Posted on 05/21/2007 12:32:22 AM PDT by goldstategop
Yes. We need to listen to people with expertise in both fields.
I'd guess that most of those "dually-certified "people would be religious scientists.
“There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.”
Another Norris trusim: “Guns don’t kill people, Chuck Norris kills people.”
It makes sense to listen to folks who are both religious and scientific, if we are discussing God and science.
Among the great polymaths of the Scientific Revolution, Copernicus was a mathematician, astronomer, jurist, physician, classical scholar, Catholic cleric, governor, administrator, military leader, diplomat and economist. Amid his extensive responsibilities, astronomy figured as little more than an avocation.
How about Kepler?
Kepler also incorporated religious arguments and reasoning into his work, motivated by the religious conviction that God had created the world according to an intelligible plan which was accessible through the natural light of reason.
Known for Discovering modern genetics Gregor Johann Mendel ... was a Moravian[2] Augustinian priest and scientist often called the "father of modern genetics" for his study of the inheritance of traits in pea plants.
Galileo dismissed as a "useless fiction" the idea, held by his contemporary Johannes Kepler, that the moon caused the tides.[12]Galileo also refused to accept Kepler's elliptical orbits of the planets,[13] considering the circle the "perfect" shape for planetary orbits.
Galileo was not always right.
Although the laws of motion and universal gravitation became Newton's best-known discoveries, he warned against using them to view the universe as a mere machine, as if akin to a great clock. He said, "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."[11]
A student of natural philosophy, he proposed an early atomic theory of matter, formulated the first definition of an element and conducted rigorous experiments with detailed documentation.With his Oxford assistant Robert Hooke, Boyle devised an air pump that allowed him to experiment with vacuums and the properties of gases, metals, combustion and sound. He is known for Boyle's law, which states that the pressure and volume of gas at a constant temperature have an inversely proportional relationship ...A prolific writer throughout his career, he wrote on matters of science and religion and posthumously financed a lecture series designed to use science to defend Christianity.
That's agnosticism, not atheism.
It's a step of faith, just as it is a step of faith to proclaim that there is no God.
Oh, we can complain, just as atheists have complained about us for decades. (Also, it always helps to keep informed on what the 'enemy' is doing.)
The atheists are not alone in seeing science and religion as opposed. To borrow a phrase from William F. Buckley, religion (specifically Christianity) has repeatedly stood athwart the path of science yelling "Stop!".
Oh, well, William F Buckley. He is the authority on all things. ::sarcasm tag if needed::
When the atheist declares that religion is false, the believer must agree with respect to every religion but one.
And? Does the fact that one claims all others are false mean that whatever the person doing the claiming believes in is also false? Sorry that does not follow.
While science has made a persuasive case that the past of the universe is finite, that case also shows that the age of the universe is vastly greater than the theologians ever conceived. The claim that the latter have been proved right is ludicrous.
It is just as valid an argument as trying to claim that the current belief in the scientific community as regards the age of the universe proves the atheist right. (Not saying you are making that argument, but plenty have tried to do so.)
This is the issue of answers, not the existence of the deity of your choice (although in that sense, a Christian is only one step away from being an atheist). Both agnostics and atheists have to admit they don't know everything, that there are things that will probably never be known in their lifetimes, if ever.
The religious can rest in the belief that even if they don't know something, their deity knows everything. If they don't know it they can always make it up and assign it to the knowledge of the deity, thus making it truth.
Don’t argue with Chuck Norris.
Thus the Christian takes the step of faith to proclaim that Thor, or any of countless gods, does not exist. Does that make the Christian a Norseman?
ping...
Why would someone proclaim there is no God?
For many people the question of whether there is or is not a God just never comes up. Why should it?
I know there is no Phoenix, but I don’t go around proclaiming it ;>).
I happen to be an atheist, but have no interest in disuading anyone from following what they believe. You may or may not have seen one of my defences of Christianity. For example: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1726998/posts
My interest is in “reason.” You made a reasoned argument and I was only pointing out the same argument can be used for its opposite—which means it’s not an argument at all, obviously.
If you claim your belief in God is a matter of faith, I have no argument against that. Frankly, I don’t know what you mean by faith. The only means I have to knowledge is reason and the only faculty I know of for reason is the mind. If there is something else that is a means to knowledge, perhaps you’ll be kind enough to point out what it is (faith?) and the faculty by which one “does” it.
My questions are only out of interest and curiosity, not meant to offend or argue any point, and possibly to give you a chance to argue your view a little. Not all atheists are anti-Christian. I could hardly demand the right to believe as I do without demanding the same right for all men, no matter how much I might disagree with them.
Hank
You'd have to ask the ones who do it, but plenty do. Some go to great lengths to do so. (Dawkins comes to mind.)
For many people the question of whether there is or is not a God just never comes up. Why should it?
Well, if they are on this thread, the question has come up. ;) Actually, if someone has never even considered whether there is a God or not, I don't know that they would be classified as an atheist in the 'classical' sense. I would think they would be more of an agnostic (as in "I don't know if there is a God or not).
Frankly, I don’t know what you mean by faith.
Belief in something, i.e. trusting that it is true without being able to physically prove it to be true. Such as believing that God does or does not exist. Or even believing that someone loves you.
The only means I have to knowledge is reason and the only faculty I know of for reason is the mind.
Depends on what you mean by 'reason'. Reason seems to be in the eye of the beholder. As an example, in the eyes of the gang member, it is perfectly logical for him to shoot someone wearing the colors of a rival gang. That does not seem like a logical choice to me, however.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.