How can a physicist be a christian at the same time?

[Number Nine]

How? If you don't believe in the supernatural, how can you be religious/believe in the supernatural?

Atheism refers exclusively to a lack of belief in God, not the supernatural. Buddhism, for instance, is frequently characterized as an atheistic religion since, in general, it doesn't acknowledge the existence of any god(s) (let alone a creator God).

Confusing fundamentalism with non fundamentalism religion is the biggest mistake Atheists make.

The distinction between the two is actually fairly novel, and has more to do with American political culture than anything else (similar to how the notions of "evangelical Christian" or "born-again Christian" are actually fairly recent and largely American inventions).

That said, I think the OP's point (agree with it or not), is that science is a method of testing claims against reality. Any religion that requires certain beliefs to be maintained in the absence of evidence or reality testing is, I think, incompatible with science as a method. I would argue that a Universe in which God exists is distinguishable from one in which he doesn't. If it is, then independently verifiable evidence should be sought, and God as a theory should be dispensed with if none is found (certainly, any notion of a specific God should be dispensed with). If the two are not distinguishable, then the concept of God is entirely pointless and irrelevant, and should be dispensed with.

 

[Drakkith]

I would argue that a Universe in which God exists is distinguishable from one in which he doesn't. If it is, then independently verifiable evidence should be sought, and God as a theory should be dispensed with if none is found (certainly, any notion of a specific God should be dispensed with). If the two are not distinguishable, then the concept of God is entirely pointless and irrelevant, and should be dispensed with.

The problem arises because you cannot tell either way. Any claim that god SHOULD be observable is immediately able to be explained as "god doesn't want to be discovered". The reasons why don't matter, as it just boils down to "because god wants it that way". Hence why science has no theory about god, it just isn't science.

 

[Number Nine]

The problem arises because you cannot tell either way. Any claim that god SHOULD be observable is immediately able to be explained as "god doesn't want to be discovered". The reasons why don't matter, as it just boils down to "because god wants it that way". Hence why science has no theory about god, it just isn't science.

I agree; any attempt to make God unfalsifiable fits under the second category. I don't think belief in a God is, per se, incompatible with science, but the mental acrobatics required to sustain any sort of detailed belief about his nature (beyond a vague sense that a deity may exist, perhaps), I think, is. Existential arguments are lacking, and people are already assigning him a personality. The whole thing seems indefensible to me.

 

[xdrgnh]

So your problem is with the people and not religion but you blame religion anyway?. Fundamentalism is relatively new movement in Christianity. It's not Christianity was originally practiced. It explains also why a catholic came up with a big bang. Catholic thinking and southern evangelical fundamentalism thinking is completely different. Fundamentalism is a lack of interpreting the bible. Most people have interpenetration of the bible rather then just reading it word for word.

 

[Number Nine]

So your problem is with the people and not religion but you blame religion anyway?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I think I outlined my position very clearly, and it has nothing do with "people and not religion" or anything similar.

Fundamentalism is relatively new movement in Christianity. It's not Christianity was originally practiced. It explains also why a catholic came up with a big bang. Catholic thinking and southern evangelical fundamentalism thinking is completely different. Fundamentalism is a lack of interpreting the bible. Most people have interpenetration of the bible rather then just reading it word for word.

This thread is not about the hermeneutical approach of Catholicism versus southern Baptism, it's specifically about the compatibility of the scientific method and Christianity in general (really, religion in general). My position has been outlined very clearly, and has makes no reference to any specific theology.

 

[xdrgnh]

My comment was for Drakkith.

 

[Drakkith]

So your problem is with the people and not religion but you blame religion anyway?. Fundamentalism is relatively new movement in Christianity. It's not Christianity was originally practiced. It explains also why a catholic came up with a big bang. Catholic thinking and southern evangelical fundamentalism thinking is completely different. Fundamentalism is a lack of interpreting the bible. Most people have interpenetration of the bible rather then just reading it word for word.

Religion and people go hand in hand, for without one or the other there wouldn't be a problem.

 

[xdrgnh]

So if there was no religion people would of not find some other way to justify doing bad things? What about philosophy?

 

[Drakkith]

So if there was no religion people would of not find some other way to justify doing bad things? What about philosophy?

Uh, no, that is not what I am saying. This is strictly referring to religion. Without people religion wouldn't exist. Without religion, well we wouldn't have a religion vs science problem at all.

 

[xdrgnh]

But who's to say that philosophy wouldn't just replace religion in the religion vs science problem Are you saying philosophy conflicts science also?. Or how about politics. My point is that blaming religion for the science vs religion problem is misplaced because religion is not unique in causing the problem. Also I would argue that problem doesn't exist. It's all political.

 

[xdrgnh]

In the past it was the religion that defined the politics. But now it's the opposite which I find to be truly disturbing.

 

[Drakkith]

But who's to say that philosophy wouldn't just replace religion in the religion vs science problem Are you saying philosophy conflicts science also?. Or how about politics. My point is that blaming religion for the science vs religion problem is misplaced because religion is not unique in causing the problem.

Yes. Yes it is unique. It is the direct cause of religion vs science issues. Since we can't talk about what would happen without people, as neither science nor religion would exist, we can say that without religion there wouldn't be a religion vs science problem. Which is obvious. This is about RELIGION vs science. Please leave other issues out of it.

 

[xdrgnh]

There is a religion vs science problem caused by politics and fundamentalism.But how does this make let's say Christianity conflict with science? A lot of religious people accept science and don't see it as a opposing view point. The debate does not reflect religion but more or less reflects subsets of a whole religion.

