Christian Scientists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-01-2015, 01:11 PM
RE: Christian Scientists
(29-01-2015 01:04 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(28-01-2015 04:29 PM)Chas Wrote:  How about we stick with scientists working post-1859. Drinking Beverage

I've said (on this thread recently? another?) up through the "Enlightenment".

But if enlightenment = a secular, relativistic society with rampant abortion, venereal disease, hurt, confusion, pain, drug abuse (legal and illegal)... then the en/lighten/ment comes from... wait for it... a bringer of light... wait for it... Satan. I didn't want to go there, but there it is.

Secular and relativistic I will grant -- and I see nothing wrong with either of those. All of those other things were here before and after Jesus, and before and after the enlightenment, and will probably always be here. I don't see any way you can blame the enlightenment for them. Might as well blame Jesus.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Grasshopper's post
29-01-2015, 01:13 PM
RE: Christian Scientists
(28-01-2015 09:36 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  Being a scientist has nothing to do with your extra beliefs. There are a lot of atheists who believe in psychic powers and magic and woo of all sorts.

Being a scientist merely means that you have studied and dedicated your life to the field of research you are in, and have sworn an oath to always uphold the scientific method.

However, those who follow the scientific method in life and in their research find themselves faced with the fact that deities, magic and so on can never be tested and because they do not conform to how reality is presented to us, to those of a logical, critical thinking and scientific mind, those claims must be dismissed until the correct evidence can be presented, tested, repeated, and scrutinized by your peers.

The difference between faith and science is that science says that it has found evidence , so what conclusions may we be able to draw from them? Then faith states that here is the conclusion, so what facts can we discover that will be able to support it.

In other words, from a scientifically minded person, they do not form the conclusion and then present it as the truth or anything like that. Stating the conclusion as its own premise is what faith does. That is what makes faith a circular argument and therefore, wrong as it is a fallacy. Science discovers facts or evidence and then it tests what it finds in order to discover or come up with a conclusion.

There are however, some people who are just so stubborn with their old way of thinking, or simply too afraid of being wrong for so many years previous to becoming a scientifically minded person, that they cannot seem to let go regardless of what their logical mind tells them.

This is not really a problem or anything wrong with the scientist per se. UNLESS they are an astrologist, biologist, geologist or so on. Then their faith becomes completely incomparable with their science work and there are very sad tales of extremely BRILLIANT and near prodigy level scientifically minded people who were so indoctrinated with their parents beliefs that they dropped out of college because it was teaching them contrary evidence against what they were brainwashed into thinking.

This not only drastically harms the economy, but education, scientific research but the entire human race as well. There are however, a few people here and there that do not let their religious views intercept any part of their science research. These individuals have found some sort of way of balancing their beliefs and making sure the two never clash or get in the way of each other and that is fine for them. The real problem is those who do let that happen and that is when faith becomes a detriment to them and society.

First, please let me say I really appreciate the serious nature of your post. It's a refresher from getting bashed by you. I'm in no way being sarcastic--I appreciate your taking time to answer me even if you feel I'm not deserving your answer on my own merits.

I like your post. As for the first section, Muslims try to do that very sort of thing. You can Google posts from them (the ones who go against the Koran by proselytizing!) "proving" the scientific accuracies of the Koran. Um, no. Survey says... no.

As for Christians, we've already discussed the nature of facts and desire. So by your comments, which I'm not disagreeing with, scientists cannot call forums or write NIH proposals with proof of an invisible God who says He is purposely invisible due to sin and willfulness. Yes.

Further, I 100% agree with you (and applaud you) that it's circular to have a conclusion and a premise that are the same. Yes. However, the nature of testing is to hypothesis-test-affirm or deny (or retest, add controls and/or variables). Faith is to be tested, the apostles talk about testing, the OT prophets also, and I talk about it often here at TTA.

And--the grass is always greener (or browner) but exactly what you wrote about faith being an impediment to being a biologist or a geologist is what we Christians call a lack of faith when exhibited by physicians, psychologists, etc. I mean, those are sciences and healing arts both and there are gifts of healing...

I guess the problem I'm still having is that most people have theistic faith, and that the common viewpoint internationally is to say faith is neither of science nor rationality and that those without faith are more likely to be unbiased judges (in science or any endeavor, yet the numbers don't always prove people of faith are more or less rational than others). How can I address that?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2015, 02:09 PM
RE: Christian Scientists
(29-01-2015 01:01 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(28-01-2015 12:30 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  As Gould said of science and religion, they are non-overlapping magisteria.

Some scientists are also christian because science doesn't require an opinion one way or another on religion. So as long as their religious beliefs don't become entangled in the research they are doing, then there is no issue with the science they produce.

It is the same way if you asked how someone could be an accountant and a christian. The process itself, and the knowledge necessary to do it, don't hinge upon any opinion on religion.

And as we all know, neither you nor I nor Stephen Gould has had a dog in this fight. As if he might have even used the term magisteria with a straight face. I can see Wayne Barlowe's artwork in my mind's eye now. I think Gould meant to say--"alien-steria".

