Jump to content
IGNORED

Let's Start a Dialogue


ByFaithAlone

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  730
  • Content Per Day:  0.16
  • Reputation:   49
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  07/19/2011
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  09/13/1993

Ok so it's a long time since I've posted on this forum. I used to be active back in the day but not so much recently. And I used to really enjoy the conversations I had with both believers and nonbelievers on this site regarding science and religion. However, after looking over the forum I have become to notice that things have become rather one sided with believers posting things and demanding that nonbelievers defend against 30-50 bullet points. It all just seems like a phone that only goes one way.  

I am sure that it must be somewhat annoying for nonbelievers and seekers to be "preached" at all the time. Sometimes people just post a block text of things that they want nonbelievers to account for ranging from abiogenesis to cosmology to evolutionary biology. I am not saying that such threads are unimportant or that people should not be asking questions but I think it's time to turn the tables slightly.    

I was interested in starting a dialogue between those of faith and those that are interested in leaning more or curious about why people believe what they believe. On Reddit and other such sites there are Ask Me Anything posts (AMAs) where users get to ask a person anything they want related to the person's profession, etc. So let's open up the game and turn things around. I'm a Christian and a scientist with degrees in chemistry and history. I'm going to be an open book as best I can. I am sure there are questions that I will be unqualified to answer but I will try my best. Other people can hop in with their own responses of course and anyone is free to disagree with me and ask more questions. 

Let's start a dialogue on Science and Faith. AMA. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

23 hours ago, ByFaithAlone said:

I used to be active back in the day but not so much recently. And I used to really enjoy the conversations I had with both believers and nonbelievers on this site regarding science and religion.

It may be that the "science" section of the forum was pretty lively at some point, but not so much anymore. There are only a handful of us that post anything more than bi-monthly. Additionally, there is pretty much only one topic that gets discussed - evolution (I'll shoulder the blame for that since I'm probably the most active participant over the last few months).

I'll start with a question, though! As a Christian who is a chemist, do you see your daily work as any different than what an atheist chemist would do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

This is excellent, @Vince. Apologetics certainly has several important roles, but sometimes it does lead to the erroneous assumption that we can “prove” God to anyone with all the necessary facts. It is God’s work to stir the heart, and not our work to come up with all the proving points.

  • Thumbs Up 2
  • Brilliant! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  730
  • Content Per Day:  0.16
  • Reputation:   49
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  07/19/2011
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  09/13/1993

22 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Additionally, there is pretty much only one topic that gets discussed - evolution (I'll shoulder the blame for that since I'm probably the most active participant over the last few months).

I'll start with a question, though! As a Christian who is a chemist, do you see your daily work as any different than what an atheist chemist would do?

Thanks to everyone for the replies so far. Even back in the day evolution was always a contested topic around here although there were a lot more cosmological discussions which I tend to find a bit more interesting. There used to be a mathematician (viole I think was the username) that had an excellent grasp of the math behind the inflationary cosmology (aka the Big Bang) and theoretical physics in general. She was always interesting. But I digress. To answer your question, I don't think I see my work that much differently than my friends and colleagues  who are atheists or Jewish or Muslim or any other philosophical bent. Ultimately, in science the goal is to discover some sort of truths about nature and the universe we inhabit. I take a Thomistic view on the matter seeing science as a way to appreciate the beauty of God while I think my fellow chemists who happen to be atheists tend to view that beauty as wonderful but not of divine origin.

7 hours ago, Vince said:

It is clear in my mind that science cannot investigate claims outside of the natural world.  Faith is totally unsupported by scientific evidence.  It is the responsibility of the believer to support their faith claims, it is up to the nonbeliever to determine if that evidence is convincing enough to believe.  In the end faith comes from hearing the word (Romans 10) not by scientific evidence.  It is my opinion that some  believers go down a path of wanting to have answers to every question a non believer has when there are non.  I don't know is a valid answer to a question.  We need to tell others of the gospel not how we think we can prove god exists through a philosophical argument.

I do agree with you in part. I would concur that science has no jurisdiction outside of the natural. However, I would contend that science can be somewhat helpful in discussing certain philosophical arguments for God's existence. For example, the classical Prime Cause philosophical argument first codified in Christian philosophy by Aquinas and since updated and revised numerous times is helped (at least in my mind) by modern cosmological ideas of a past-finite universe (something not known during the time of Aquinas). Certainly both Friedmann and Lemaitre (both devout religious men) thought that inflationary spacetime was best philosophically explained by a creator. I don't think everyone will believe based on these philosophical arguments but they are a starting point for discussion at the very least. 

49 minutes ago, PepperS said:

I have taken part in two threads in this section. Both of which were deleted. There was a lot of argument. One was about neanderthals, but of course the focus became evolution. 

As a Christian I know that God created Adam from the soil, because scripture says so. 

