UndecidedFrog Posted October 14, 2011 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 2 Topic Count: 16 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,063 Content Per Day: 0.29 Reputation: 15 Days Won: 1 Joined: 08/02/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted October 14, 2011 If scientists are allowed to use scientific findings to suggest we no longer need God, then why can't Christians use scientific findings to suggest that we do? Both scientists and nonscientists who do not believe in god and those that do are allowed to use whatever they want to support their beliefs or non-beliefs. However, what you will notice is that when people attempt to express their beliefs or non-beliefs in gods and attempt to disguise that as science and insert that into public school science curricula, or into peer-reviewed scientific journals, they will get an appropriate rude awakening. When Richard Dawkins expresses his atheism, it is not in any scientific journal or science textbook. When Francis Collins expresses his god-beliefs, it is not in any scientific journal or science textbook. When Kenneth Miller expresses his god-beliefs, it is not in any scientific journal or science textbook. When the above 3 scientists write in scientific journals or in science textbooks, you will notice an absence of the mention of gods, or the supernatural. Either scientific findings can, or can't, be used to inform us about spiritual matters, you can't have it both ways, and, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. You can attempt to use scientific findings anyway you see fit. However, if you attempt to insert them to support a position on the existence of god/s or the supernatural in scientific journals or science textbooks, your attempts should be appropriately shot down. This works for the goose and the gander. Regards, UndecidedFrog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nakosis Posted October 14, 2011 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 290 Content Per Day: 0.06 Reputation: 4 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/30/2011 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/05/1959 Share Posted October 14, 2011 If scientists are allowed to use scientific findings to suggest we no longer need God, then why can't Christians use scientific findings to suggest that we do? Either scientific findings can, or can't, be used to inform us about spiritual matters, you can't have it both ways, and, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Actually Dawkins uses the title to sell the book. He is not even a physicist, he studies animal behavior. Certainly not an authority on anything else. However he uses the perception of being a scientist and inference to support really his opinion. He stirs up the Christians and gets a lot of free publicity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UndecidedFrog Posted October 14, 2011 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 2 Topic Count: 16 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,063 Content Per Day: 0.29 Reputation: 15 Days Won: 1 Joined: 08/02/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted October 14, 2011 If scientists are allowed to use scientific findings to suggest we no longer need God, then why can't Christians use scientific findings to suggest that we do? Either scientific findings can, or can't, be used to inform us about spiritual matters, you can't have it both ways, and, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Actually Dawkins uses the title to sell the book. He is not even a physicist, he studies animal behavior. Certainly not an authority on anything else. However he uses the perception of being a scientist and inference to support really his opinion. He stirs up the Christians and gets a lot of free publicity. Nakosis, Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and an atheist. He doesn't need to use any perception of being a scientist, he is a scientist. However, when he talks about god/s existing or not, he is not talking about science. Regards, UndecidedFrog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nakosis Posted October 14, 2011 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 290 Content Per Day: 0.06 Reputation: 4 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/30/2011 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/05/1959 Share Posted October 14, 2011 If scientists are allowed to use scientific findings to suggest we no longer need God, then why can't Christians use scientific findings to suggest that we do? Either scientific findings can, or can't, be used to inform us about spiritual matters, you can't have it both ways, and, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Actually Dawkins uses the title to sell the book. He is not even a physicist, he studies animal behavior. Certainly not an authority on anything else. However he uses the perception of being a scientist and inference to support really his opinion. He stirs up the Christians and gets a lot of free publicity. Nakosis, Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and an atheist. He doesn't need to use any perception of being a scientist, he is a scientist. However, when he talks about god/s existing or not, he is not talking about science. Regards, UndecidedFrog His training was Anthropology, zoology specifically. I didn't say he wasn't a scientist. However being a scientist provides a perception of speaking on behalf of science when he writes his books. I've heard him be very honest about this in his interviews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted October 15, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.89 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted October 15, 2011 If scientists are allowed to use scientific findings to suggest we no longer need God, then why can't Christians use scientific findings to suggest that we do? Either scientific findings can, or can't, be used to inform us about spiritual matters, you can't have it both ways, and, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Actually Dawkins uses the title to sell the book. He is not even a physicist, he studies animal behavior. Certainly not an authority on anything else. However he uses the perception of being a scientist and inference to support really his opinion. He stirs up the Christians and gets a lot of free publicity. Nakosis, Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and an atheist. He doesn't need to use any perception of being a scientist, he is a scientist. However, when he talks about god/s existing or not, he is not talking about science. Regards, UndecidedFrog His training was Anthropology, zoology specifically. I didn't say he wasn't a scientist. However being a scientist provides a perception of speaking on behalf of science when he writes his books. I've heard him be very honest about this in his interviews. Exactly. There is no denying the fact that they are attempting to say that because of their scientific findings, there is now no use for God to explain anything. And he tries to use