Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

why are science and faith at odds?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
29 replies to this topic

#1
alphaparticle

alphaparticle

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,271 posts

When replying to one of threads on this board I was inspired to think of past scientists who were believers, and inspired by their faith to study nature. One that came to mind immediately is one of my favorite overall physicists, Michael Faraday. Faraday was a devout lay preacher in a conservative Presbyterian sect aside from making groundbreaking physics discoveries, one of which is a large part of our life now (electromagnetic induction). While I was thinking about sharing this in response to this other thread, I couldn't help but wonder again at the question, why is there animus between the scientific community and community of believers?

 

The reason I find this so odd is that this is clearly a new phenomenon. It seems fundamentally needless that this is the case, and is more a matter of historical accident than a matter of principle. Even if you take evolution into account, why would accepting or rejecting evolution make one a better or worse physical chemist? I don't think that alone explains facts like the number of believers among scientists being so low as compared to the overall general population.



#2
fire-heart

fire-heart

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 420 posts

well think of it this way, God is the creator of all things except of course man made logic so he also created science. the issue is man took that and made their idea of science



#3
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,728 posts

When replying to one of threads on this board I was inspired to think of past scientists who were believers, and inspired by their faith to study nature. One that came to mind immediately is one of my favorite overall physicists, Michael Faraday. Faraday was a devout lay preacher in a conservative Presbyterian sect aside from making groundbreaking physics discoveries, one of which is a large part of our life now (electromagnetic induction). While I was thinking about sharing this in response to this other thread, I couldn't help but wonder again at the question, why is there animus between the scientific community and community of believers?

 

The reason I find this so odd is that this is clearly a new phenomenon. It seems fundamentally needless that this is the case, and is more a matter of historical accident than a matter of principle. Even if you take evolution into account, why would accepting or rejecting evolution make one a better or worse physical chemist? I don't think that alone explains facts like the number of believers among scientists being so low as compared to the overall general population.

 

 

That is so Hilarious.

 

I wanted to take a break from Studying Plasma Physics LOL....so I said, what's going on with the forum; click on yours...and you bring up Michael Faraday and Electro- Magnetism. :thumbsup:

 

And then evolution...in the same post. :huh:    I was @ the Highest Point all day then crashed and burned all within 60 seconds.  Like that Ski Jumper on Wide World of Sports...."The Thrill of Victory and The Agony of Defeat., you know the one.

 

Get back to the serious stuff Alpha!!

 

Talk to me here....you got all these Astrophysicists Fumbling and Stumbling with: Dark Matter/Dark Energy, searching for Gravitons, conveniently forgetting (accidentally on purpose) Newton's Inverse Square Law, wondering where 97% of the mass of the Universe is and on and on pathetically trying to Prop Up 13th Century Alchemy Theories when they got a BIG CHUNK of some Answers Right in front of their Face.............PLASMA!!!!!!!

 

Hey I'm no expert in this stuff but....R Ya Kiddin Me??  I'm Stupified!!  My 10 year old Daughter can take a cursory look @ some of this and @ least say.....this needs a little further Investigation.

 

And They can Replicate alot of the Tenets/Characteristics and TEST these IN A LAB for !##$$##%$^%(&(&*$$!@&&(&*%^#$!@.  I'm Close to a Conniption Fit  :24:

 

They need to get back in A BIG WAY to:  Maxwell, Faraday, Einstein, Bohm, Birkeland, Langmuir, Alfven, Peratt, et al.

