Why Christians Despise "Science" (service, moral, atheists, about)

[yeshuasavedme]

Science falsely so called is what true Bible believing Christians are against; and evolution is "science falsely so called".
1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

[DreamingSpires]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I regret that I must reserve reps for informative or thought - provoking or well - constructed posts rather than for technical point - scoring

I rep for the same reasons but, unlike you apparently, I also rep for wit.

[Thomas R.]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Time for a websters definition.

Main Entry: ni·hil·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈnī-(h)ə-ˌli-zəm, ˈnē-\
Function: noun
Etymology: German Nihilismus, from Latin nihil nothing — more at nil
Date: circa 1817
1 a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless b : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths
2 a : a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility b capitalized : the program of a 19th century Russian party advocating revolutionary reform and using terrorism and assassination
— ni·hil·ist \-list\ noun or adjective
— ni·hil·is·tic \ˌnī-(h)ə-ˈlis-tik, ˌnē-\ adjective

I was speaking of its historic and encyclopedic meaning, its origins in Russia.

"A nihilist is a man who bows to no authorities, who accepts not a single principle of faith no matter with what respect that principle is surrounded." Ivan Turgenev

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

That is just what rather appalls me. Setting up a system of absolute truths based on nothing but subjective interpretations at best and nothing provable at worst and rejecting on flimsy grounds (or none) any unwelcome evidence is not what I'd regard as admirable.

What I believe it's not simply someone's subjective interpretation. The interpretation of an individual human does not necessarily have any clout. It's a system of centuries of various humans experiences, studies, and wisdom. Even the Pope, if my understanding is correct, can not overturn things clearly established. If the Pope declared "psych there is no Immaculate Conception" I believe this would be a sign he is not doing what he is supposed to and should be removed.

Now from your perspective the opinions of God or Jesus are just one more subjective human experience, but this is essentially saying "If atheism is correct on God than atheism is correct on God." Judged on its own basis God can set up a system of absolute Truth, even if not every human is following it, because God is real and knows everything. If you do not believe in God now than this may give you no reason to do so, but I am generally not interested in conversion so much as defense.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

No, it isn't. In fact deconverts very often seem to be ministers who knew their religion inside out and began to ask questions, whether to answer thers or themselves. Of course, because they do know their religion inside out may give them a high atheist profile, but the fact remains. You can't put forward speculative and particular categorizations of deconverts to fit a comfortable view that atheists and deconverts don't actually have any good reason for their stance.

I think "very often" is more than a little bit exaggerated. Websites that deal with this matter are going to list clergy "very often" because they are among the most interesting cases. Even then when I've looked at them ministers/priests aren't necessarily "very common." I have no way of knowing, but I really doubt former ministers are common among non-theists or that non-theists are common among former ministers. I knew a former seminarian who's brother was an atheist and who led a fairly promiscuous homosexual life, but he didn't become an atheist. He was still very devoutly, if eccentrically, Christian. I know one person online who was a minister and could maybe be considered a "de-convert", kind-of, but he still considers himself a Christian too. He has reinterpreted it in an eccentric way in that to him Christ is still "more than human", without being God, and God is in fact irrelevant. He could be deemed atheist than, by its definition of "no God or Gods", but certainly not your kind of atheist. He doesn't really believe in God, but he believes in inexplicable forces and beings.

Still perhaps I overplayed my hand. Sure it's possible to really know Christianity, or anything, and come out rejecting it. Nobel Laureate Richard Smalley, granted a Chemistry Laureate, may have become some kind of Creationist/Intelligent-Design supporter at the end. What is known is he said Genesis was "true" in some sense. (Note: This is not an argument for Creationism, I'm not that kind of Christian) Also religion is complex and complicated so disillusionment with it might be easier. Disillusionment with marriage or politics is pretty easy too I'd guess.

I might deal with the rest later, but it seems like this threads a hopping and I'm still not sure getting sucked back in was at all a good thing.

[AREQUIPA]

Originally Posted by Thomas R.

