Do Christians fear science?

[sylvan3]

Deuteronomy

32:23 I will heap mischiefs upon them; I will spend mine arrows upon them.

32:24 They shall be burnt with hunger, and devoured with burning heat, and with bitter destruction: I will also send the teeth of beasts upon them, with the poison of serpents of the dust.

32:25 The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the suckling also with the man of gray hairs.

32:26 I said, I would scatter them into corners, I would make the remembrance of them to cease from among men

This in no way comes across to me like an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, loving God (I believe there are some innocents in those verses as well). I see it as a product of a fertile imagination.

What? Would you be more impressed if God said, "I'll snap my fingers and blink you out of existence?" or "I'll turn you into a frog...."

How about not putting someone into existence that he knew would cause him the type of angst that would result in such draconian action being necessary?

Of my many questions, the one that I don't feel has been answered well at all is the one about how an omniscient God could get angry at his creations if he knew ahead of time that they were going to get him "mad". (Besides, why would innocent "sucklings" and "men of gray hair" make him mad?). Feel free to give it a shot.

What? Maybe sinners should get to go to detention for the weekend? Instead of hell? Maybe the Lord should just say, "Now don't do that again..." *does it again*.."Now don't do that again..." *does it again* "Now don't do that again....",etc?

Clearly, your concept of an omniscient, omnipotent God differs from mine. He KNEW they were going to sin...If that concept works for you, great. It doesn't work for me.

I think your view shows anthropomorphism of God--he is like one of us. We have to resort to punishment in order to control other human beings, and, apparently, so does he.

Edited August 8, 2006 by sylvan3

[ScubaSteve]

This paragraph only shows that you decided to accept the existence of God while other rational explanations exist.

...meaning God's existence is rational. Yeah, there are plenty of rational explanations for various phenomena. They all can't be correct, because many of them contradict each other and compete. I have not, however, found a fact derived from any scientific exploration that contradicts the existence of God or His activity in this world.

Evolution shows that genesis is bunk. Geology shows that the Flood is bunk. We know that creatures present in the Bible like unicorns and talking snakes and all that nonsense never existed. You religion is based on a book full of superstitions and mythology; how you can even suppose it could be true is completely beyond me. It's also beyond me how you can say that God's existence is rational when everything you attribute to divine intervention could be explained in ways that do not need any magic and are thus way more likely than your completely unsupported religion.

The bone I would like to pick is that you say Evolution shows that Genesis is bunk. I beg to differ on that because Evolution isn't proven yet! They have a general idea of what happened in evolution, but just seem to be missing some vital links in the whole scheme of things. Until those links are found (if they ever will be) evolution cannot be used to prove anything. It is still only a theory. Another thing I would like to state about evolution is that if we evolved from apes from changes in our DNA, why are there still apes?

But anyway, that's digressing from the point of conversation so will leave it at that. Just wanted to add my two cents worth

[Copper Scroll]

I'm going to ignore the debate and go straight to the OP.

Are Christians afraid of science? Yes and no. Some are, some are leary, some evaluate it, and others embrace is no question asked.

The reason some are afraid of science is they don't understand it or really their own faith. For about 150 years we've been taught that faith is that which is believed when there is little to no proof. Thus, if you try and prove something about God, you are going against faith. So science was ignored...and then Darwinian evolution began to take hold and all science was condemned. Christians didn't try to counter the science or look for truth within it (amongst the lies) but instead rejected everything because they saw it as an offense to God.

This has led to rejection of doctors (unless really needed) and practicing faith absent of any physical involvement.

Christians shouldn't fear science as true science is merely trying to discover the world, how it opperates in relation to man and the rest of creation, and what aspects can benefit human beings. This is true science...it was given to us by God. God wants us to study His creation...so why do we fear that which God gave us but man abused?

I'm in complete agreement. I just wish most of those scien-phobic Christians would have answered this thread... and answered it honestly.

[Smalcald]

Deuteronomy

32:23 I will heap mischiefs upon them; I will spend mine arrows upon them.

32:24 They shall be burnt with hunger, and devoured with burning heat, and with bitter destruction: I will also send the teeth of beasts upon them, with the poison of serpents of the dust.

32:25 The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the suckling also with the man of gray hairs.

32:26 I said, I would scatter them into corners, I would make the remembrance of them to cease from among men

This in no way comes across to me like an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, loving God (I believe there are some innocents in those verses as well). I see it as a product of a fertile imagination.

What? Would you be more impressed if God said, "I'll snap my fingers and blink you out of existence?" or "I'll turn you into a frog...."

How about not putting someone into existence that he knew would cause him the type of angst that would result in such draconian action being necessary?

Of my many questions, the one that I don't feel has been answered well at all is the one about how an omniscient God could get angry at his creations if he knew ahead of time that they were going to get him "mad". (Besides, why would innocent "sucklings" and "men of gray hair" make him mad?). Feel free to give it a shot.

What? Maybe sinners should get to go to detention for the weekend? Instead of hell? Maybe the Lord should just say, "Now don't do that again..." *does it again*.."Now don't do that again..." *does it again* "Now don't do that again....",etc?

Clearly, your concept of an omniscient, omnipotent God differs from mine. He KNEW they were going to sin...If that concept works for you, great. It doesn't work for me.

I think your view shows anthropomorphism of God--he is like one of us. We have to resort to punishment in order to control other human beings, and, apparently, so does he.

But if God is not like us, then you should stop trying to totally understand God correct?

But orthodox Christianity does not create a God that "works" for us, that is basically a modern concept really saying God is a psychological tool to help people find peace or happiness or an excuse, or whatever they may need. When the need is gone simply create a new God image, whatever works for you, for you new needs, the essential idea is that none of it really exists outside of our own heads.

