Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: AndyTheBear

“So the problem is not fundamentalism, the problem is what one is fundamental about.”

I completely agree. I have stated I know plenty of fundamentalist Christians who have no problem with science.....alas I know many who ARE in science.

The “problem” - and the reason I post on these threads is that when folks use their interpretation of the Bible to try to control other people - in this regard, the most militant of creationists - they are present on this and other threads - who want to control other people through their interpretation of religion - are very similar to militant Islamists, hence the comparison to the Taliban.

I do not think your example of two doctrines is representative of any of my posted views.

The scientific method is tolerant of opposing views - if they have gone through the scrutiny of peer review. The scientific method actually relies on breakthroughs and new insights - it’s how science is done. It is the best way that man has created to advance understanding.

militant creationism is driven by fanatical fundamentalism - you are going to hell (or are not truly Christian, or....) if you do not believe x,y and z.

They create a victimization mentality by claiming that all ideas are equal, and the scientific community is biased against THEIR science - when it is not true. “Creation Science” simply has not provided the level of proof to refute centuries of study and understanding. Should new ideas come from “Creation Science” and pass muster - it will be incorporated into the body of scientific knowledge. Sometimes it takes persistence and more research, but facts and research and data always wins in the end.

Take the global warming debate....Politics has no staying power in science when facts contradict the political goal, but obviously politics is present - just as it is in every organization, including religious organizations of all sorts.

“The people annoying you seem to be those who would like to turn the Bible into a science book. It isn’t. It is much more important. But it has nothing to do with the kind of punishment you would have coming to you for blasphemy under the Taliban.”

Yes, you have identified my source of bemusement in this debate. But do you really think Christianity could not devolve into the destruction of those who are “not pure enough” for fundamentalist adherents given time? I absolutely do, and I point to history as the guide.

When you have a group of people selecting who goes to hell and who does not - there is misery and mayhem down that path. I am not slandering Christianity making the comparison with dysfunctional and murderous religious enthusiasts of other faiths- because that is, in fact, part of church history.

“Put another way, the scientific method seems reasonable to my mind, and I presume yours as well. But suppose our reasoning is not valid. How else can we know that the scientific method is valid? We must have faith in our reasoning”

I don’t disagree with you - but “faith” in process cannot be compared to religious faith in any meaningful way - which is why I have stated many times that science and faith cannot be mixed - they are different things that are not mutually exclusive. I think you agree with that. Militant creationists have to believe that somehow Darwin is elevated to god-like status amongst the scientific community, when it is not true - he posited a theory, and it has been scrutinized for 150 years and still basically exists. He may well be wrong - but his basic principles have been accepted through no small effort and research.

I think most of science agrees that science and faith are different. I’m fairly certain militant creationism does not agree with that principle, and in fact believes that there is a great degree of mutual exclusivity involved.

Thank you, by the way, for the reasoned dialog. It is a pleasure to discuss this topic in this way.

118 posted on 02/28/2009 8:20:51 AM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies ]

To: RFEngineer
Yes, you have identified my source of bemusement in this debate. But do you really think Christianity could not devolve into the destruction of those who are “not pure enough” for fundamentalist adherents given time? I absolutely do, and I point to history as the guide.

In onse sense this is impossible, in another sense it has already happened. People who claim to be Christian and then persecute their neighbor do far more to slander Christ than the the harshest of critics.

However Islam is quite different. A follower of Islam who persecutes a Jew may be following the teachings of Mohammad quite well by so doing.

As for science vs religion, I do not see them as generally in conflict, although I beleive certain doctrines may be in conflict with scientific discoveries. For example, I am skeptical of infering a 7000 year old Earth from Gensis in part because of scientific discovery (evolution et al aside, astrophysics suggests a much older universe).

I see no cental doctrine of Christianity in conflict with science, and interestingly I see some support. For example the Big Bang theory (which I have recently learned was first proposed by a French astrophysists who was also a Catholic Preist) does indeed support the theological notion of a universe created at a particular time as opposed to a universe that simply always existed. This I find rather a large problem for central naturalist doctrine. I will grant that universes "beyond" this one have been theorized...but I wonder how much these are really thought expermiments driven by naturalist fundamentalism rather than examples of pure science.

119 posted on 02/28/2009 7:18:22 PM PST by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

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