his so called authority as a scientist to strengthen his argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgedrw81 Posted October 15, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,823 Content Per Day: 0.33 Reputation: 36 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/10/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted October 15, 2011 Entering the Library of Congress one is overhelmed by the quantities that have been written, among the writtings there are also scientific writtings. The only drawback with these wrttings is that they do not have a conclusion. A scientific book written 50 years ago has it contents contested in oneway or another. I personally like to read about new discoveries and new data they publish, I like them because they show me a glimpse of God's amazing work. Only one publication has explained everything to us, only one book we need to read and understand. Blessings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Fanucci Posted October 15, 2011 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 185 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/12/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted October 15, 2011 If scientists are allowed to use scientific findings to suggest we no longer need God, then why can't Christians use scientific findings to suggest that we do? They do. Its called creation research, but no one hears about it because it only appears in creationist journals. The reason for that is because its bad science. If it were good science, there would be no faith vs science debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted October 16, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.89 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted October 16, 2011 If scientists are allowed to use scientific findings to suggest we no longer need God, then why can't Christians use scientific findings to suggest that we do? Either scientific findings can, or can't, be used to inform us about spiritual matters, you can't have it both ways, and, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Actually Dawkins uses the title to sell the book. He is not even a physicist, he studies animal behavior. Certainly not an authority on anything else. However he uses the perception of being a scientist and inference to support really his opinion. He stirs up the Christians and gets a lot of free publicity. Nakosis, Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and an atheist. He doesn't need to use any perception of being a scientist, he is a scientist. However, when he talks about god/s existing or not, he is not talking about science. Regards, UndecidedFrog His training was Anthropology, zoology specifically. I didn't say he wasn't a scientist. However being a scientist provides a perception of speaking on behalf of science when he writes his books. I've heard him be very honest about this in his interviews. Exactly. There is no denying the fact that they are attempting to say that because of their scientific findings, there is now no use for God to explain anything. And he tries to use his so called authority as a scientist to strengthen his argument. What they maintain is that there is no necessity to explain anything in Nature with God. They do not say that God surely does not exist: they simply say that there are alternative explanations to natural phenomena. You are still absolutely free to decide whether, say, rainbows are the remnants of God's message to humanity that He will not cause another flood or they are caused by the refraction of sunlight when passing through a region with rain (and, therefore, happened also before the alleged WW flood). Both are sufficient explanations of rainbows. You can freely decide, by applying your critical thinking, which explanation is more likely to be true. There is something getting confused here. Finding out the physical reason for the appearance of a rainbow, does not imply ANYTHING about God. From my side of the fence, it just describes how He set up this physical universe, discovering the laws it works by. You can study those laws completely apart from Him and anything spiritual if you choose (that is what science is) but having a complete understanding of the laws by which this universe operates in no way lends evidence to the idea that there is no God. I look at a rainbow, I know that it is caused by refraction, but I think that refraction is something God designed, and it remains a symbol of His promise to us. So I think you have presented a false dichotomy... there is no need to DECIDE which explanation is more likely to be true, as obviously refraction is true, and yet the meaning behind the rainbow as God's promise to us is also true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoob57 Posted October 16, 2011 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 35 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 41,311 Content Per Day: 7.99 Reputation: 21,518 Days Won: 76 Joined: 03/13/2010 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/27/1957 Share Posted October 16, 2011 Only one publication has explained everything to us, only one book we need to read and understand. I totally agree. C. Darwin's "On The Origin Of Species" is very often criticized but seldom read and understood. How ridiculous that clam is overly baked and debunked by the complexity of the single cell so stated by Darwin Himself- it had to be simple or the whole theory would collapse! Because the single cell is complex ... the time for evolutionary response exceeds fathomable paramenters! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted October 16, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.89 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted October 16, 2011 Well, I have no problem suggesting that there were rainbows before the flood, that the rules of light did not change during that cataclysmic event so God made a promise, and said... now, everytime you see this rainbow, it means etc etc etc. Put mathematically: the naturalistic/materialistic worldview is sufficient (but not necessary) to explain nature. I hate to be pedantic, but define nature? Do you mean everything, or all the physical entities and processes? The naturalistic worldview explains physical entities and processes (we both agree) but it does not suggest or prove or even lend evidence to the notion that there is no spiritual dimension. We must be careful to differentiate between what laws we observe in nature, and whether or not those laws were created by some spiritual entity (as I believe). Science is a study of those laws and not a study of how to (or whether to) attribute those laws to a spiritual entity. Creation scientists, and scientists in general, cannot look at refraction in action and claim it supports the notion that a rainbow is God's promise to us. Neither can they claim it refutes that notion. It is merely uninformative. At best, we can say something does or doesn't align with what we expect to see if the biblical account were true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts