When does science help us understand God?

[alphaparticle]

 

 

 

Modern science stands on the shoulders of men who were the founders of modern science and Christians

Modern science stands on the shoulders of men who were able to leave their beliefs at the door when they put on their lab coats.  Everybody used to at least claim they were a Christian, including scientists, as to not do so could bring bodily harm - as religion has lost its stranglehold on us, we are not only able to do better science, we are better able to have a relationship with God.

 

Newton was pretty explicit about being driven to discovery by God and specifically his Christian beliefs. He did not put those down and become secular while doing science at all. In fact, I might argue that his belief in God led him to expect an orderly and beautiful world, which is what he found. As for others, it was different for every person, but some certainly didn't have the modern sensibilities about 'methodological naturalism' that is enforced today.

[jerryR34]

 

 

 

 

Modern science stands on the shoulders of men who were the founders of modern science and Christians

Modern science stands on the shoulders of men who were able to leave their beliefs at the door when they put on their lab coats.  Everybody used to at least claim they were a Christian, including scientists, as to not do so could bring bodily harm - as religion has lost its stranglehold on us, we are not only able to do better science, we are better able to have a relationship with God.

 

Newton was pretty explicit about being driven to discovery by God and specifically his Christian beliefs. He did not put those down and become secular while doing science at all. In fact, I might argue that his belief in God led him to expect an orderly and beautiful world, which is what he found. As for others, it was different for every person, but some certainly didn't have the modern sensibilities about 'methodological naturalism' that is enforced today.

 

Could he have come to his conclusions if he had not known of the Christian God?  Many scientists make discoveries that even Enoch would recognize, and know nothing of Jesus.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

 

 

Modern science stands on the shoulders of men who were the founders of modern science and Christians

Modern science stands on the shoulders of men who were able to leave their beliefs at the door when they put on their lab coats.  Everybody used to at least claim they were a Christian, including scientists, as to not do so could bring bodily harm - as religion has lost its stranglehold on us, we are not only able to do better science, we are better able to have a relationship with God.

 

Newton was pretty explicit about being driven to discovery by God and specifically his Christian beliefs. He did not put those down and become secular while doing science at all. In fact, I might argue that his belief in God led him to expect an orderly and beautiful world, which is what he found. As for others, it was different for every person, but some certainly didn't have the modern sensibilities about 'methodological naturalism' that is enforced today.

 

Could he have come to his conclusions if he had not known of the Christian God?  Many scientists make discoveries that even Enoch would recognize, and know nothing of Jesus.

 

That's the point.  The point is that being a Christian didn't hinder his ability to do science.  The argument being made is NOT that being a Christian makes one a better scientist.  The point is that Christianity isn't an impediment to science.

[alphaparticle]

 

 

 

 

 

Modern science stands on the shoulders of men who were the founders of modern science and Christians

Modern science stands on the shoulders of men who were able to leave their beliefs at the door when they put on their lab coats.  Everybody used to at least claim they were a Christian, including scientists, as to not do so could bring bodily harm - as religion has lost its stranglehold on us, we are not only able to do better science, we are better able to have a relationship with God.

 

Newton was pretty explicit about being driven to discovery by God and specifically his Christian beliefs. He did not put those down and become secular while doing science at all. In fact, I might argue that his belief in God led him to expect an orderly and beautiful world, which is what he found. As for others, it was different for every person, but some certainly didn't have the modern sensibilities about 'methodological naturalism' that is enforced today.

 

Could he have come to his conclusions if he had not known of the Christian God?  Many scientists make discoveries that even Enoch would recognize, and know nothing of Jesus.

 

For him, it seems that his belief in God was a motivator for his doing science. Was that a necessary condition for Newton's doing the physics he did? I can't say either way.

[jerryR34]

 The argument being made is NOT that being a Christian makes one a better scientist.  The point is that Christianity isn't an impediment to science.

 

And I would say religion in science is unnecessary altogether.  There is no field of science that is benefited by believing in the God of the Bible – or any god for that matter.

[jerryR34]

 

 

 

Mutations/DNA/Irreducible Complexity et al, makes the above scenario Look Like "Real Science"

 

Looks can be deceiving.  I find an overabundance of emoticons is compensation for a lack of of substance.

[gray wolf]

I think Galileo's faith was a little more nuanced than those in authority in his day, and even now as the battle wages on in faith and science.

[gray wolf]

 

 The argument being made is NOT that being a Christian makes one a better scientist.  The point is that Christianity isn't an impediment to science.

 

And I would say religion in science is unnecessary altogether.  There is no field of science that is benefited by believing in the God of the Bible – or any god for that matter.

 

I would echo Einstein's words:  Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

[Hawkins]

In the past, religion was in control over science, that is, science would have to give way if it violated a religious concept. This is no longer the situation. It is even in the very contrary that science is now in control over religion, that is, if a religious concept violates a scientific concept, people will demand the religion to give way. In the case, we need to review whether the "science" in this situation is actually a new religion advocating a "flat earth" then force it over an old religion.

[Hawkins]

What evidence would it take to convince you of evolution?

 

All I can say is that you posses a twisted concept about what science that your fallacious concept is never convincing. You can be convincing only when you are capable of possessing a correct concept of what science is.

 

A true science doesn't rely on evidence to convince people. A true is to discover the set of rules behind a repeating behavior (phenomenon). We can predict this behavior as it repeats.

 

=======

There's a reason why science can prove things beyond doubt where faith is considered having no bearing.

For a simplified example, water dissolves into hydrogen and oxygen. You can make such a prediction before each experiment that "water will dissolve into hydrogen and oxygen disregarding when and where you do the experiment". If your this prediction shall failed, you can get a Nobel Prize because this is the way how the formula is falsified. You make predictions which will never fail (or else you can get a Nobel Prize), this is what the nature of science is. A human brain will know for sure (without faith) that it is a truth because the endless repeatedly made predictions will never fail.

This is regarding to the predictability of science. Predictability depends on repeatability (things must be repeatable to make the predictions), and without predictability it's not a science. However, today's human call everything a science even that without any predictability.

For another example, if you try to conclude that cat is a result of evolution, you need to make a cat from a single cell repeatedly till you can predict that "if you follow these procedures, the single cell will certainly be turned to a cat (but not a dog)". And your this prediction never fail, then you are holding the truth. This is what science is.

However, humans (including scientists) know that the above (turning cell to cat) is not possible. That's why the scientists have already abandoned the true scientific approach. Instead of confirming a scientific truth by repeated predictions without failure, they start to use another approach to try to find out the truth of the origin of species. They try to look into the past to collect the so-called "evidence". However, this approach is hardly a science.

You need to know what limits humans are facing, before you draw your own conclusion.

Yet another example, why the Big Bang Theory is controversial because the Big Bang itself never repeats in front of humans. Strictly speaking it's not a science because you can never get the predictability out of it until it repeats. Subsequently, since it cannot be confirmed scientifically, you can have multiple theories about what it is. And you can choose one of them to believe with faith.

=======

The "science" in the mouth of the atheists won't attain the same accuracy as a true science does in detecting a truth. Worst still, they can no longer tell what is a truth beyond doubt and what is an assumption requiring faith. They are the true religionists who believe whatever being called "science".