 

You need to make this happen Alpha....YOU!!!  LOL  Make A Stand tell them you'll QUIT if they don't!!!  :thumbsup:



#4
FresnoJoe

FresnoJoe

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 43,023 posts

well think of it this way, God is the creator of all things except of course man made logic so he also created science. the issue is man took that and made their idea of science

 

~

 

Man Made Sin

 

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. James 1:13-15

 

God Made Logic

 

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. Isaiah 1:18

 

Science Makes Fantasy

 

Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? Isaiah 29:16



#5
alphaparticle

alphaparticle

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,271 posts

 

When replying to one of threads on this board I was inspired to think of past scientists who were believers, and inspired by their faith to study nature. One that came to mind immediately is one of my favorite overall physicists, Michael Faraday. Faraday was a devout lay preacher in a conservative Presbyterian sect aside from making groundbreaking physics discoveries, one of which is a large part of our life now (electromagnetic induction). While I was thinking about sharing this in response to this other thread, I couldn't help but wonder again at the question, why is there animus between the scientific community and community of believers?

 

The reason I find this so odd is that this is clearly a new phenomenon. It seems fundamentally needless that this is the case, and is more a matter of historical accident than a matter of principle. Even if you take evolution into account, why would accepting or rejecting evolution make one a better or worse physical chemist? I don't think that alone explains facts like the number of believers among scientists being so low as compared to the overall general population.

 

 

That is so Hilarious.

 

I wanted to take a break from Studying Plasma Physics LOL....so I said, what's going on with the forum; click on yours...and you bring up Michael Faraday and Electro- Magnetism. :thumbsup:

 

And then evolution...in the same post. :huh:    I was @ the Highest Point all day then crashed and burned all within 60 seconds.  Like that Ski Jumper on Wide World of Sports...."The Thrill of Victory and The Agony of Defeat., you know the one.

 

Get back to the serious stuff Alpha!!

 

Talk to me here....you got all these Astrophysicists Fumbling and Stumbling with: Dark Matter/Dark Energy, searching for Gravitons, conveniently forgetting (accidentally on purpose) Newton's Inverse Square Law, wondering where 97% of the mass of the Universe is and on and on pathetically trying to Prop Up 13th Century Alchemy Theories when they got a BIG CHUNK of some Answers Right in front of their Face.............PLASMA!!!!!!!

 

Hey I'm no expert in this stuff but....R Ya Kiddin Me??  I'm Stupified!!  My 10 year old Daughter can take a cursory look @ some of this and @ least say.....this needs a little further Investigation.

 

And They can Replicate alot of the Tenets/Characteristics and TEST these IN A LAB for !##$$##%$^%(&(&*$$!@&&(&*%^#$!@.  I'm Close to a Conniption Fit  :24:

 

They need to get back in A BIG WAY to:  Maxwell, Faraday, Einstein, Bohm, Birkeland, Langmuir, Alfven, Peratt, et al.

 

You need to make this happen Alpha....YOU!!!  LOL  Make A Stand tell them you'll QUIT if they don't!!!  :thumbsup:

 

It might help if you read what I said with a calm spirit. You missed the point entirely.



#6
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,818 posts

When replying to one of threads on this board I was inspired to think of past scientists who were believers, and inspired by their faith to study nature. One that came to mind immediately is one of my favorite overall physicists, Michael Faraday. Faraday was a devout lay preacher in a conservative Presbyterian sect aside from making groundbreaking physics discoveries, one of which is a large part of our life now (electromagnetic induction). While I was thinking about sharing this in response to this other thread, I couldn't help but wonder again at the question, why is there animus between the scientific community and community of believers?

 

The reason I find this so odd is that this is clearly a new phenomenon. It seems fundamentally needless that this is the case, and is more a matter of historical accident than a matter of principle. Even if you take evolution into account, why would accepting or rejecting evolution make one a better or worse physical chemist? I don't think that alone explains facts like the number of believers among scientists being so low as compared to the overall general population.

Science and faith are not at odds.  Never have been.   It is Evolution and the Bible that are at odds.   It is any attempt by science to explain the origin of our universe and the origin of life in a way that precludes God and factors Him out of the equation entirely, and the Bible that are at odds.