You wrote in part, "So as long as their religious beliefs don't become entangled in the research they are doing, then there is no issue with the science they produce." What does that even mean? That science, as well, a science, is supposed to be unbiased so scientists must suspend their beliefs and faith to become more unbiased as people? That if a scientist encounters something God or numinous during the course of their research, they should hide or eliminate it from their reporting of data so that they don't "entangle" their work?

I don't mind hearing the same ideas brought out once again by atheists, I don't. But have you thought through all the implications of what you're saying? It sounds like--it sounds like--censorship.

This idea is kinda well known and discussed so I'm actually surprised if you don't understand the point.

It's an idea questioned because say a scientist does ten tests and 9 draw one conclusion, but with his faith he says that other 1 was altered by God and not a natural occurrence. He's adding another element and potentially skewing what would be his method of understanding the results.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
29-01-2015, 05:00 PM
Christian Scientists
(29-01-2015 01:01 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(28-01-2015 12:30 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  As Gould said of science and religion, they are non-overlapping magisteria.

Some scientists are also christian because science doesn't require an opinion one way or another on religion. So as long as their religious beliefs don't become entangled in the research they are doing, then there is no issue with the science they produce.

It is the same way if you asked how someone could be an accountant and a christian. The process itself, and the knowledge necessary to do it, don't hinge upon any opinion on religion.

And as we all know, neither you nor I nor Stephen Gould has had a dog in this fight. As if he might have even used the term magisteria with a straight face. I can see Wayne Barlowe's artwork in my mind's eye now. I think Gould meant to say--"alien-steria".

You wrote in part, "So as long as their religious beliefs don't become entangled in the research they are doing, then there is no issue with the science they produce." What does that even mean? That science, as well, a science, is supposed to be unbiased so scientists must suspend their beliefs and faith to become more unbiased as people? That if a scientist encounters something God or numinous during the course of their research, they should hide or eliminate it from their reporting of data so that they don't "entangle" their work?

I don't mind hearing the same ideas brought out once again by atheists, I don't. But have you thought through all the implications of what you're saying? It sounds like--it sounds like--censorship.

You're a moron.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2015, 02:32 PM
RE: Christian Scientists
(29-01-2015 02:09 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(29-01-2015 01:01 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  And as we all know, neither you nor I nor Stephen Gould has had a dog in this fight. As if he might have even used the term magisteria with a straight face. I can see Wayne Barlowe's artwork in my mind's eye now. I think Gould meant to say--"alien-steria".

You wrote in part, "So as long as their religious beliefs don't become entangled in the research they are doing, then there is no issue with the science they produce." What does that even mean? That science, as well, a science, is supposed to be unbiased so scientists must suspend their beliefs and faith to become more unbiased as people? That if a scientist encounters something God or numinous during the course of their research, they should hide or eliminate it from their reporting of data so that they don't "entangle" their work?

I don't mind hearing the same ideas brought out once again by atheists, I don't. But have you thought through all the implications of what you're saying? It sounds like--it sounds like--censorship.

This idea is kinda well known and discussed so I'm actually surprised if you don't understand the point.

It's an idea questioned because say a scientist does ten tests and 9 draw one conclusion, but with his faith he says that other 1 was altered by God and not a natural occurrence. He's adding another element and potentially skewing what would be his method of understanding the results.

I'm not speaking of faith creating a variable that goes against standard practices of variables and controls. I'm saying what does it look like for a PhD to say, "For this experiment I plan to run 1,000 tests, and for 500 of the test cycles Buddhist monks will be chanting in the room adjacent to the laboratory." We both know what that looks like--the scientist becomes a laughing stock. But you would think that academics both religious and atheist would RELISH those kinds of testing opportunities in controlled, academic and rigorous environments.

The disconnect between the chance for science to do "Amazing Randy" tests speaks volumes about persecution and fear on BOTH sides, the theists and the atheists, and I believe that what occurred since the 1800s has been to shift this area so far away from church interference that it's gone overboard... to extreme disinclination to subject metaphysics to physical testing.

Now, if there are true metaphysical things--we've totally screwed our "results" up.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2015, 05:07 PM (This post was last modified: 30-01-2015 05:10 PM by Chas.)
RE: Christian Scientists
(29-01-2015 01:01 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(28-01-2015 12:30 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  As Gould said of science and religion, they are non-overlapping magisteria.

Some scientists are also christian because science doesn't require an opinion one way or another on religion. So as long as their religious beliefs don't become entangled in the research they are doing, then there is no issue with the science they produce.

It is the same way if you asked how someone could be an accountant and a christian. The process itself, and the knowledge necessary to do it, don't hinge upon any opinion on religion.

And as we all know, neither you nor I nor Stephen Gould has had a dog in this fight. As if he might have even used the term magisteria with a straight face. I can see Wayne Barlowe's artwork in my mind's eye now. I think Gould meant to say--"alien-steria".

What the fuck does that even mean? Gould was utterly honest about that view. Wrong, but honest.

Quote:You wrote in part, "So as long as their religious beliefs don't become entangled in the research they are doing, then there is no issue with the science they produce." What does that even mean?

Not to fall prey to presupposition.

Quote:That science, as well, a science, is supposed to be unbiased so scientists must suspend their beliefs and faith to become more unbiased as people?

Yes, precisely.

Quote:That if a scientist encounters something God or numinous during the course of their research, they should hide or eliminate it from their reporting of data so that they don't "entangle" their work?

No, that wouldn't be scientific or honest.

Quote:I don't mind hearing the same ideas brought out once again by atheists, I don't. But have you thought through all the implications of what you're saying? It sounds like--it sounds like--censorship.

You don't understand the implications.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
31-01-2015, 10:11 AM
RE: Christian Scientists
(22-01-2015 10:03 AM)Typho2k Wrote:  How is it possible to be a christian and also a scientist at the same time?

Me no understand

The same way it's possible to be a scientist and and an anti-theist, or a scientist and a dewey-eyed humanist. Or the same way you can be a very gifted mechanic, and a piss poor husband and father.

Or the same way a gifted ability to understand engineering problems, doesn't translate that well into understanding people.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2015, 11:16 AM
RE: Christian Scientists
(30-01-2015 02:32 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(29-01-2015 02:09 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  This idea is kinda well known and discussed so I'm actually surprised if you don't understand the point.

It's an idea questioned because say a scientist does ten tests and 9 draw one conclusion, but with his faith he says that other 1 was altered by God and not a natural occurrence. He's adding another element and potentially skewing what would be his method of understanding the results.

I'm not speaking of faith creating a variable that goes against standard practices of variables and controls. I'm saying what does it look like for a PhD to say, "For this experiment I plan to run 1,000 tests, and for 500 of the test cycles Buddhist monks will be chanting in the room adjacent to the laboratory." We both know what that looks like--the scientist becomes a laughing stock. But you would think that academics both religious and atheist would RELISH those kinds of testing opportunities in controlled, academic and rigorous environments.

The disconnect between the chance for science to do "Amazing Randy" tests speaks volumes about persecution and fear on BOTH sides, the theists and the atheists, and I believe that what occurred since the 1800s has been to shift this area so far away from church interference that it's gone overboard... to extreme disinclination to subject metaphysics to physical testing.

Now, if there are true metaphysical things--we've totally screwed our "results" up.

What are you talking about?? Based on what would you consider that to be looked at as a "laughing stock?" You just seem to assume you understand far more of how humans of varied positions to you think. I wouldn't expect that at all.. Your second point is right. It would be a valid test to see if the Buddhist chanting did anything. Then you'd have to see why it did if it did alter results.

You're just continually assuming you're right about what people think. Thinking it would be a laughing stock or in another thread assuming I'd try to argue god's punishment is too strong.. That was well beyond my thoughts as a nonsensical argument. You won't be an efficient communicator if you just assume positions in this manner.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2015, 02:40 PM
RE: Christian Scientists
(31-01-2015 11:16 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(30-01-2015 02:32 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I'm not speaking of faith creating a variable that goes against standard practices of variables and controls. I'm saying what does it look like for a PhD to say, "For this experiment I plan to run 1,000 tests, and for 500 of the test cycles Buddhist monks will be chanting in the room adjacent to the laboratory." We both know what that looks like--the scientist becomes a laughing stock. But you would think that academics both religious and atheist would RELISH those kinds of testing opportunities in controlled, academic and rigorous environments.

The disconnect between the chance for science to do "Amazing Randy" tests speaks volumes about persecution and fear on BOTH sides, the theists and the atheists, and I believe that what occurred since the 1800s has been to shift this area so far away from church interference that it's gone overboard... to extreme disinclination to subject metaphysics to physical testing.

Now, if there are true metaphysical things--we've totally screwed our "results" up.

What are you talking about?? Based on what would you consider that to be looked at as a "laughing stock?" You just seem to assume you understand far more of how humans of varied positions to you think. I wouldn't expect that at all.. Your second point is right. It would be a valid test to see if the Buddhist chanting did anything. Then you'd have to see why it did if it did alter results.

You're just continually assuming you're right about what people think. Thinking it would be a laughing stock or in another thread assuming I'd try to argue god's punishment is too strong.. That was well beyond my thoughts as a nonsensical argument. You won't be an efficient communicator if you just assume positions in this manner.

My only assumption was that is wasn't an RFP for a grant to study chanting, but say, the effects of different catalysts on metabolic reactions. The scientist would certainly be shunned who said he was adding prayer to influence either the testing results or his processing of the data, etc. Of course there have been studies that were looking at prayer outcomes...

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2015, 03:05 PM
RE: Christian Scientists
The same way it is possible to be an anti-sexism Muslim, an anti-gay Christian or a supernatural believer atheist. It's called dishonest double standards or, as someone rightfully pointed out, compartmentalization

"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything" - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: