alphaparticle

I don't think I understand this assertion. How is science 'dead'? And I am not sure how it matters if God is *explicitly* 'in it' or not. It works pretty well at what it is meant to do- understand the workings of the physical universe. Rationally speaking... if God IS, than is He not in everything already? He would have to be in any study or thought process. "It" would not work pretty well at what it was meant to do because understanding any part of the physical universe would have to concede to it's Creator at some point or other, no? If the majority of car mechanics don't believe in God would that make the Car Repair field 'dead'? I can't see how that would follow! The reality of science is, the vast majority of it does not directly, or even one or two stepped removed, deal with origins questions. The vast majority of it deals with very specific questions about how some physical phenomenon works. Therefore, whether or not the researcher acknowledges God or not in their work doesn't affect how the vast majority of science is actually done at all. (also the above is partially a response to Enoch also... the vast majority of research is done with concerete, specific, particular matters) I understand that many (perhaps most) scientific studies don't deal with Origins... however, the OP definitely implies that to be the thrust of topic. And while your analogy is poignant it lacks acknowledgement of the vehicle (pardon the pun) that brought automobiles into being... that being many other scientific endeavors such as physics; particularly gravity, motion kinetics etc., etc and their affects on mechanics. So while a mechanic need not believe in God, He is the author of all the sciences that drives (more puns) the industry. No God, no physics, no wrecked vehicles to work on, see? I don't think the OP makes this distinction. Further, I think the issue is compounded by popular conceptions about science being about these lofty sorts of topics all of the time, when the reality is that is but a very small subset of it. As far as the latter half, the field of Car REpair would be intact even if the majority of mechanics were nonbelievers. So why would the field of science (an enormous field to start!) be declared dead because the majority of its practitioners are nonbelievers? The fact that we wouldn't exist without God isn't relevant to this issue. Well, let's try a different tack then... what if we did remove God from car repair? We'll say "God no longer exists as of today". Will cars run tomorrow? I say no... everything will collapse. He upholds not only the science/study/research/testing... He is Science. It would be like asking let's test the Theory of Gravity without mass. Non believers have no effect on sciences other than how it's perceived, but God being there effects all things. So are you biting the bullet and claiming that if the majority of car mechanics were unbelievers that field would be 'dead'? I just want to be clear what it is you are arguing. Claiming tha if God didn't create anything we wouldn't be here to talk about this is an obvious and I'd say trivial point, so I assume it's not just that.

Beloved, The Clear Fact That Current Automobile Manuals Are Filled Up With Mechanical Science Them hath he filled with wisdom of heart, to work all manner of work, of the engraver, and of the cunning workman, and of the embroiderer, in blue, and in purple, in scarlet, and in fine linen, and of the weaver, even of them that do any work, and of those that devise cunning work. Exodus 35:35 And That Current New Age Science Manuals Are Riddled With Anti-Christ Dogma For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Colossians 1:16-17 Should Alert The Thinking Man That All 'Knowledge" Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2:8 Is Neither Science Nor Knowledge O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 1 Timothy 6:20 This Should Be Reverent And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9 Don't You Think Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelations 4:11 ~ Be Blessed Beloved He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John 1:10-14 Love, Joe ~ PS: Dear One, It Is Very Telling Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160 That The Whole Word Of God Speaks Against Those Dogmas Of Men In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:1-3 And That But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Romans 10:8-10 Without The Biblical Christ Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. 1 Corinthians 12:3 His Holy Book Will Judge And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. John 12:47-48 Even The Scientist Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 ~ Beloved, Please Don't Sell Your Birthright Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen. 1 John 5:21 Hey Joe, I think saying that science textbooks are filled with stuff you'd disagree with is inaccurate. If you pick up your standard quantum mechanics textbooks, I very much doubt you'd find anything you'd object to on theological grounds. This is what I mean. There is a hidden assumption on this subforum that science = big bang cosmology, evolution, ignoring what the vast majority of scientific investigation is about in reality. THis thread is an excellent example of this. How could someone with a straight face claim that science is dead based onits lack of explicit acknowledgement as GOd as Creator, as though all of science is intimately about origins questions? That is just one of the many reasons this subforum bothers me so much.