 

What many people don't understand is that this is a battle of worldviews, not a battle of science vs. faith.     One thing I noticed after the Nye/Ham debate and even before that debate took place is that Ham received death threats and extremely vulgar comments on his facebook page and on his website.   He wasn't merely ridiculed or belittled.  He reported all kinds of violently hateful things that people said to him  just because of his participation in that debate.   That shows that this is not an intellecual issue, but a spritiual one and it shows that there is more going on than a debate over different points of view.  



#7
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,728 posts

 

 

When replying to one of threads on this board I was inspired to think of past scientists who were believers, and inspired by their faith to study nature. One that came to mind immediately is one of my favorite overall physicists, Michael Faraday. Faraday was a devout lay preacher in a conservative Presbyterian sect aside from making groundbreaking physics discoveries, one of which is a large part of our life now (electromagnetic induction). While I was thinking about sharing this in response to this other thread, I couldn't help but wonder again at the question, why is there animus between the scientific community and community of believers?

 

The reason I find this so odd is that this is clearly a new phenomenon. It seems fundamentally needless that this is the case, and is more a matter of historical accident than a matter of principle. Even if you take evolution into account, why would accepting or rejecting evolution make one a better or worse physical chemist? I don't think that alone explains facts like the number of believers among scientists being so low as compared to the overall general population.

 

 

That is so Hilarious.

 

I wanted to take a break from Studying Plasma Physics LOL....so I said, what's going on with the forum; click on yours...and you bring up Michael Faraday and Electro- Magnetism. :thumbsup:

 

And then evolution...in the same post. :huh:    I was @ the Highest Point all day then crashed and burned all within 60 seconds.  Like that Ski Jumper on Wide World of Sports...."The Thrill of Victory and The Agony of Defeat., you know the one.

 

Get back to the serious stuff Alpha!!

 

Talk to me here....you got all these Astrophysicists Fumbling and Stumbling with: Dark Matter/Dark Energy, searching for Gravitons, conveniently forgetting (accidentally on purpose) Newton's Inverse Square Law, wondering where 97% of the mass of the Universe is and on and on pathetically trying to Prop Up 13th Century Alchemy Theories when they got a BIG CHUNK of some Answers Right in front of their Face.............PLASMA!!!!!!!

 

Hey I'm no expert in this stuff but....R Ya Kiddin Me??  I'm Stupified!!  My 10 year old Daughter can take a cursory look @ some of this and @ least say.....this needs a little further Investigation.

 

And They can Replicate alot of the Tenets/Characteristics and TEST these IN A LAB for !##$$##%$^%(&(&*$$!@&&(&*%^#$!@.  I'm Close to a Conniption Fit  :24:

 

They need to get back in A BIG WAY to:  Maxwell, Faraday, Einstein, Bohm, Birkeland, Langmuir, Alfven, Peratt, et al.

 

You need to make this happen Alpha....YOU!!!  LOL  Make A Stand tell them you'll QUIT if they don't!!!  :thumbsup:

 

It might help if you read what I said with a calm spirit. You missed the point entirely.

 

 

==========================================================================

 

 

It might help if you read what I said with a calm spirit. You missed the point entirely.

 

Calm Spirit ?

 

How do you know I didn't..... Special Evolution Mind Powers?

 

Do "Calm Spirits" have Particularly Acute Reading Comprehension Skills?

 

I read it and got the point thanks.

 

Figured with your background you may have some insight into Plasma's ....  Nothing more Nothing Less.  Sorry for derailing your OP on a tangent, there was no malicious intent.



#8
fire-heart

fire-heart

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 420 posts

 

well think of it this way, God is the creator of all things except of course man made logic so he also created science. the issue is man took that and made their idea of science

 

~

 

Man Made Sin

 

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. James 1:13-15

 

God Made Logic

 

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. Isaiah 1:18

 

Science Makes Fantasy

 

Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? Isaiah 29:16

 

I love how you always answer with scripture and not your own words and whats more you understnd the scriptures well enough to use it for the exact point you would have said in words- you didnt even need to twist it for it to fit the point exactly. honestly an ability like that simply amazing:]



#9
Tolken

Tolken

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 322 posts

Shiloh357 - What many people don't understand is that this is a battle of worldviews, not a battle of science vs. faith.