However, I don't know that other people weren't created and what method may have been used.

I know that God created the Heaven and the Earth. His methods for doing these is what I don't know. After all, I was not there.

 

I have noticed a lot of threads tend to head towards the evolution debate which I personally find a bit odd as I am a theist who also concurs with the majority of the scientific community on evolution. As you mention above, the important thing to a theist (at least in my mind) is not the method or process of creation but rather that the universe has a creator. Of course many people are very literal when it comes to the writings of Genesis. I am in more of the camp of some of the Church Fathers who viewed the creation as written in Genesis as allegorical (Origen of Alexandria, Iraneaus of Lyons, St. Augustine and Philo - a Jewish contemporary of Christ and the early church). That is perhaps not a popular view around here but it is mine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Servant
  • Followers:  21
  • Topic Count:  238
  • Topics Per Day:  0.11
  • Content Count:  6,778
  • Content Per Day:  3.24
  • Reputation:   4,726
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  07/05/2018
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  09/23/1954

29 minutes ago, ByFaithAlone said:

I have noticed a lot of threads tend to head towards the evolution debate which I personally find a bit odd as I am a theist who also concurs with the majority of the scientific community on evolution. As you mention above, the important thing to a theist (at least in my mind) is not the method or process of creation but rather that the universe has a creator. Of course many people are very literal when it comes to the writings of Genesis. I am in more of the camp of some of the Church Fathers who viewed the creation as written in Genesis as allegorical (Origen of Alexandria, Iraneaus of Lyons, St. Augustine and Philo - a Jewish contemporary of Christ and the early church). That is perhaps not a popular view around here but it is mine. 

So you're not not a Bible-believer, since the Bible and Theistic Evolution are at odds.

  • Praise God! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  730
  • Content Per Day:  0.16
  • Reputation:   49
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  07/19/2011
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  09/13/1993

6 minutes ago, Michael37 said:

So you're not not a Bible-believer, since the Bible and Theistic Evolution are at odds.

 

1 minute ago, PepperS said:

I just looked up the meaning of  Theistic Evolution.  I had never heard the term before.

Supporters of theistic evolution generally harmonize evolutionary thought with belief in God, rejecting the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science – they hold that religious teachings about creation and scientific theories of evolution need not contradict each other

 

What is your disagreement with this?

If I had to guess (and Michael please correct me if I am wrong) Michael would argue that evolutionary thought is incompatible with a literal reading of Genesis. I would assume that Michael would reject anything other than a literalistic interpretation of the creation account (6 days, young earth, etc) and sees anything less as a dilution of Scriptural inerrancy. On the other hand, I would of course contend that an allegorical interpretation of Genesis fits with both scientific knowledge of the universe and with the understanding of Genesis held by the Early Church and the Patristic and contemporary Jewish sources we have available.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, Michael37 said:

So you're not not a Bible-believer, since the Bible and Theistic Evolution are at odds.

I believe it would be more accurate to state that a literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 is at odds with theistic evolution (TE). I understand the discomfort a TE viewpoint can generate because I grew up in a YEC environment. I still clearly remember a day in Sunday School when a man I greatly admired said something that indicated that he was unsure about the days in the Genesis 1 account being literal, 24-hour days. Now, I didn't assume at that point that he didn't believe the Bible, but I was struck by a sense of sadness that he had obviously been influence by the lies of scientists.

Fast-forward a few decades, and I have learned a little bit of the scientific evidence and reasoning behind the theory of evolution. The apparent age of the universe, the radiometric dating of rock samples by multiple isotopes, the  fossil record, the biogeography of life on the planet, anatomy and physiology, and the patterns of genetics all point to a planet billions of years old (and a much older universe) and life that developed over billions of years, instead of thousands. Young earth creation (YEC) scientists choose alternative explanations for the available evidence, not because it is the most likely explanation, but because of the presupposition of a 6,000 year old earth. Conclusions are not based on evidence, but are limited to what agrees with the presupposition.

In the tradition of Francis Bacon, I believe that God reveals Himself through two books - the book of His Word, and the book of His Works. I believe that both speak the truth and must therefore be reconciled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  730
  • Content Per Day:  0.16
  • Reputation:   49
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  07/19/2011
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  09/13/1993

20 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

In the tradition of Francis Bacon, I believe that God reveals Himself through two books - the book of His Word, and the book of His Works. I believe that both speak the truth and must therefore be reconciled.

Bacon very much falls in line with Augustinian and Thomistic thought on that matter. Augustine's 5th century commentary on the book of Genesis is very interesting if people are interested in getting an understanding as to how the early church viewed Genesis. 

