Christians And Science Don't Get Along

I'm sure that is correct. Anti vax opposition does not seem to correlate with other anti-science views.The Weird, Bipartisan Politics of The Anti-Vaccination Movement

quote:

---

But evidence suggests that the politics of vaccinations are a little more nuanced. Other research has shown that there really isn't much of a correlation between people's political affiliation and their views on vaccinations. A study released last week found that the vast majority of Americans believe that the benefits of vaccines outweigh the risks, although liberals are a little more likely to be skeptical of the value of vaccines. More interesting, a 2013 study found that while conservatives may be more likely to reject scientific findings on issues that affect regulationslike climate changethat doesn't necessarily apply to vaccinations.

---

Generally speaking there does seem to be more of a correlation between conservative views and the rejection of science, and that most correlation between religion and rejection of science is because conservatives tend to be more religious. However there are a number of topics where fundamental belief tends does tend to be an enhancer. And those topics are not limited to evolution as Faith would suggest. But she may be closer to being correct than is the OP.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Not as I see it. I'm making an objective generalization about the conflict between Science AS SUCH, and Biblical Christianity AS SUCH, meaning a conflict between science as a procedure and Biblical Christianity as a doctrine. Not as I see it. I see no conflict with empiricism at all. This you would have to explain. The problem with evolution is that it makes specific statements that contradict the Bible, and I argue that it is false science because it can't be experimentally tested but is nothing but conjecture building on conjecture.. None of the other examples given here could be described that wqay. They conflict in terms of their time estimates but not in terms of anything substantive about their observations and conclusions. But there is no reason for this to be so. True, the time estimates conflict as I say above, but nothing substantive about the sciences conflicts otherwise. There is no conflict with astronomy except the time factor, and on the scale of astronomy time does weird things anyway, but astronomy is an empirical science and its various observations and conclusions are replicable and testable, and in no way contradict the Bible. Archaeology and paleontology suffer from evolutionist interpretations, however, besides the time conflict with the Bible, but on the level of simple fact they also don't conflict with the Bible. Paleontology is of course really studying the creatures that lived before the Flood. Dominionism is a false theology. The other topics brought up here, however, are not "fundamental conflicts" at all, not about Science As Such, as a discipline unto itself, but about specific scientific conclusions, and they're all in the basic category of the "soft" statistical sciences, rather than the hard sciences which are reliable in a way these are not. This factor makes these scientific issues more a matter of politics, so whatever position anybody takes on them, whether Christian or not, is not fairly understood in terms of Relligion versus Science. I'm glad it was shown that the vaccination issue is clearly not a religious issue. To bring these political issues into this skews the whole topic into something other than science through the lens of religion. Wider indeed.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Augustine thought that the other side of the Earth couldn't be populated because scripture seemed to indicate that only his "old world" had people.What difference did it make when the truth was found out?Luther thought that the Earth had water over the atmosphere due to scripture?What difference did it make when the truth was found out?John Chrysostom thought the Earth was flat.What difference did it make when the truth was found out?John Calvin thought the sun went around the Earth.What difference did it make when the truth was found out?Dan Brown famously said something like "Christianity survived Darwin and Copernicus. It can survive a New Hampshire novelist"Nobody will become Hindu because the Earth is billions of years old.Again, what difference...

That is true. The conflict between what people believe interferes with Christianity are largely irrational. But people still insist on those things. Agreed. That does not stop some Christain fundamentalists from insisting on it or from defending the doctrine based on references to the Bible.Perhaps you should stop using citing your own beliefs as what all Christians or even all fundamentalists or all evangelistic Christians believe.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Are you serious or are these satirical comments? I'm hoping this is satire, because obviously the elucidation of the nature of reality always makes a difference. Like...seriously...this is pretty obvious that I'm baffled why you're asking "What difference does it make?" It suddenly made the earth more mutually "discoverable" by the interaction of various civilizations. Instead of the civilized world being bounded by an infinitely-extending sea, where the unknown "other" lurked, it became apparent that the world -- as a spheroid -- was all interconnected by finite bodies of water and land. So an unprecedented cross-cultural exchange of general knowledge, science, philosophy, and art began that would lay the foundations for the emergence of planet-altering, environment-controlling technologies.So, yeah, the truth kinda made a difference. Nobody is claiming that, so it's an irrelevant tangent.Edit: it has struck me that LamarckNewAge's post may have been meant for Faith (although it seemed to be a general reply). If that is the case, then his/her/its points make sense. Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

The great trouble with religion - any religion - is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence. One may bask at the warm fire of faith or choose to live in the bleak certainty of reason - but one cannot have both.

​

Robert A. Heinlein

Sounds plausible, except that the idea that reason provides certainty is laughable. The revealed word of God DOES, however, give certainty. I think it was Anselm who said "I understand because I believe." That wasn't a statement of faith either, that was a description of his personal experience as a believer, and I recognized it as a description of my own experience when I read it too.Hard for the believer in bleak reason to grasp of course. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's perfectly obvious and very easy to grasp - certainty of believe gives enormous comfort. That's why it was so attractive for so many years.But it's childish and - in your case - obviously and blatently a false belief. Thankfully, these comfortable primitive superstitious beliefs are being replaced by reason so we are able to build fairer and safer societies built on real moral values.

Funny if it's so obvious you seem to have completely misread it. The statement wasI UNDERSTAND because I believe.Not "I have comfort because I believe"

It would be more accurate to say that your belief is an obstacle to understanding.Witness your desperate excuses to try to avoid understanding Isaiah 7 - as demonstrated in the subthread starting here Message 264

Which is, of course, a tautology.

Curiously it isn't so much science vs Christianity as it is firm belief in certain myths versus the facts of reality.For instance the facts of reality show that the earth is billions of years old and the universe is billions of years older, that the earth is not the center, and that humans are ape primate mammals related to other apes and to other primates and to other mammals.Any belief otherwise is at odds with these facts of reality, which causes denial and cognitive dissonance.But there are Christians who believe the earth is old, so it is not Christianity per se that has this conflict.And there are Christians who believe that evolution in general, and mammal → primate → ape → human in specific is how creation was done, so it is not Christianity per se that has that conflict.Personally I think that any belief that is contradicted by the evidence of reality should be discarded at best or regarded as allegory at worst, and I also think that anyone that considers a belief as an absolute truth is only fooling themselves because there is no basis for it, and no need for it.Enjoy

More like an oxymoron.

I think meaningless drivel pretty much covers it.

Hi, Faith. I agree with you completely here, Faith. Reason isn't about certainty: it's about Uncertainty. Uncertainty is far more instructive than Certainty. An honest person recognizes that there is always Uncertainty, and Certainty can only come by eliminating all sources of Uncertainty. That's why science and statistics usually focus more on characterizing and quantifying Uncertainties than on finding Certainty.During my short career as a scientist, I have realized exactly how much effort it takes to draw a confident answer to questions as minor as "What do spiders and crickets eat?" In light of this experience, the notion of relying on faith as a meaningful way to find a bigger and grander Truth about everything feels like little more than the seduction of wishful thinking.Thanks to my transition from faith to reason, I am no longer Certain that I can distinguish faith from gullibility.