 

This is a valid point but I would just suggest further that there is a considerable difference in the "debate" when terms are left open to interpretation. Evolution as an all encompassing worldview with naturalistic origins is quite different from evolution as a process without reference to origin/creation.



#10
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 712 posts

The animus lies in the fact science does not need any gods.  I'm quite sure Faraday did not include his God in any of his equations.  I think many in religion feel threatened by this.  If science, even evolution, threaten your faith in Jesus Christ you should reexamine your faith, not your science.  Jesus gave us two great commandments that evolution does not impact.


Edited by jerryR34, 06 March 2014 - 11:41 AM.


#11
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 712 posts

 

I wanted to take a break from Studying Plasma Physics LOL....

haha...nice attempt at a plea to authority.  Could you expand on how God impacts Plasma Physics?


Edited by jerryR34, 06 March 2014 - 11:19 AM.


#12
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 712 posts

 One thing I noticed after the Nye/Ham debate and even before that debate took place is that Ham received death threats and extremely vulgar comments on his facebook page and on his website.   He wasn't merely ridiculed or belittled.  He reported all kinds of violently hateful things that people said to him  just because of his participation in that debate.   That shows that this is not an intellecual issue, but a spritiual one and it shows that there is more going on than a debate over different points of view.  

 

How does this impact science?  It's like me bringing up the inquisition and saying that Jesus does not exist because men did a bad thing. 



#13
Tolken

Tolken

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 322 posts

JerryR34 -How does this impact science?  It's like me bringing up the inquisition and saying that Jesus does not exist because men did a bad thing.

 

Good morning ...Not that I need to defend Shiloh357 but I think this was brought up just to show the "animus" inherent in the debate.  I would not suggest that it is not a two way street.  Wouldn't you agree that one's worldview is significant in many of life's arenas?



#14
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 712 posts

JerryR34 -How does this impact science?  It's like me bringing up the inquisition and saying that Jesus does not exist because men did a bad thing.

 

Good morning ...Not that I need to defend Shiloh357 but I think this was brought up just to show the "animus" inherent in the debate.  I would not suggest that it is not a two way street.  Wouldn't you agree that one's worldview is significant in many of life's arenas?

I think that if one lets his world views impact his science then it is bad science.  As I mentioned above regarding Alpha's reference to Faraday...I think you would be hard pressed to find any mention of God in his formulas regarding electricity.  Evolution is not a world view.  It is a basis for all biology.  Until its predictive value is nullified, there is no reason not to base all biology experiments on its precepts.  That is how knowledge is gained..it builds.



#15
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,818 posts

Shiloh357 - What many people don't understand is that this is a battle of worldviews, not a battle of science vs. faith.

 

This is a valid point but I would just suggest further that there is a considerable difference in the "debate" when terms are left open to interpretation. Evolution as an all encompassing worldview with naturalistic origins is quite different from evolution as a process without reference to origin/creation.

In this conversation though, I think it is fair to assume that we are rerferring to the former.    I realized that we used the word "evolution" in other ways not related to origin or creation.   But in the context of this conversation, we are referring to the naturalistic theory of Evolution.



#16
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,728 posts

Shiloh357 - What many people don't understand is that this is a battle of worldviews, not a battle of science vs. faith.

 

This is a valid point but I would just suggest further that there is a considerable difference in the "debate" when terms are left open to interpretation. Evolution as an all encompassing worldview with naturalistic origins is quite different from evolution as a process without reference to origin/creation.

 

 

=======================================================================

 

This is a valid point but I would just suggest further that there is a considerable difference in the "debate" when terms are left open to interpretation

 

Which leads to Equivocation Ad Nauseum.

 

Sure would help if they defined the "theory"  into a coherent thought.  But we can't have that because it would implode @ a hint of even the slightest scrutiny.

 

 

evolution as a process without reference to origin/creation.