I was speaking of its historic and encyclopedic meaning, its origins in Russia.

Understood. However that is or was a political movement and I regard it as nothing to do with my views on life, the universe and everything from the view of an atheist.

"A nihilist is a man who bows to no authorities, who accepts not a single principle of faith no matter with what respect that principle is surrounded." Ivan Turgenev

Of course, it is possible that the term Nihilism is all realeated to this Russian movement. if so I would not (I do not) use it in discussing the theism atheism worldview. I can only recall it being mentioned by theists trying to link atheism or naturalism or the general non -theist worldview with Nihilism. I see that as now inapplicable, certainly in the sense that Turgenev used it. Some atheists may be Nihilists. I know some are very left wing, but it isn't a requisite viewpoint of atheism, except in the sense of undertanding that there are no intrinsic values or worth or right or wrong or meaning other than those that humans take as valuable. But that certainly isn't nihilism as I'd see it.

What I believe it's not simply someone's subjective interpretation. The interpretation of an individual human does not necessarily have any clout. It's a system of centuries of various humans experiences, studies, and wisdom. Even the Pope, if my understanding is correct, can not overturn things clearly established. If the Pope declared "psych there is no Immaculate Conception" I believe this would be a sign he is not doing what he is supposed to and should be removed.

I certainly agree with a lot of this. The corpus of knowledge is based on centuries of experience and correction, too. Just because a belief is ancient or widespread does not mean that it has to be true.

Now from your perspective the opinions of God or Jesus are just one more subjective human experience, but this is essentially saying "If atheism is correct on God than atheism is correct on God." Judged on its own basis God can set up a system of absolute Truth, even if not every human is following it, because God is real and knows everything. If you do not believe in God now than this may give you no reason to do so, but I am generally not interested in conversion so much as defense.

All I can say is that where there is no evidence that a god exists, there is no evidence that a system of absolute truth is in place and there is no good evidence that there is any god -input in the world or that any religious revelations are worthy of belief, and some pretty good evidence that the opposite of these suppositions evidentially obtains, then logically non - belief is the only valid option. I don't see how that needs defence.

The 'conversation' comes from theists proffering various arguments - first cause, the Bible, personal experience, tradition, 'without god there is no...'

And the debate really is showing that these arguments do not add up. God - belief does in the end come down to faith, arguably blind faith, since the rationale for non - belief is simply dismissed on poor grounds, and all that atheism needs is for theism to 'fess up that it a belief without any good evidential foundation. The debate goes on because of the continuing casting around for proofs of God. The Plantinga thread is the latest and it's a goodie. But, if I have the essentials and implications straight, it actually disproves God better than any argument I've yet heard.

I think "very often" is more than a little bit exaggerated. Websites that deal with this matter are going to list clergy "very often" because they are among the most interesting cases. Even then when I've looked at them ministers/priests aren't necessarily "very common." I have no way of knowing, but I really doubt former ministers are common among non-theists or that non-theists are common among former ministers. I knew a former seminarian who's brother was an atheist and who led a fairly promiscuous homosexual life, but he didn't become an atheist. He was still very devoutly, if eccentrically, Christian. I know one person online who was a minister and could maybe be considered a "de-convert", kind-of, but he still considers himself a Christian too. He has reinterpreted it in an eccentric way in that to him Christ is still "more than human", without being God, and God is in fact irrelevant. He could be deemed atheist than, by its definition of "no God or Gods", but certainly not your kind of atheist. He doesn't really believe in God, but he believes in inexplicable forces and beings.

I haven't conducted a poll and I agree that my view may be partial. I did say that they may stand out because their Bible -knowledge makes them so effective as debators. However, it is something I noticed when reading deconversions or looking at debates. 'Gosh, another ex - minister', I so often found myself saying. It's rather like in the creationists and Cultists and UFO types. Again and again 'Engineer' seems to pop up. It may be false perception on my part but I wonder whether the mechanical view rather than the scientific view might encourage cult -think.

