Fundamentalism and science

Joat42 wrote:

cthia wrote:What I dislike about certain scientists is their close minded attitudes simply because faith cannot be explained.

It can, some people have genes (VMAT2) that predisposes them to be spiritual, aka believing in things that has no factual basis if framed in a certain way which can elicit feelings of being connected to something larger or the universe (transpersonal identification). It's speculated that this is the result of generations of genetic selection due to increased survivability of groups that had better cohesion, aka listen to the shaman trying to make sense of the world and you'll feel better that it was some spirit-god who took your child away to serve it and not the harsh reality of subsistence living that made it sick due to malnourishment.

Exhaustively setting aside your common "scientific" argument, you may be ignorantly citing the messy and controversial Doctrine of Predestination and Election.

John 15:16 wrote: "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you."

Jeremiah 1:5 wrote:“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

"Ignorant" is in no way meant to be a swipe at you. Many Christians are ignorant of the concepts as well. Perhaps because they are subjects that even many churches fear to tread. Therefore, they do not teach them.

Don, does your church teach Predestination and Election?

cthia wrote:Exhaustively setting aside your common "scientific" argument, you may be ignorantly citing the messy and controversial Doctrine of Predestination and Election.

No, I'm not. What you linked to is an argument based on the notion that God actually exists and how he controls the predestination of each individual's faith.

It must be comforting to be a believer. I'd love to live for ever, and to talk to my parents again. However my logical mind just can't let me even fake it.

Daryl wrote:It must be comforting to be a believer. I'd love to live for ever, and to talk to my parents again. However my logical mind just can't let me even fake it.

The problem with living forever is that humans aren't suited for it, we are human because we strive to change things within our limited timespan, to make our mark on the world. Without that drive, what are we?

Which is also why I think that the concept of "heaven" is just another form of hell, it's like being on a cruise-ship, it's nice for a couple of weeks, but not forever.

cthia wrote:All Christians are NOT anti-science when it is obvious that science is a viable discipline, although we do dislike the breed of scientist who try to use - or think- science disproves or will ever disprove the idea or existence of a deity.

Science can only prove what is measurable, quantifiable.
God is neither (due to not existing), thus the only scientifically accurate statement about gods is "there are people who believe in them"; nothing more, nothing less.

Also, all scientists are NOT anti-God. Many scientists are Christians. We are aware that science will never disprove that there is a God, and that science actually supports the existence of a God at most every turn. There has never been a single nail that science can drive into the existence of a God. Scientists used three nails once. It didn't work.

... I was, until now, unaware that the faceless roman goons that supposedly nailed jesus to the cross were actually scientists.

What degrees did they have, I wonder....

What I dislike about certain scientists is their close minded attitudes simply because faith cannot be explained. Some scientists will never understand that some things simply cannot be explained simply by science.

Just because noone has been able to come up with a positive proof for the existance of god that is actually scientifically valid (as in, follows the scientific method, is reproducable...) doesn't mean that god actually exists. Belief in a thing does not make a thing more real.

First of all, a comment about science. The scientific method is the only way we have of exploring the created order which from the standpoint of a Christian is everything that exists apart from God.

The method is fundamentally honest and self correcting, meaning that if something gets messed up, eventually someone notices that and the matter is straightened out. Individual scientists can be overly invested in their results or dishonest in other ways. But over time that gets exposed and corrected as well.

One thing that most people don't seem to get is that the findings of science are not static. Research is always going on with new data being added which makes "assured scientific results" on any given subject a moving target.

I am not interested in a discussion of the existence of God since there is no way of demonstrating the point one way or the other anyway. We all make our bets on the subject. As a Christian I am making mine. Those of you who do not believe are making yours. I am willing to respect the journey you have made that led you to where you are at at this moment in time. I only ask the same for myself.

How fundamentalism relates to science is more interesting, however. Another question that would be closely related would be a healthy religious response to modernity.