 

[xdrgnh]

So under your logic if someone used science to oppose gay marriage then all of science has a conflict with gay marriage. Even more general. If someone uses an construct to opposite another construct then said construct fundamentally opposes the other construct.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

There is a religion vs science problem caused by politics and fundamentalism.But how does this make let's say Christianity conflict with science? A lot of religious people accept science and don't see it as a opposing view point. The debate does not reflect religion but more or less reflects subsets of a whole religion.

Religion conflicts with science in that they both make claims about the world but use totally different methods to justify those claims.

 

[xdrgnh]

Well science isn't math in the sense that it tries to prove thing. If you believe in G-d then it's very logical and rational to believe the "claims" made by religion. Because science disproves not proves like math you can't really compare religion and science in there methods of deriving the truth of the world.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Well science isn't math in the sense that it tries to prove thing. If you belief in G-d then it's very logical and rational to believe the "claims" made by religion.

No it isn't. If a priest says that god told him vaccines don't prevent disease he is provably wrong whether you think he is the mouthpiece of god or not.

Because science disproves not proves like math you can't really compare religion and science in there methods of deriving the truth of the world.

Of course you can. Any pursuit of science observes, forms a hypothesis, experiments, tentatively concludes and logical reasoning is used throughout all of that. The fact that no science "proves" is a testament, not a flaw. Scientific theories are made from a preponderance of evidence.

 

[Drakkith]

There is a religion vs science problem caused by politics and fundamentalism.But how does this make let's say Christianity conflict with science? A lot of religious people accept science and don't see it as a opposing view point. The debate does not reflect religion but more or less reflects subsets of a whole religion.

Yes, the issue is with ALL of religion because religion tries to explain things that science does too.

So under your logic if someone used science to oppose gay marriage then all of science has a conflict with gay marriage. Even more general. If someone uses an construct to opposite another construct then said construct fundamentally opposes the other construct.

No, science is not a rule book on how to think, act, and live your life like religion is.

Well science isn't math in the sense that it tries to prove thing. If you believe in G-d then it's very logical and rational to believe the "claims" made by religion. Because science disproves not proves like math you can't really compare religion and science in there methods of deriving the truth of the world.

Of course they are comparable. Science uses the scientific method to gather empirical data about the world and tries to make sense of it using that data. Religion does not. It relies on FAITH, that which requires no evidence, no proof.

 

[xdrgnh]

I never said it was a flaw. I said because one seeks absolute truth while the other doesn't you can't compare them. It's like comparing mathematics and science. Would you say those conflict each other. That's not religion. It says nothing in Christianity that you must believe the priest when he makes those claims. Actually in Judaism it even warns of those who use G-d's name to promote there own ideas.

 

[Drakkith]

I never said it was a flaw. I said because one seeks absolute truth while the other doesn't you can't compare them. It's like comparing mathematics and science. Would you say those conflict each other. That's not religion. It says nothing in Christianity that you must believe the priest when he makes those claims. Actually in Judaism it even warns of those who use G-d's name to promote there own ideas.

Math does not attempt to explain how the world works. It is merely a tool, a language that science uses to make models and theories.
It has it's own rules and has all kinds of things that have no basis in real life.

 

[xdrgnh]

Religion doesn't explain how it explains the ultimate why which is something that no one knows science alone can answer. Those that say religion explains how to everything are putting words in G-d's mouth most of the time.

 

[xdrgnh]

I never said it did. The reason math has no basis in real life is because the universe has no axioms mathematicians can use to build theories around.

 

[Drakkith]

Religion doesn't explain how it explains the ultimate why which is something that no one knows science alone can answer. Those that say religion explains how to everything are putting words in G-d's mouth most of the time.

What about issues that religion explains that disagrees with science? Like how the Earth was formed, when it happened, how life was created. These are DIRECTLY dealt with in every religious text I've looked into.

 

[xdrgnh]

Religion doesn't. People putting words into G-d's mouth do. Religion interpretation which is in line with the bible takes care of how the Earth was formed and shows that our scientific understanding of how the Earth and universe was formed does not contradict that. Look in the bible does it explain how G-d created life? In order to understand the story of Genesis for what it is you need more then a literal reading of the bible. Only fundamentalists subscribe to the literal reading.

 

[Drakkith]

Religion doesn't. People putting words into G-d's mouth do. Religion interpretation which is in line with the bible takes care of how the Earth was formed and shows that our scientific understanding of how the Earth and universe was formed does not contradict that. Look in the bible does it explain how G-d created life? In order to understand the story of Genesis for what it is you need more then a literal reading of the bible. Only fundamentalists subscribe to the literal reading.

No no no, you cannot claim this. This is YOUR opinion. MANY MANY other people have a different view. THAT is the issue. There are many people who aren't fundamentalist that believe the Earth was created a short time ago and in a very short amount of time.

 

[xdrgnh]

No it's the orthodox approach. Maimonides a famous Jewish theologian said that if science conflicts the Torah then either science is wrong or we are misreading the Torah. Because we can virtually rule out science being wrong this is where religion interpretation comes in. Something that fundamentalism lacks. If people still have a problem with science then either they don't understand science or they just want to put words in G-d's mouth to feel better about themselves. It's not the religion.

 

[Drakkith]

No it's the orthodox approach. Maimonides a famous Jewish theologian said that if science conflicts the Torah then either science is wrong or we are misreading the Torah. Because we can virtually rule out science being wrong this is where religion interpretation comes in. Something that fundamentalism lacks. If people still have a problem with science then either they don't understand science or they just want to put words in G-d's mouth to feel better about themselves. It's not the religion.

Again this is YOUR opinion and not a statement about religion as a whole. The issue is about religion as a whole, not one single interpretation or even a single religion.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

This discussion is circling the drain in the usual manner. Thread closed.