Still perhaps I overplayed my hand. Sure it's possible to really know Christianity, or anything, and come out rejecting it. Nobel Laureate Richard Smalley, granted a Chemistry Laureate, may have become some kind of Creationist/Intelligent-Design supporter at the end. What is known is he said Genesis was "true" in some sense. (Note: This is not an argument for Creationism, I'm not that kind of Christian) Also religion is complex and complicated so disillusionment with it might be easier. Disillusionment with marriage or politics is pretty easy too I'd guess.

I tend to think of conducting a mind - experiment rather than trying to win a game of playing cards. I really am more interested in getting at the truth than just winning (1). If you have overplayed your hand on the ex-minister thing, it doesn't matter in the least. What's important is that the point is taken on board in the overall understanding of the debate and given what weight it deserves after discussion.

I might deal with the rest later, but it seems like this threads a hopping and I'm still not sure getting sucked back in was at all a good thing.

It's up to you of course. I feel pressured more than I have for some time on the Plantinga thread (mainly because it's very abstruse and for an ordinary bod with no expertise in philosophy, I feel stretched). I would regret it if you left, but I'd suggest that, even if you did, the concern that you were just choosing to refuse to look at perhaps bothersome arguments would continue to haunt a mind whose essential integrity and willingness to think shows through post after post.

(1) Dictum, Or axiom. I would rather be proved wrong and learn something than win an argument with a false proposition.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by yeshuasavedme

Science falsely so called is what true Bible believing Christians are against; and evolution is "science falsely so called".
1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Oh oh.. YSM just scored one for me, right here, live, in front of millions. Babblings, huh?

Thx, YSM!

(Never knew an evolution specialist in genetics or biochemistry or geology who wasn't an accredited scientist, following the SciMethod to the letter. Just because YSM, who will tell you the moon and the sun are the same size, and that the entire universe revolves around Earth, doesn't LIKE the results of honest inquiry does NOT make science false.)

And yet, here she is...

Case closed.

[Jason28]

Christians don't despise science, thats what you call people who don't enjoy that particular subject or close minded people who associate all science with one specific theory. Just because I don't believe in the Big Bang theory doesn't mean I can't enjoy chemistry, physics, or earth science. Contrary to popular belief science, specifically astronomy, makes me believe in God more. To look out at all the other planets, solar systems, and stars it makes it more clear to me that someone created it all. Its simply too big and too beautiful to just have randomly happened. Some of us view science as a way to study God's creation, rather than hate it and associate everything with it as evil. Close minded and ignorant people lurk everywhere, not just in Christianity.

[rxpwas]

Originally Posted by rifleman

Oh oh.. YSM just scored one for me, right here, live, in front of millions. Babblings, huh?

Thx, YSM!

(Never knew an evolution specialist in genetics or biochemistry or geology who wasn't an accredited scientist, following the SciMethod to the letter. Just because YSM, who will tell you the moon and the sun are the same size, and that the entire universe revolves around Earth, doesn't LIKE the results of honest inquiry does NOT make science false.)

And yet, here she is...

Case closed.

Rifleman, you really are on son-of-a-gun.

[DreamingSpires]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

That makes a good point. I would prefer to participate in discussions that discuss a matter of facts or logic rather than trading accusations about attitudes.

While Rifleman came across rather strong, but not, in fact, abusive or insulting, his point was a reasonable one. When Theists so often come up with variants on 'who knows anything?', it is reasonable to ask what would a theist consider reasonable proof.

On the other hand, sonrise's post, while couched in mild, reasonable language, was essentially inviting atheists to go for each other's throats in disagreeing about whatever they could be got to disagree about.

On what basis do you draw this conculsion? Are you saying that if someone asks a question about "factions" within a particular group, where it is reasonably forseeable that such factions indeed exist, that the mere asking of the question is prima facie evidence of bad faith? It sure sounds like that's what you are saying.