Don

-

n7axw wrote:How fundamentalism relates to science is more interesting, however. Another question that would be closely related would be a healthy religious response to modernity.
-

Well, interpreting fundamentalism strictly means it is the antithesis of science and progress. Conveniently enough, fundamentalist leaders tend to allow things that should be forbidden because it serves a greater good in their eyes, ie there are no real fundamentalists, only hypocrites on a power-trip regardless how they rationalize it.

Joat42 wrote:

n7axw wrote:How fundamentalism relates to science is more interesting, however. Another question that would be closely related would be a healthy religious response to modernity.
-

Well, interpreting fundamentalism strictly means it is the antithesis of science and progress. Conveniently enough, fundamentalist leaders tend to allow things that should be forbidden because it serves a greater good in their eyes, ie there are no real fundamentalists, only hypocrites on a power-trip regardless how they rationalize it.

I can see where you are coming from, but it is a bit more complicated than that. The fundamentalist tendency has been to jam their worldview down the throats of the rest of society by legislating it into law has modern beginnings with the moral majority founded by Jerry Falwell Sr in the early 80s. There are more ancient precedents, however. Think Reformed theocracies in Switzerland during and immediately following the Reformation era. Or think early American theocracies during the puritan era.

Is it hypocritical? I think so, although the folks involved really believe what they are doing. Still Jesus had a rather applicable saying that fits the subject when he says "don't try to remove the speck in your brother's eye when you have a mote in your own." Most of us are unaware of the motes in our eyes, motes which render us unqualified to judge others.

As a Lutheran, I wonder if we shouldn't be a bit more humble about our sense of where God is leading us. Fundamentalism seems to think that God wants us to scramble back to an idealized past. I think that God is leading us into the future, a future we do not know even as Abraham was unfamiliar with the end of his journey when he left Haran toward the land God have promised him. The point is that Abraham trusted God with both the journey and the destination. As a Christian, I believe that my call is like Abrahams to accept the future as coming from God's hand one day at a time.

That is called theology of hope. It seems to me the exact opposite of where the fundamentalists seem to want to go. That I think is a far healthier religious response to modernity than trying to scramble back to the past.

Don

-

n7axw wrote:As a Lutheran, I wonder if we shouldn't be a bit more humble about our sense of where God is leading us. Fundamentalism seems to think that God wants us to scramble back to an idealized past. I think that God is leading us into the future, a future we do not know even as Abraham was unfamiliar with the end of his journey when he left Haran toward the land God have promised him. The point is that Abraham trusted God with both the journey and the destination. As a Christian, I believe that my call is like Abrahams to accept the future as coming from God's hand one day at a time.

That is called theology of hope. It seems to me the exact opposite of where the fundamentalists seem to want to go. That I think is a far healthier religious response to modernity than trying to scramble back to the past.

Don

-

There will always be people pining for the "good old days" I'm afraid. Always looking backwards means you don't see where you are going, and you may end up in some very very ugly places.

Although we differ on whether God exists or not, I agree with the sentiment that we need to have hope for the future. But that also hinges on that we actually work for that future, that we grow and progress as humans to make it better for those that will come after us.

Joat42 wrote:

n7axw wrote:As a Lutheran, I wonder if we shouldn't be a bit more humble about our sense of where God is leading us. Fundamentalism seems to think that God wants us to scramble back to an idealized past. I think that God is leading us into the future, a future we do not know even as Abraham was unfamiliar with the end of his journey when he left Haran toward the land God have promised him. The point is that Abraham trusted God with both the journey and the destination. As a Christian, I believe that my call is like Abrahams to accept the future as coming from God's hand one day at a time.

That is called theology of hope. It seems to me the exact opposite of where the fundamentalists seem to want to go. That I think is a far healthier religious response to modernity than trying to scramble back to the past.

Don

-

There will always be people pining for the "good old days" I'm afraid. Always looking backwards means you don't see where you are going, and you may end up in some very very ugly places.

Although we differ on whether God exists or not, I agree with the sentiment that we need to have hope for the future. But that also hinges on that we actually work for that future, that we grow and progress as humans to make it better for those that will come after us.

Well said. Couldn't have put it better myself.

Don

-