Why isn't DNA and Human Consciousness Enough For Some Christians?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If we believe that God did these things and that there is no natural explanation for them, then scientific discoveries infringe upon who God is.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, and again, what I said about Newton and gravity.

Augustine, in the 4th century AD warned Chrisitians about using the Bible to support attacks on things non-Christians believed and that were either obviously true or not obviously supported by Scripture. At the time I believe the specific controversy had to do with the weight of the 4 elements(earth,air,fire,water) and whether the Bible contradicted the current (Greek) position. Augustine said the Bible doesn't speak to that issue so Christians shouldn't try to make the Bible into a science text book(paraphrase). Quite obviously from that you can infer that at least since Augustine Christianity has recognized the existence and validity of natural law and in no way does our faith depend on the ongoing activity of God to the exclusion of natural law. Neither Augustine nor any mainstream theologian since his time would be the least bit upset to find natural law explanations for most natural phenomena - nor would they say such explanations have any bearing on the question of God's existence. Calvin said something like (loosely paraphrased) , if you want to know about nature go to the scientists, if you want to know about spiritual things go to the Bible. And at least since Augustine there has been the concept of two books, the book of Nature and the Scripture - and most theologians agree that true science reveals something about God, and in ways not stated in Scripture. The Bible is for spiritual knowledge and salvation, nature shows how God designed His creation - and the two are complementary, not contradictory. But both books have to be read correctly, something man sometimes has difficulty achieving.

I haven't traced out the complete history but I'm aware of the argument that modern science owes its very existence to theism. Because Christianity teaches that God is a God of reason and order, and that since He created the universe the universe is orderly, investigation of nature through empirical study and experimentation has good prospects of success. Other cultures, such as the Greeks, who didn't believe in order in the cosmos or a reasonable Creator, never made much effort to advance the scientific method. Why perform experiments if Zeus is just going to do something arbitrarily? If all is flux, why look for laws that can't exist by definition?

Ask yourself this question - if Newton thought God was the only cause and only explanation for gravity, why would he try to express gravity in terms of science and mathematics?

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> I've said this many times already, but Newton understood gravity and discovered the rules governing gravity, but didn't think that made God less likely. </font>

Uh, first off, this statement is flawed. To this day, there is much about gravity we don't understand. In fact, gravity is STILL quite mysterious and much is unkown. Even so...

There have been many advances and scientific discoveries since Newton. It is grossly presumptuous to think you know what Newton would believe if he were alive today. Permit me to borrow NotReady's favorite debating tactic...

You can't prove that Newton wouldn't be an atheist if he were alive today. Wow... That was so easy! I kinda like it.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If we believe that God did these things and that there is no natural explanation for them, then scientific discoveries infringe upon who God is.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, and again, what I said about Newton and gravity.

Augustine, in the 4th century AD warned Chrisitians about using the Bible to support attacks on things non-Christians believed and that were either obviously true or not obviously supported by Scripture. At the time I believe the specific controversy had to do with the weight of the 4 elements(earth,air,fire,water) and whether the Bible contradicted the current (Greek) position. Augustine said the Bible doesn't speak to that issue so Christians shouldn't try to make the Bible into a science text book(paraphrase). Quite obviously from that you can infer that at least since Augustine Christianity has recognized the existence and validity of natural law and in no way does our faith depend on the ongoing activity of God to the exclusion of natural law. Neither Augustine nor any mainstream theologian since his time would be the least bit upset to find natural law explanations for most natural phenomena - nor would they say such explanations have any bearing on the question of God's existence. Calvin said something like (loosely paraphrased) , if you want to know about nature go to the scientists, if you want to know about spiritual things go to the Bible. And at least since Augustine there has been the concept of two books, the book of Nature and the Scripture - and most theologians agree that true science reveals something about God, and in ways not stated in Scripture. The Bible is for spiritual knowledge and salvation, nature shows how God designed His creation - and the two are complementary, not contradictory. But both books have to be read correctly, something man sometimes has difficulty achieving.

I haven't traced out the complete history but I'm aware of the argument that modern science owes its very existence to theism. Because Christianity teaches that God is a God of reason and order, and that since He created the universe the universe is orderly, investigation of nature through empirical study and experimentation has good prospects of success. Other cultures, such as the Greeks, who didn't believe in order in the cosmos or a reasonable Creator, never made much effort to advance the scientific method. Why perform experiments if Zeus is just going to do something arbitrarily? If all is flux, why look for laws that can't exist by definition?