I don't think I understand this assertion. How is science 'dead'? And I am not sure how it matters if God is *explicitly* 'in it' or not. It works pretty well at what it is meant to do- understand the workings of the physical universe. If one doesn't believe that God created and sustains His creation, one can't have a right understanding of science. For example: If you remove God from creation, you must explain how it (the universe/life) created itself in violation of scientific laws. By attempting to do so, scientific understanding gets convoluted. It's "dead" science. Does one have to explicitly acknowledge the role of God as ultimate creator of everything that exists to be a master mechanic? I think it is clear you do not. Likewise, for the *vast majority* of scientific enterprises it is unnecessary for its practitioners to explicitly acknowledge that God is the ultimate foundation of reality. The *vast majority* of scientific inquiry has nothing to do with origins questions at all.

I don't think I understand this assertion. How is science 'dead'? And I am not sure how it matters if God is *explicitly* 'in it' or not. It works pretty well at what it is meant to do- understand the workings of the physical universe. Rationally speaking... if God IS, than is He not in everything already? He would have to be in any study or thought process. "It" would not work pretty well at what it was meant to do because understanding any part of the physical universe would have to concede to it's Creator at some point or other, no? If the majority of car mechanics don't believe in God would that make the Car Repair field 'dead'? I can't see how that would follow! The reality of science is, the vast majority of it does not directly, or even one or two stepped removed, deal with origins questions. The vast majority of it deals with very specific questions about how some physical phenomenon works. Therefore, whether or not the researcher acknowledges God or not in their work doesn't affect how the vast majority of science is actually done at all. (also the above is partially a response to Enoch also... the vast majority of research is done with concerete, specific, particular matters) I understand that many (perhaps most) scientific studies don't deal with Origins... however, the OP definitely implies that to be the thrust of topic. And while your analogy is poignant it lacks acknowledgement of the vehicle (pardon the pun) that brought automobiles into being... that being many other scientific endeavors such as physics; particularly gravity, motion kinetics etc., etc and their affects on mechanics. So while a mechanic need not believe in God, He is the author of all the sciences that drives (more puns) the industry. No God, no physics, no wrecked vehicles to work on, see? I don't think the OP makes this distinction. Further, I think the issue is compounded by popular conceptions about science being about these lofty sorts of topics all of the time, when the reality is that is but a very small subset of it. As far as the latter half, the field of Car REpair would be intact even if the majority of mechanics were nonbelievers. So why would the field of science (an enormous field to start!) be declared dead because the majority of its practitioners are nonbelievers? The fact that we wouldn't exist without God isn't relevant to this issue.

At the risk of weakening my own position: http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-defend-the-integrity-of-physics-1.16535 There are theories that are being wildly popularized to the public that are on the fringes of speculation. While I would never exclude evolution or astronomy from the umbrella of science, you can see it isn't clear to those in the establishment how to treatment speculations about multiverses or seeming untestable string theory. Thinking about this, I expect these excesses do not help garner public trust in scientific research as something that is at least attempted to be grounded in careful observation or controlled empirical testing. And I will further admit this, some of this speculation does run up against philosophical concerns for which God could otherwise be the best explanation (specifically here I have in mind invoking the multiverse). I don't think I am ideologically opposed to something like a multiverse, in the end, no matter how massive the cosmos, it is nothing compared to God, but it is true that it is wildly beyond our capacity to know about, in an empirically testable way.