Edited by ByFaithAlone
typo edit
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Servant
  • Followers:  21
  • Topic Count:  238
  • Topics Per Day:  0.11
  • Content Count:  6,778
  • Content Per Day:  3.24
  • Reputation:   4,726
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  07/05/2018
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  09/23/1954

1 hour ago, ByFaithAlone said:

 

If I had to guess (and Michael please correct me if I am wrong) Michael would argue that evolutionary thought is incompatible with a literal reading of Genesis. I would assume that Michael would reject anything other than a literalistic interpretation of the creation account (6 days, young earth, etc) and sees anything less as a dilution of Scriptural inerrancy. On the other hand, I would of course contend that an allegorical interpretation of Genesis fits with both scientific knowledge of the universe and with the understanding of Genesis held by the Early Church and the Patristic and contemporary Jewish sources we have available.  

Hi BFA, Apart from the discrepancies in the Theory of Evolution itself the ramifications of it place Theistic Evolution at odds with the Bible as follows (copied from my archives as it is a recurring but welcome discussion):

Theistic Evolution is the belief that evolution is God's method of Creation.

Francis Collins describes theistic evolution as the position that "evolution is real, but that it was set in motion by God",[3] and characterizes it as accepting "that evolution occurred as biologists describe it, but under the direction of God".[Wkpd]

Anyone who subscribes to theistic evolution places themself in conflict with these Bible verses:

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 

1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

Since macro-evolution(microbes-to-man) requires millions of years of mutation and death before the random/chance/accidental development of a human being, and the Bible clearly teaches that there was no death prior to the creation of the first man, either Darwin is right and the Bible is wrong, or the Bible is right and Darwin is wrong regarding the origin of species.  

Many would-be Christians hold views that are contrary to Scripture without being aware of it. The idea that the Biblical 6 days of Creation are stages of evolution each millions of years long (a requirement of macro-evolution) is not Scriptural. Anyone who persists with this view when they are advised of their error cannot call themselves a Bible-believer, and their profession to be a follower of Christ is in doubt.

Jesus Himself affirmed the Genesis account of Creation and referred to OT Scriptures on many occasions:

Mat 19:4
(4)  And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  730
  • Content Per Day:  0.16
  • Reputation:   49
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  07/19/2011
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  09/13/1993

2 minutes ago, Michael37 said:

Hi BFA, Apart from the discrepancies in the Theory of Evolution itself the ramifications of it place Theistic Evolution at odds with the Bible as follows (copied from my archives as it is a recurring but welcome discussion):

Theistic Evolution is the belief that evolution is God's method of Creation.

Francis Collins describes theistic evolution as the position that "evolution is real, but that it was set in motion by God",[3] and characterizes it as accepting "that evolution occurred as biologists describe it, but under the direction of God".[Wkpd]

Anyone who subscribes to theistic evolution places themself in conflict with these Bible verses:

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 

1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

Since macro-evolution(microbes-to-man) requires millions of years of mutation and death before the random/chance/accidental development of a human being, and the Bible clearly teaches that there was no death prior to the creation of the first man, either Darwin is right and the Bible is wrong, or the Bible is right and Darwin is wrong regarding the origin of species.  

Many would-be Christians hold views that are contrary to Scripture without being aware of it. The idea that the Biblical 6 days of Creation are stages of evolution each millions of years long (a requirement of macro-evolution) is not Scriptural. Anyone who persists with this view when they are advised of their error cannot call themselves a Bible-believer, and their profession to be a follower of Christ is in doubt.

Jesus Himself affirmed the Genesis account of Creation and referred to OT Scriptures on many occasions:

Mat 19:4
(4)  And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

Once again, I would agree with you 100% if I agreed that Christ and his disciples viewed Genesis as a literal telling of God's creative work. I would argue that they likely did not view Genesis with such literalism. Why would I argue that? Mainly due to contemporaries of Christ (Philo of Alexandria for example) did not view Scripture in that way nor did a majority of the early church (once again see Origen of Alexandria, Augustine, etc.) Those in theistic evolution camp (myself and many of the early church included) would argue instead that Genesis is allegorical and shows the relationship between God and creation (Infinite Creator and Finite Created) and that when Paul, Christ and the early church talk about the death caused by the fall they are talking about our death in terms of sinfulness. Paul uses this metaphor several times for example talking about how we die with Christ and are raised anew with him through baptism. This does not mean that we literally die when we are baptized or perhaps there are some ministers and priests that need to be actually tried for hundreds or thousands of murders.

The problem in my mind for those who interpret Genesis in a literal manner is two-fold. Firstly, they assume that Christ, his apostles and the early church viewed it in such a way. As I mentioned above, based on the writings we have discussing the subject this is likely not the consensus among those closest (historically) to Christ. Secondly, it assumes that God has deceived humanity through nature by allowing for such vast misinterpretation of the scientific evidence. This contradicts my theological understanding of God (as well as the early church - once again see the writings of Augustine, Origen, etc.).  For both these reasons, I would argue against such an approach to Genesis.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...