Christians have a God of revelation. We don't get to say well we disagree with how this God is portrayed, we also will never understand this God, and Holy Scripture tells us we will never understand, that we will always see things through a murky glass.

So we have faith in Christ, we love this being who we have never seen, yet know in our hearts exists as a present and future literal reality. If you have a God that wants true love, an omnipotent God knows that true love will mean the possibility for no love, love must be a true choice to be love. This is an explanation put forth by Lewis, I like it. But it is only one explanation; Holy Scripture addresses the issue in Romans. Here Paul asks rhetorically, well if no one can resist His will, why does God still find fault? The answer was that a potter can do what he wills with the clay, and the clay does not get to talk back.

This is not a comforting answer necessarily, but I think it is a realistic one.

[apothanein kerdos]

I'm going to ignore the debate and go straight to the OP.

Are Christians afraid of science? Yes and no. Some are, some are leary, some evaluate it, and others embrace is no question asked.

The reason some are afraid of science is they don't understand it or really their own faith. For about 150 years we've been taught that faith is that which is believed when there is little to no proof. Thus, if you try and prove something about God, you are going against faith. So science was ignored...and then Darwinian evolution began to take hold and all science was condemned. Christians didn't try to counter the science or look for truth within it (amongst the lies) but instead rejected everything because they saw it as an offense to God.

This has led to rejection of doctors (unless really needed) and practicing faith absent of any physical involvement.

Christians shouldn't fear science as true science is merely trying to discover the world, how it opperates in relation to man and the rest of creation, and what aspects can benefit human beings. This is true science...it was given to us by God. God wants us to study His creation...so why do we fear that which God gave us but man abused?

I'm in complete agreement. I just wish most of those scien-phobic Christians would have answered this thread... and answered it honestly.

I should clarify that we should fear a misuse of science. When science is used to say that man is nothing more than a machine and that sometimes we find a ghost in the machine, but nothing more, I think that is a science that should be "feared" but also fought against. The best way to fight this science is not "Thus sayeth the Lord" but with scientific fact or advanced theory.

[sylvan3]

Christians shouldn't fear science as true science is merely trying to discover the world, how it opperates in relation to man and the rest of creation, and what aspects can benefit human beings. This is true science...it was given to us by God. God wants us to study His creation...so why do we fear that which God gave us but man abused?

What happens if science shows that the Bible does not accurately portray the world in some scientific way? Does a Christian then operate under the principle that the Bible cannot be wrong? Would this then result in evidence being shaped to fit the philosophy as opposed to the philosophy being shaped to fit the evidence?

[Copper Scroll]

I should clarify that we should fear a misuse of science. When science is used to say that man is nothing more than a machine and that sometimes we find a ghost in the machine, but nothing more, I think that is a science that should be "feared" but also fought against. The best way to fight this science is not "Thus sayeth the Lord" but with scientific fact or advanced theory.

Your points resemble comments I made in the OP. I'd like to get your input on questions I posed at the end of that post and another that came up later: Does the Genesis text imply that we could become omnipotent through scientific progress?

[apothanein kerdos]

What happens if science shows that the Bible does not accurately portray the world in some scientific way? Does a Christian then operate under the principle that the Bible cannot be wrong? Would this then result in evidence being shaped to fit the philosophy as opposed to the philosophy being shaped to fit the evidence?

I've yet to find actual evidence that does contradict the Bible. The Bible, in the Genesis story, does not have to read in a literal fashion. In fact, if you read it, it reads in a more poetic fashion than it does in a literal one, therefore it makes no sense to make it literal. Once we do not do that, there are no contradictions between real scientific evidence and the Bible.

Seeking to "make a name" for oneself does sound narcissistic and egotistic, but is there more to it than that? Is there something wrong with coming together for a common purpose? Does God find this threatening--the power gained through collective and organized action and ingenuity? Is God against scientific progress and social cooperation? I'd like your input on these questions too.

The Tower of Babel story illistrates man's frailty. God did not think that man could unify in order to reach Him, instead they missed the point. He wanted them to fulfill His purpose and instead they refused trying to act more spiritual. This was really nothing more than a form of rebellion.

In modern terms, anything that leads us to naturalistic conclusions or conclusions based on a naturalistic method would be displeasing to God because it does not acknowledge Him as the Creator. In the attempt to understand Creation, we inevitably forgo the creator, which God most certainly would be against.

Believing that we are created leads to greater scientific advancements, such as transplant heart surgery or even the first bypass surgery for cyanotic heart defects.

[Floatingaxe]

What happens if science shows that the Bible does not accurately portray the world in some scientific way? Does a Christian then operate under the principle that the Bible cannot be wrong? Would this then result in evidence being shaped to fit the philosophy as opposed to the philosophy being shaped to fit the evidence?

It's the other way around. Science ebbs and flows with new discoveries all the time, constantly reordering thought as new truths are found, debunking old myths and ideas. Science is constantly proving the standard--the Word of God! It stands! Science is transient, the Word is immovable.

Blessings!

[sylvan3]

What happens if science shows that the Bible does not accurately portray the world in some scientific way? Does a Christian then operate under the principle that the Bible cannot be wrong? Would this then result in evidence being shaped to fit the philosophy as opposed to the philosophy being shaped to fit the evidence?

I've yet to find actual evidence that does contradict the Bible. The Bible, in the Genesis story, does not have to read in a literal fashion. In fact, if you read it, it reads in a more poetic fashion than it does in a literal one, therefore it makes no sense to make it literal. Once we do not do that, there are no contradictions between real scientific evidence and the Bible.

This seems to me to be having it both ways. You get to throw out anything in the Bible that conflicts with science and claim that part isn't to be taken literally. Anything else that you don't think conflicts with science is then to be taken literally. Then you get to say that the Bible is the word of God and has no contradictions with science.