I don't think I understand this assertion. How is science 'dead'? And I am not sure how it matters if God is *explicitly* 'in it' or not. It works pretty well at what it is meant to do- understand the workings of the physical universe. Rationally speaking... if God IS, than is He not in everything already? He would have to be in any study or thought process. "It" would not work pretty well at what it was meant to do because understanding any part of the physical universe would have to concede to it's Creator at some point or other, no? If the majority of car mechanics don't believe in God would that make the Car Repair field 'dead'? I can't see how that would follow! The reality of science is, the vast majority of it does not directly, or even one or two stepped removed, deal with origins questions. The vast majority of it deals with very specific questions about how some physical phenomenon works. Therefore, whether or not the researcher acknowledges God or not in their work doesn't affect how the vast majority of science is actually done at all. (also the above is partially a response to Enoch also... the vast majority of research is done with concerete, specific, particular matters)

Beloved And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go. John 11:43-44 One Day Soon Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160 The Explanations Of Science (Knowledge So Called) Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Proverbs 30:5-6 Will Be Turned Completely And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. Revelation 6:14 Tipsy-Turvy Upside And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; Revelation 6:15 Down And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand? Revelation 6:16-17 ~ Merry Christmas Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Isaiah 7:14 Beloved And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Matthew 1:21-23 Love, Your Brother Joe Merry Christmas Joe.

I don't think I understand this assertion. How is science 'dead'? And I am not sure how it matters if God is *explicitly* 'in it' or not. It works pretty well at what it is meant to do- understand the workings of the physical universe.

rontinger, I am unsure how scientific anti realism is supposed to fall out of Christianity. Yes God created everything, can change or suspend the physical rules He created at will etc., but I don't see how it follows they aren't *real*, or are not telling us about the true nature of the physical world. The incompleteness theorem is inappropriately applied here. Lack of complete certainty does not suggest that we cannot have justified beliefs about how the world works.

I agree with gray wolf here. The religious beliefs of the scientists has no clear correlation to religious beliefs, either way. Similarly for being an excellent teacher of science. Those who are good at this are able to explain the same thing at multiple levels depending on the audience. THey have a passion they share.. and they are approachable. They also make mistakes, go down dead ends, etc., and are unafraid to share that.

Kowtowing to some little despot... it is unfortunate. Making a movie about the North Korean dictator is not comparable to one about Obama. However poor a politician you may find Obama to be (and I agree he is a poor politician), he is not a ruthless dictator with blood directly on his hands. Such a person should not be favorably compared in any way to more or less 'respectable' world leaders. It is right to mock this guy.

Thanks for sharing this Nigel. Of course... now I want to listen to some classical music and drink tea.

I don't think so, since Paul was addressing a specific situation and I don't think it was secular philosophy. Take a look at the latter half of v 8 there "according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ". This suggests to me that the Colossians were being beguiled by a specific group and this isn't about studying analytic epistemological positions. Further on in v 16 he discusses the observance of holidays and Sabbaths, after talking about circumcision. And then v 18-20 Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions,fn puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God. If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— These verses are highly suggestive of some group promoting a very specific philosophy that involved ascetism, requiring the observation of certain holidays, and so forth, that Paul is speaking against. I am not saying that the warnings are not relevant to us, but that they aren't about studying analytic epistemology. Aside from these verses, which I don't think could really be used against the modern philosophical tradition, I agree that ultimately acceptance of the gospel is going to be about faith and not being able to show it is correct through arguments. However, I also know from personal experience that philosophical arguments can be used by the Spirit to bring people to faith on occasion. That is, as a tool, they are neither at the outset good or bad, but perhaps it is more about how they are used and the outcome.

We have but barely begun to tap the embarrassing riches of knowledge about how the natural world works via the scientific method. In that sense, science is far from dead. The growth of our knowledge is currently exponential. That science could never explain all there is to know I hope is obvious to everyone here, but that hardly implies it is dead as a discipline.

Oh well, when I think of what I would consider theological conservative Christianity it would be: belief in the literal death and resurrection of Jesus. belief in the authority of the Bible as specially inspired by God. both things are rejected or modified by theologically liberal versions. Also some other stuff tends to go along with that including a lot of creationism, emphasis on sexual aspects of morality including rejection of premarital sex and homosexuality and some other stuff less notably as far as I can tell. There are a bunch of people who accept the core of theological conservatism who reject or modify other things that tend to go along with that. Yes, I have a bias in stating that last bit, but it is my honest reflection on having been to both fairly conservative and liberal churches and looking at the doctrines and such so far.

