Scientists and Their Gods: (Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence?)

Institute for Religious Research ^ | 1999 | Dr. Henry F. Schaefer, III

[LiteKeeper]

Please note the number of Nobel Prize winners referenced in this article.

[wideawake]

Andrew Dickson White was the first president of Cornell University, the first university in the United States formed on strictly secular principles. (All others had been founded on a Christian basis.) He wrote a very famous book, The History of the Warfare of Science With Theology, in 1896.

White's book is one of the worst, most irresponsible books ever written.

It is frequently quoted by atheists against Christians.

The book is unrelievedly racist and contains literally hundreds of clear misstatements of historical fact, sometimes a dozen on a single page.

He made up many quotes out of whole cloth, correctly presuming that no one would pore through thousands of pages of Latin text to prove him wrong.

All in all, this book makes "Arming America" look like a milestone of scholarship.

If any Christian on this thread is ever confronted by quotes from Andrew Dickson White, feel comfortable in challenging them immediately.

[Polycarp]

Thanks, Also,

Can Science Survive in a Post-Christian Society?

Pinging (as usual, if you desire to be added to or removed from my Catholic ping list, please send me a FReepmail.)

[yendu bwam]

Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. As such, it is neutral on this matter. And morality (what is good and what is bad) cannot be derived from science, but only from unprovable moral axioms. Christians believe those moral axioms come from God, and that life lived in accordance with those axioms (and their logical derivatives) will be freer, more fulfilling, more beautiful than life without - and that we can hope for life eternal by coming closer to God in following His way of good.

[LiteKeeper]

You may have noticed that Schaefer does not have a very high opinion of White. In fact, he discounts his assessment of Calvin.

[Leto]

Ping for a later read.

A couple of quick comments:

Science tend to answer how questions, religion answers the why question. Sometimes people get confused between Why and How.

"If the Devil can keep you from asking the right question he never has to worry about the answer."-CS Lewis.

If you have faith that God created the universe, science cannot contradict anything of God's creation, only tell you how God does stuff.

[onedoug]

Origins

AG, ping.

[thinktwice]

For several centuries, scientists have set the standards of truth for Western culture. And their undeniable usefulness in helping us organize, analyze, and manipulate, facts has given them an unprecedented importance in modern society.

How does one manipulate a fact?

[Doctor Stochastic]

What are some quotes you disagree with in The History of the Warfare of Science with Theology? They can be checked out at the above address.

[thinktwice]

This article was not posted using the reference's spacing and indentations.

It is incredibly better to read it as published.

[MoGalahad]

By adding subjective interpretations to it.

[TopQuark]

Please note the number of Nobel Prize winners referenced in this article.

Note also the number of non-Christian winners whose names he omitted. True, his premise is existential, and it suffices to show just one example to prove it.

However, you'd expect a scientist to dig a little deeper than this. He could, perhaps, put things in perspective to explain to us why, despite the Christian beliefs of all the quoted scientists, so many scientists where persectuted and burned at the stake. Why was it that, depsite all the enlightend scientists-Christians in its membership, it took the church almost two centuries to even acknowledge auto-da-fe of Giodano Bruno as "mistake."

[bzrd]

bmp

[Pahuanui]

How does one manipulate a fact?

Sometimes they need to be smashed, quite forcibly, into these shiny theory-boxes of fantastic and bizarre shapes, in order for them to have even the least bit of correlation to the actual titles imprinted on these same boxes.

Quite awkward at times, as well.

[LiteKeeper]

First, it was not his intent, I suspect, to be comprehensive about Nobel Prize winners. Reference to them was almost incidental.

Second, the Church has had it's own problem through the centuries, not the least of which was a long period of time when it was unduely influnenced by Aristotelian philosophy, more than by good Bible exegesis. There are many abberations in the positions of the church, particulary through the MIddle Ages. None the less, many of the scientists that he refers to found it inportant to view the world through theistic eyes, recognizing the place of man and the universe.

[f.Christian]

To: Dimensio

As I see it, evolution is an ideological(RELIGION)* doctrine(DOGMA)*.

If it were only a "scientific theory", it would have died a natural death 50 - 70 years ago; the evidence against it is too overwhelming and has been all along. The people defending it are doing so because they do not like the alternatives to an atheistic basis for science and do not like the logical implications of abandoning their atheistic paradigm and, in conducting themselves that way, they have achieved a degree of immunity to what most people call logic(sanity)*.

488 posted on 7/29/02 5:18 AM Pacific by medved

Great quote. Thanks for posting it.


294 posted on 10/18/02 11:59 AM Pacific by AnnaZ


*...my additions!

[LiteKeeper]

huh?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the heads up and for the link to the thread of Freeper views! Hugs!!!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

I find it curious that some materialists are already considering how they will deal with intelligent design if it holds up to scrutiny: At the Intersection of "Metaphysical Naturalism" and "Intelligent Design"

[TopQuark]

None the less, many of the scientists that he refers to found it inportant to view the world through theistic eyes, recognizing the place of man and the universe.

Thank you for your reply. I did acknowedge that his scope was narrow albweit important: in the present-dat, anti-religion climate it's good to remind people of the many scientists that saw in their viewpoint no fundamental contradictions.

I still retain the view expressed in the previous posts: it would be significantly more helpful to address at least some of the aforementioned questions. Note that limitations of space are not present: instead of just piling up more examples, he could have easily broadened the scope.

This whole lecture boils down to this: "Is it possible to be a Christian and a scientis? Yes, look at me. Here is a list of people like me."

Too simplistic, especially for a scientist.