 

Like evolution is just change?  Well we see change; therefore, evolution is true, Right? 

 

However, MOST propagating this Lazily Ambiguous Terminology passes this off to Joe Coffee and Betty Breadmaker and uses the Facade of "science" to offer some conjured fallacious validity.



#17
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,818 posts

 

JerryR34 -How does this impact science?  It's like me bringing up the inquisition and saying that Jesus does not exist because men did a bad thing.

 

Good morning ...Not that I need to defend Shiloh357 but I think this was brought up just to show the "animus" inherent in the debate.  I would not suggest that it is not a two way street.  Wouldn't you agree that one's worldview is significant in many of life's arenas?

I think that if one lets his world views impact his science then it is bad science.  As I mentioned above regarding Alpha's reference to Faraday...I think you would be hard pressed to find any mention of God in his formulas regarding electricity.  Evolution is not a world view.  It is a basis for all biology.  Until its predictive value is nullified, there is no reason not to base all biology experiments on its precepts.  That is how knowledge is gained..it builds.

 

Everyone has a worldview.  Every has a paradigm where life is concerned.  It impacts everything we do.  It is our paradigms that shape how we view and interact with the world  and the information it contains.  It affects how we interpret that information.

 

Evolution is rooted in a naturalistic worldview.   Evolution, however, is not science and it is not a theory.  Evolution is more of a philosophy.  Evoluion isn't proven, not by a longshot.  It is an untested hypothesis that many have tried to force us to accept as fact. 



#18
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,818 posts

The animus lies in the fact science does not need any gods.  I'm quite sure Faraday did not include his God in any of his equations.  I think many in religion feel threatened by this.  If science, even evolution, threaten your faith in Jesus Christ you should reexamine your faith, not your science.  Jesus gave us two great commandments that evolution does not impact.

Actually the animus lies in the fact that men are in a state of rebellion and they are trying to purge the knowledge of God from his creation.   God is actually the best explanation for the origin of the universe.  If you were a Christian, you would know that.



#19
Tolken

Tolken

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 322 posts

Enoch2021 - Which leads to Equivocation Ad Nauseum.

 

I think it is fair and reasonable to make the distinction between "Evolution" as a worldview of life and it's origins (and beyond) as opposed to "evolution" confined, if you will, to a process that explains the diversity of life.  Certainly one can "equivocate" within the terms themselves however the terms from my perpective are mutually exclusive. While I might choose to argue against Evolution, I seldom choose to argue against evolution.



#20
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 712 posts

 

 

JerryR34 -How does this impact science?  It's like me bringing up the inquisition and saying that Jesus does not exist because men did a bad thing.

 

Good morning ...Not that I need to defend Shiloh357 but I think this was brought up just to show the "animus" inherent in the debate.  I would not suggest that it is not a two way street.  Wouldn't you agree that one's worldview is significant in many of life's arenas?

I think that if one lets his world views impact his science then it is bad science.  As I mentioned above regarding Alpha's reference to Faraday...I think you would be hard pressed to find any mention of God in his formulas regarding electricity.  Evolution is not a world view.  It is a basis for all biology.  Until its predictive value is nullified, there is no reason not to base all biology experiments on its precepts.  That is how knowledge is gained..it builds.

 

Everyone has a worldview.  Every has a paradigm where life is concerned.  It impacts everything we do.  It is our paradigms that shape how we view and interact with the world  and the information it contains.  It affects how we interpret that information.

 

Evolution is rooted in a naturalistic worldview.   Evolution, however, is not science and it is not a theory.  Evolution is more of a philosophy.  Evoluion isn't proven, not by a longshot.  It is an untested hypothesis that many have tried to force us to accept as fact. 

 

Evolution is not a worldview or philosophy, it is a scientific theory.  No scientific theories can be proven, only disproven, and in 150+ years evolution has not been disproven.  Evolution is the basis for all modern biology for a reason, it has predictive value. 






Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network