I both agree that they shouldn't be barred (that indeed seems like a terrible precedent to set for everyone), but I would vote for a qualified atheist also. I would vote for an atheist whose political stance aligned with mine before a solid believer whose political stances I think are terrible. I would also visit an atheist physician who has an awesome rating over a believer who isn't very good at his job. You may say there is a difference between the two cases since once affects legislation, but that is all the more reason I'd withhold my vote (and try to) for someone whose politics I think is best for everyone.

It depends on what you set the threshold for deciding that so and so believes the Bible is accurate also. I realize the survey asks specific questions that way, but I suppose I mean more in terms of judgments made here. According to some I won't believe the Bible is accurate, if for no other reason than my belief in evolution, though I would dispute that judgment and question its overall meaningfulness anyway. Such a thing doesn't give an accurate indication of the role the Bible plays in my life at all. Given that, I am wary of painting with a broad stroke based on a couple of questions like that and assuming that people either agree down the line with x, y and z, or they just don't take it seriously at all.

I would say that "believing" Jesus is Lord, and confessing that Jesus is truly your Lord is a different thing. One can believe Jesus is Lord without making him your personal Lord.... I know for I did it for 20 years. Alright, add in explicitly genuine confession. Belief and confession went hand in hand for me, insofar as, I had no reason to believe insincerely or in an impersonal way.

romans 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. I believe this passage indicates that if you believe that Jesus is Lord and raised from the dead you are saved, regardless of these other issues. I have also wrestled with many parts of the Bible, and particularly when I first converted did not even know how to take most of it.

I think it depends a lot on the atheist in question. When sharing the gospel, I'd tend toward paraphrasing the Bible in such a way that the individual is likely to understand what I am talking about. I think you have the right intuition about quoting random passages at people tending not to communicate with many. I spent most of the time I was old enough to have an opinion on the matter as an atheist, and I had only a very caricatured idea of what Christianity was about before I took a deep look at it. People had quoted scripture at me before, and it was akin to gibberish to my ear.That being said, the BIble does seem to strongly indicate that the Spirit plays a role in such things, and perhaps if the Spirit led scripture quoting would be appropriate.

No, this isn't true. It took the large majority of the population to ignore it, and it took not just a certain amount of people, but people with the requisite state power. Having 7k random neo nazi nutjobs isn't interesting. The concern is when people with these sorts of tendencies manage to grasp actual power. The concern is not letting these people garner any influence and completely silencing and marginalizing them before they can get into positions of influence and power. We need to learn the lessons of history on this. So to dismiss as "uninteresting" now, would be a mistake. By the time Hitler became "interesting" to us, we had a formidable war machine to confront. As long as they remain blatant and tacky like this, let them do it. When I become genuinely concerned is when they learn how to be subtle and grasp power. This is happening in Ukraine already, and how often do you see that in the media? The minority nationalist party there is built on neonazism, but nobody cares because the West wants to oppose Russia so it is inconvenient. They learn how to tone down their image to gain political power. In contrast, weirdos like the above people running the pageant serve as little threat, and in fact, draw out others with a similar mindset in a way that makes it possible to keep tabs on them. It also makes a mockery out of their views because... really... ms hitler? My concern is, you just suppressing the ability for people like this to express their racism doesn't make the underlying racist tendencies go away. In fact, if anything, it makes them martyrs and stirs up resentment among others.

No, this isn't true. It took the large majority of the population to ignore it, and it took not just a certain amount of people, but people with the requisite state power. Having 7k random neo nazi nutjobs isn't interesting. The concern is when people with these sorts of tendencies manage to grasp actual power.

There are a lot of nonchristians who don't do that stuff either. I'm pretty sure my mom isn't up to that . I'm not picking on you at all, but I suppose I'd just caution against stereotyping...

I don't think there's a problem with the vast majority of music. Or, really, movies, TV etc. Becoming a Christian need not mean being overly strict about entertainment though some might be convicted that way.

Hang out with my spouse, read, listen to music, play music, watch TV/movies, watch crocodiles vs lions on youtube, drink coffee, have interesting discussions, consider which books I want to order next, read papers, exercise, ... hmm, most of the stuff is stuff I did as an unbeliever too, with some alterations here and there.