For example, let's say an agnostic, atheist, or Protestant poses the following question to Catholics:

"Could Catholics please explain the difference to me between 'pro-life' Catholics and groups such as 'Catholics For Choice'?"

Is this, in your view, a veiled "invitation for Catholics to go at each others' throats"?

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by Jason28

Christians don't despise science, that's what you call people who don't enjoy that particular subject or close minded people who associate all science with one specific theory. Just because I don't believe in the Big Bang theory doesn't mean I can't enjoy chemistry, physics, or earth science.

Contrary to popular belief science, specifically astronomy, makes me believe in God more. To look out at all the other planets, solar systems, and stars it makes it more clear to me that someone created it all. Its simply too big and too beautiful to just have randomly happened. Some of us view science as a way to study God's creation, rather than hate it and associate everything with it as evil.

Close minded and ignorant people lurk everywhere, not just in Christianity.

My OP was, as I've explained, aimed squarely at those Christians such as YSM up there, and NIKK, and Tom Campbell, who openly and frequently provide negative commentary on all science in general. Of course I know they are only reffing specific problematic findings (evolution, an ancient Earth, geology, the ice age, dinosaur history, astronomy, etc. etc.) but they nonetheless disparage it all in their haste to bury proven or new facts. When it suits them (their laptop, microwave or car) it's all A-OK. It's only when the "SM" PROVES secular arguments that they get all flustered, and tongue-tied.

There's a very defensible and statistically valid argument, which I won't go into here, that pretty much proves, absent MAGIC, that the universe is simply too big and varied to have arrived here by any other means than chance and structural and organic evolution, all based on the interactive behavior of molecuales, which we have studied and just begun to understand.

It's like DNA: it's unique shape and simple components can and do re-assemble themselves into a near-endless assortment of different versions. Their simple molecular interactions, BTW, WANT TO DO THIS, and thus have the potential to create anything organic and alive that you or I can POSSIBLY imagine. A six-legged unicorn that can live and swim in the Arctic, and uses it's filter-feeding ears to sustain itself underwater? No problem. No God required either, just a suitable niche.

Or, one day, which will really put "the kaibosh" on God's required presence, man will simply punch such parameters into the DNA assembly computer/synthesizer, and, "Poof!", the marine hexa-legged-unicorn.

But to have the necessary intelligence, coupled with the ability to physically get the necessary bits together for an entire, endless and always changing universe? Sorry. Physically, physiologically and statistically unattainable. Unless you speak of some intelligence about the size of the Andromeda Galaxy, it can't be done. Even then, it'd be questionable, and still raises that other big-Q: how would such an entity physically sort and move such stuff, which, apparently, BTW, came from nowhere?

You think the Big Bang, for which we have growing physical evidence, is "far too complex and unimaginable", but then you happily accept your outrageous version as a done deal? Interesting mental gymnastics.

Unbelievable, unless, again, we just resort to the "Oh well, you're just denying the vast power of God! He can do ANYTHING He wants, from nothing!" argument. Which is vastly illogical and denialist. And....

Totally illogical, esp. in light of what we do continue to discover about the universe, which negates such "mumbo-jumbo" requirements.

Don't simply be awed into believing unbelievable stuff just because you can't or won't understand it. Otherwise, my pocket GPS unit would have to be one of your Gods!

[DreamingSpires]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Clarified. Those theists who think about why Rifleman haven't had a good answer may wonder why. Those who don't think about such matters won't.

Which one you are depends upon yourself. In fact I didn't have you in mind at all. I obviously couldn't say that all theists would think about why Rifleman had no answer as obviously some wouldn't think about it/ What else could i say?

Your rearing up on your hind legs and whinnying just shows a strange tendency to take offence on any pretext. Is it because it beats reasoned argument.

You have clarified nothing.

As explained above, most theists won't "wonder why" because they will see clearly why, because of the common moral code through which they are obliged to filter their understanding of human interactions.

You can see many examples of this from theists who posted on this very thread. Many of us theists are "on the same page" because we know that indulging Rifleman's immoral actions would arguably be in itself wrong.