussion already won't you.

Perhaps a link would be easier for you.
 
Last edited:
I really have no energy to get into the "Einstein was a theist" debate again... TOR isn't worth it anyway.
 
KennyJC said:
I really have no energy to get into the "Einstein was a theist" debate again... TOR isn't worth it anyway.
Click to expand...

try the other 9 then

Meanwhile the thread is insinuating theists have no place on a science forum, clearly bollocks. Unless you have evidence to contrary.
 
I don't care about the other 9, just Einstein. I already know that many scientists are (or at least were) religious. Brilliant scientists they may be, but if they believe in an intelligent creator, in that regard are irrational and superstitious.

Theists have place in science so long as they keep their bullshit superstitions out of it. With most theists, that is sadly not the case. Following science reduces the role a God plays as it can not be found, which is why most theists are threatened by evolution.
 
KennyJC said:
I don't care about the other 9, just Einstein. I already know that many scientists are (or at least were) religious. Brilliant scientists they may be, but if they believe in an intelligent creator, in that regard are irrational and superstitious.

Theists have place in science so long as they keep their bullshit superstitions out of it. With most theists, that is sadly not the case. Following science reduces the role a God plays as it can not be found, which is why most theists are threatened by evolution.
Click to expand...

theists are part of science as I have shown so you are the one spouting bullshit, you are the one afraid.
 
http://www.y-origins.com/?gclid=CMXEjrbN54YCFTogMAodh3HaAA

"

Q. WHAT IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN?

A. Scientists have discovered a universe that is brimming with intelligence. Einstein observed that behind mathematics and physics is what he called “an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.” When Stephen Hawking saw the evidence for a finely-tuned universe he remarked, "There must be religious overtones, but I think most scientists prefer to shy away from the religious side of it."[/COLOR]

In fact, many leading scientists, regardless of their religious persuasion, have made similar observations about apparent intelligence behind the laws of our universe. Thus, intelligent design is merely drawing the best inferences from scientific observation as it applies to our origins. (See Articles 1-5).


Q. IS THE ARGUMENT FOR DESIGN BASED ON SCIENTIFIC IGNORANCE?

A. On the contrary. If you’ve ever watched Disney’s Fantasia, you may recall a god casting thunderbolts down from the clouds. Lightning bolts, rainbows, and many other natural phenomena were once explained as divine intervention. Such thinking is referred to as god-of-the-gaps reasoning—attributing the mysterious to a divine hand.

But, today’s intelligent design arguments are based upon a growing body of scientific evidence concerning everything from DNA to the laws of physics; and upon our uniform and repeated experience.

Design theorists offer extensive evidence that blind, material causes are incapable of building irreducibly complex and information-rich systems. They then point out that whenever we know how such systems arose—such as with an integrated circuit, a car engine, or a software program—invariably a designing engineer played a role. Design theorists then extend this uniform experience to things like molecular machines and the sophisticated code needed to build even the first and simplest of cells. An increasing number of leading scholars attest that increased scientific knowledge about such things has greatly strengthened the argument for design (See Articles 1–5). "
 
theists are part of science as I have shown so you are the one spouting bullshit, you are the one afraid.
Click to expand...

Yes, and I said they are part of science so long as they don't let their superstitions impede it's process... as has happened for hundreds of years.

But to the few theists who accept the truth of science, good for them. Welcome to rationalism. The rest can go take a run and jump into heaven for all I care.
 
KennyJC said:
Yes, and I said they are part of science so long as they don't let their superstitions impede it's process... as has happened for hundreds of years.

But to the few theists who accept the truth of science, good for them. Welcome to rationalism. The rest can go take a run and jump into heaven for all I care.
Click to expand...

you are falling behind with the times, science is realising the more it looks the more likely it is intelligent design not mere accident.

You are a flat earthist who cannot accept change, science made the mistake of denying the obvious now it is changing it's view.
 
Where did consciousness come from before humans/animals appeared on the planet? How did it manifest?

(note, don't try the big brain theory as it took a VERY long time for that brain size to evolve, so how many brain cells are required before a thing becomes conscious?)
 
science is realising the more it looks the more likely it is intelligent design not mere accident.
Click to expand...

No it's not. At best you have a few philisophical quotes taken out of context. Nothing to do with scientific principles.
 
Please tell me this isnt going to become an ID vs Evolution debate... because if it is... FSM :D
 
Theoryofrelativity said:
Where did consciousness come from before humans/animals appeared on the planet? How did it manifest?

(note, don't try the big brain theory as it took a VERY long time for that brain size to evolve, so how many brain cells are required before a thing becomes conscious?)
Click to expand...

Who says consciousness existed before animal life evolved on this planet?
 
Theoryofrelativity said:
no intelligent design theory is on the up, you are on the down.
Click to expand...

Only amongst the deeply religious. The scientific community believe the evidence that supports evolution science.
It's no surprise that some theists choose a career in biology, chemistry, whatever, but that doesn't make religion responsible for scientific progress.
Sure, anyone can argue that an intelligent creator is responsible for all existence, but so what? What does that have to do with Moses or Jesus?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top