Ask yourself this question - if Newton thought God was the only cause and only explanation for gravity, why would he try to express gravity in terms of science and mathematics?

[/ QUOTE ]

I really feel like you cherry-picked my post. I was agreeing with you. You are describing one Christian position. There are other Christians who would disagree with you. I was trying to say that for some theists, these scientific discoveries actually DO infringe on God. Atheists see these people as representative of all religious thought and so the fight continues.

In your post you also seem to imply that Christianity has had a unified front throughout history. This is clearly not true. There is a huge diversity of views within the religion. I believe that the atheist argument actually does rebut the claims of some, but they somehow believe that they have dealt with all religious viewpoints.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You can't prove that Newton wouldn't be an atheist if he were alive today.


[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. I can, however, prove that finding a natural explanation for some phenomena didn't make him an atheist.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I really feel like you cherry-picked my post.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, wasn't trying to do that. I'm often playing poker and doing this at the same time, so I may mis-read sometimes.

[ QUOTE ]

In your post you also seem to imply that Christianity has had a unified front throughout history.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't mean to imply that. There has been much diversity on many issues throughout church history. I think the prevailing view of the Genesis days until the 19th century was that they were literal 24 hour periods. And there was no reason to think otherwise. I cite Augustine to show the difficulty of Genesis even without any scientific pressure. But other interpretations of Genesis began to be made before Darwin as Christians learned of the possible ancient age of the earth. I recently read a quote from Gould praising Bishop Ussher in which he said the bishop was a great scholar and his dating of the earth was perfectly reasonable for the time period and was almost uniformly accepted by Christians and non-Christians - there was no reason not to. It's interesting to note that he was able to accurately date many events in the ancient world through his study of the Bible and other ancient documents.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't mean to imply that. There has been much diversity on many issues throughout church history. I think the prevailing view of the Genesis days until the 19th century was that they were literal 24 hour periods. And there was no reason to think otherwise. I cite Augustine to show the difficulty of Genesis even without any scientific pressure. But other interpretations of Genesis began to be made before Darwin as Christians learned of the possible ancient age of the earth. I recently read a quote from Gould praising Bishop Ussher in which he said the bishop was a great scholar and his dating of the earth was perfectly reasonable for the time period and was almost uniformly accepted by Christians and non-Christians - there was no reason not to. It's interesting to note that he was able to accurately date many events in the ancient world through his study of the Bible and other ancient documents.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that people realize that the strict literal interpretation of the Bible is a fairly recent phenomenon. It wasn't really as much of an issue back in the day.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
I defy you to tell me I haven't experienced the FSM's noodly appendage in exactly the same way that txag has experienced the Lord in his heart.



[/ QUOTE ]
You haven't experienced the FSM's noodly appendage in exactly the same way I have experienced the Lord in my heart.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What is the "which Darwin didn't do," supposed to mean? Why put that on the end of your sentence? Is that an attack on evolution? Are you disputing it's validity?


[/ QUOTE ]

You said Darwin. I said he didn't prove evolution. If you want a debate on evolution in general, a new thread might be best.

You say:
[ QUOTE ]

Of course, not.


[/ QUOTE ]

Then:
[ QUOTE ]

But if evolution (which is a slam dunk to be true), is correct, then there couldn't have been an Adam.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's beyond my comprehension. A=Not A?

[/ QUOTE ]
ooh go on you can comprehend that if evolution is true then the literal adam didn't exist. That's consistant with the claim that the evedience for evolution is overwhelming.

You may disagree that the evidence is overwhelming but there's no A = notA problem.

You could even go down the 'evidence for evolution is overwhelming' but the 'literal Adam did exist' and god is laying down false evidence. (I think that's called the Adam, Eve belly button argument).

chez

[bills217]

NotReady,

Clear your PM box.

[Kal With A K]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I defy you to tell me I haven't experienced the FSM's noodly appendage in exactly the same way that txag has experienced the Lord in his heart.



[/ QUOTE ]
You haven't experienced the FSM's noodly appendage in exactly the same way I have experienced the Lord in my heart.

[/ QUOTE ]

The stripper factories are the only reason I'm every a Pastafarian.