Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Can Christians Believe in Science and the Resurrection?
Christian Post ^ | 04/03/2015 | Napp Nazworth

Posted on 04/03/2015 8:05:39 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-77 next last
To: Gamecock

Neither of them are subject to the scientific method by means of experimental disingenuous. Perhaps by analogy at best.


21 posted on 04/03/2015 8:35:00 AM PDT by johniegrad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: johniegrad

No idea why autocorrect would give me “disingenuous”. Should have been design.


22 posted on 04/03/2015 8:36:13 AM PDT by johniegrad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

“The scientific method was created by men in an attempt to define the universe created by God. The scientific method is limited, God is not.”

Do you even know what the scientific method is?


23 posted on 04/03/2015 8:40:12 AM PDT by TexasGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ladyjane
If we have learned anything from science - it’s that we know so little.

And what is known (and taught) continues to vary from textbook to textbook, school to school, and from one year to the next. Frequently, scientists in different disciplines have contests to see who can shout louder and pee farther. The winner wins the contest and THAT is the new "science".

Technology, on the other hand, continues to morph into astounding magic, with more signs and wonders to come.
24 posted on 04/03/2015 8:40:17 AM PDT by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero
scientists in different disciplines have contests to see who can shout louder and pee farther. The winner wins the contest and THAT is the new "science".

LOL. You described modern science perfectly.

Now they claim the big bang theory doesn't work. For decades the Christians knew the evolution theory didn't work either, but Science politics allows it to stand as fact anyway.

25 posted on 04/03/2015 8:45:48 AM PDT by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: katana

“There is no “supernatural”

That is an atheist premise.


26 posted on 04/03/2015 8:49:25 AM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

“Don’t people get tired of this brain-dead 19th century style rationalism?”

That’s what strikes me. It is so sophomoric.

It’s the sort of thing a Jr High student might think is a new idea.


27 posted on 04/03/2015 8:51:02 AM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

What actually happens with predictable regularity, and therefore can be tested, is what drives science. The singular event with an unexpected cause, be it miraculous or a matter of coincidence(s) or simply observed only once and unrepeated, is beyond the realm of science, since there is no way of testing it. Historical facts (even so mundane as “George Washington was the first President of the United States under the Constitution”) are outside the realms of science.


28 posted on 04/03/2015 8:52:21 AM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

hmmm... the wording of the phrase “believe in science” is telling.


29 posted on 04/03/2015 8:52:34 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
A thousand years ago, Anselm of Canterbury put forth one of the first carefully constructed ontological arguments for the existence of God. He summed up quite nicely the relationship between faith and empiricism: "I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this I believe: that unless I believe, I should not understand."

Almost a millennia later, CS Lewis commented on his personal aversion to the terms, "supernatural," "paranormal," and the like, pointing out that, while many regard God as a, "supernatural," being, nothing could possibly more, "natural," than the Creator of all things. Lewis further went on to point out that it is nothing but human vanity and hubris to call something "supernatural," merely because it escapes our comprehension. He pointed out that is wasn't too many centuries ago when people thought an eclipse was a dragon devouring the sun or moon, and in terms of the history of humanity, it's only been a pretty recent development that we've come to (better) understand the movements of the celestial bodies. We hate to think that a few centuries down the road, our posterity will look back on us as ignorant and superstitious about a great many things, but assuredly, they will.

As an aside, one of the great explorations of the relationship, tension and reconciliation between faith and scients from an artistic standpoint was in the series, "The X-Files." Mulder, "wanted to believe," and sought the truth that was, "out there," chasing cryptids, aliens and ghosts, while expressing skepticism about Scully's devout Catholicism, when in fact, she was the scientist sent to debunk his pursuits. A lot of people watch the show for the well written stories and production value, but entirely miss out on that aspect of it's exploration of the nature of faith and science.

30 posted on 04/03/2015 8:53:04 AM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Qui me amat, amat et canem meum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan

There is no supernatural


That’s a rather enormously arrogant statement.
Basically - I somehow know that nothing exists beyond my ability to observe it.


31 posted on 04/03/2015 8:53:49 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: TexasGator

Do you?


32 posted on 04/03/2015 8:54:10 AM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan

“Do you?”

Yes.


33 posted on 04/03/2015 8:57:14 AM PDT by TexasGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

Interesting quote by Lewis. But I think his argument is purely semantic with respect to what is meant by “natural”.


34 posted on 04/03/2015 8:58:40 AM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: TexasGator

Explain your question to the other guy then.


35 posted on 04/03/2015 8:59:10 AM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MrB
"Basically - I somehow know that nothing exists beyond my ability to observe it."

What color is hatred? Is courage rough textured or smooth? Please tell me what they look like when you observe them, or do such things as hatred or courage not exist?

36 posted on 04/03/2015 9:00:00 AM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Qui me amat, amat et canem meum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

No. Brain-dead 19th century style rationalism gives them permission to sin.


37 posted on 04/03/2015 9:00:19 AM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
an audience member who identified himself as a rabbi said "the elephant in the room has not been discussed," which he identified as, "that the fundamental basis of Christianity is a violation of nature."

Yes, yet it is. That's why we call it a miracle. I don't see what's so difficult about that concept.

They believe, he said, "that the resurrection is an actual event, not just a metaphorical one."

It better be.

"If we have been united to him in a death like his, we will be united to him in a resurrection like his."

38 posted on 04/03/2015 9:04:06 AM PDT by Lee N. Field ("And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise" Gal 3:29)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Hi MrB. Your not being 100% clear, but I think I figured out what you mean and think agree.

The atheist is hubristic and ultimately, ironically, anti science.


39 posted on 04/03/2015 9:04:52 AM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

I’m not declaring they don’t exist.


40 posted on 04/03/2015 9:06:56 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-77 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson