Christianity: Friend or foe to science?

[Unknown Soldier]

Many people, including Christians, see Christianity as science's foe. Christianity is seen as based on faith while science is based on carnal unbelief which can destroy faith in Christ. Needless to say, many people criticize Christianity for its perceived opposition to science. But is Christianity really a foe to science? Most Christian apologists answer with a resounding no. They cite the many great scientists who have been Christians as evidence that Christianity poses no threat to legitimate science. In fact, apologists see the rise of modern science as to Christianity's credit.

But what do Christians say about Christianity in relation to science? Do they like science and have interest in its discoveries? Is science good or bad in their estimation? Do any of them fear science and see it as a threat to their faith? How many of them are scientists or plan to become scientists?

Answers would be greatly appreciated!

 

[DBT]

Just two separate and distinct things. A scientist may hold religious beliefs, thereby has faith, but their faith has nothing to do with their work in science.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Just two separate and distinct things. A scientist may hold religious beliefs, thereby has faith, but their faith has nothing to do with their work in science.

But then at least Christian faith did not present an obstacle to doing scientific work. So in that way Christianity is not a foe to science.

 

[Learner]

Hi Unknown Soldier, cheers for your topic of interest.

My view personally, is like that - Christianity is not a foe to science, which could instead, complement each other, if of course we were to be clear, that is... that certain contextualities of our knowledge of reality as we currently see and explain it, in addition to thr conceptualisation of the ancient language, as it intentionally tries to illustrate, - when transcribing the image of 'that' time, into our modern day language discription. For example...the bible is clear that it distinguishes the difference between 'divine power' which is by a different means, (manipulation of physics etc.), from the lesser illusions of
'magic', 'sorcery', fortune-telling, or witch craft etc. Unfortunately, some people think magic and the power of the Divine (biblically in concept) are the same thing, and this becomes a line of debate. As a modern individual in today's world - If I were not a theist, with the opposite view, God and the universe etc., would be science fiction to me.

 

[steve_bank]

It is a mixed bag.

I went to Catholic schools and the science and math were good, gave me a good foundation.

The RCC has always been a mix of science and theology. Descartes was educated by Jesuits. Newton was a believer, and he held some contrary views that could have gotten him into trouble.

Christians over here other than mainstream sects can be anti science, 'science is out to get religion'.

 

[DBT]

I wouldn't go as far as saying they compliment each other.

They are just different things that may coexist peacefully.

 

[bilby]

Just two separate and distinct things. A scientist may hold religious beliefs, thereby has faith, but their faith has nothing to do with their work in science.

But then at least Christian faith did not present an obstacle to doing scientific work. So in that way Christianity is not a foe to science.

Back in the Middle Ages, when Natural Philosophy first got started, there were two competing camps in both the Christian and Islamic communities.

One held that a detailed study of the world around us and its workings would inevitably lead people to understand that God was the primary source of everything, the creator and active caretaker of every process and object that could be studied. This camp was certain that religion could only benefit from what would soon become 'science'.

The other held that the only suitable object of study was scripture. Men were not meant to investigate the things God had created, and to seek God's actions in the world by a close study of that world was blasphemous and heretical.

Islam and Christianity ended up going in opposite directions on this.

Probably because the Islamic world was, at the time, far more advanced in mathematics and reasoning, the powerful people in the Islamic church decided that 'science' was hugely dangerous, and that people should study only scripture.

The Christian church held the opposite position, and encouraged 'science' in the confident belief that it would strengthen Christianity.

The Muslims were, of course, right. Detailed study of reality finds no trace whatsoever of any gods. Which is the main reason why religiosity remains dominant in the Muslim world, while formerly Christian Europe has become almost entirely secular, along with all the intellectually productive parts of the USA.

The places that have chosen scripture over science are all shitholes. Even the rich oil states of the Arabian Gulf have only a gloss of modernity - Arabs don't invent or build stuff, they import European and American experts to do it for them.

Because Islamic "education" is horseshit - like Christian "education" in the Bible Belt, it consists almost entirely of learning scripture, analysing scripture, and discussing scripture. Which leaves no time for learning how to improve the efficiency of an oil refinery, or build a skyscraper that won't fall over in a stiff breeze.

Christianity is mostly not an enemy of science, but science has very effectively killed Christianity, wherever it has taken root at the population level. Christianity would be much stronger today if the Medieval Popes had seen the writing on the wall, (as the Imams succeeded in doing) and harshly suppressed science before it got a toehold on their society.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Hi Unknown Soldier, cheers for your topic of interest.

Thanks for your interest in the topic.

My view personally, is like that - Christianity is not a foe to science...

I think that's true as long as some scientific theory or discovery is not in conflict with Christian dogma. If some conflict does occur, then scientists normally throw out the dogma, and Christians throw out the science.

...which could instead, complement each other...

I think that Christianity and science can be allied and they often are. For example, the university system was created by Christians.

...if of course we were to be clear, that is... that certain contextualities of our knowledge of reality as we currently see and explain it, in addition to thr conceptualisation of the ancient language, as it intentionally tries to illustrate, - when transcribing the image of 'that' time, into our modern day language discription. For example...the bible is clear that it distinguishes the difference between 'divine power' which is by a different means, (manipulation of physics etc.), from the lesser illusions of
'magic', 'sorcery', fortune-telling, or witch craft etc. Unfortunately, some people think magic and the power of the Divine (biblically in concept) are the same thing, and this becomes a line of debate. As a modern individual in today's world - If I were not a theist, with the opposite view, God and the universe etc., would be science fiction to me.

I was with you until you posted this. I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

Anyway, my main point in this discussion is that Christian apologists often misrepresent atheists claiming they deny any kind of harmony between science and religion. I don't know of any atheist who argues that there is no such harmony. There have been many great scientists who have been Christians, and they deserve credit for their work.

 

[steve_bank]

I wouldn't go as far as saying they compliment each other.

They are just different things that may coexist peacefully.

The Koran I read was an early 1900s Muslim. In his commentary he said there is no conflict between science and religion, they deall with separate areas.

 

[bilby]

I wouldn't go as far as saying they compliment each other.

They are just different things that may coexist peacefully.

The Koran I read was an early 1900s Muslim. In his commentary he said there is no conflict between science and religion, they deall with separate areas.

And he was right. Science deals with reality, and religion with fiction. There's no overlap.

The problem is that religionists don't agree that their fictions are fictional. But that's just what we scientists call "ignorance", and it's hardly novel, rare, or remarkable amongst humans in any field of study.

 

[FwL]

Science = looking at the preponderance of evidence and drawing conclusions.

Christianity = admitting (or manufacturing) only evidence that supports a predetermined conclusion.

 

[Learner]

Hi Unknown Soldier, cheers for your topic of interest.

Thanks for your interest in the topic.

My view personally, is like that - Christianity is not a foe to science...

I think that's true as long as some scientific theory or discovery is not in conflict with Christian dogma. If some conflict does occur, then scientists normally throw out the dogma, and Christians throw out the science.

No disputing you there. All dependent on each individual, case by case.

...which could instead, complement each other...

I think that Christianity and science can be allied and they often are. For example, the university system was created by Christians.

Yes there has been quite a bit of contribution by Christians.

...if of course we were to be clear, that is... that certain contextualities of our knowledge of reality as we currently see and explain it, in addition to thr conceptualisation of the ancient language, as it intentionally tries to illustrate, - when transcribing the image of 'that' time, into our modern day language discription. For example...the bible is clear that it distinguishes the difference between 'divine power' which is by a different means, (manipulation of physics etc.), from the lesser illusions of
'magic', 'sorcery', fortune-telling, or witch craft etc. Unfortunately, some people think magic and the power of the Divine (biblically in concept) are the same thing, and this becomes a line of debate. As a modern individual in today's world - If I were not a theist, with the opposite view, God and the universe etc., would be science fiction to me.

I was with you until you posted this. I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

Apologies, I was alluding to the POV, that there could be modern explanations and language interpretations for the biblical events in the ancient past.

Anyway, my main point in this discussion is that Christian apologists often misrepresent atheists claiming they deny any kind of harmony between science and religion. I don't know of any atheist who argues that there is no such harmony.

Depending on the individuals argument, case by case - but I agree with you, it does happen... atheists can be misrepresented (or vice versa). Some discussions in the religious section, seem to suggest the "no harmony between (people of both) science and religion" thought.

For example..on another thread, a qualified neurologist, an expert in his field, was auto-dismissed when I mentioned him in a discussion, which was regarding 'consciousness' and machines. The quick dismissal was simply because the neurologist was also a Christian.

 

[rousseau]

IMO, there's a framing problem in suggesting Christianity may be in opposition to science. Christianity is an institution, science is a methodology. Science can't have a foe because science isn't tied to any specific ideology or framework.

Christianity can be the foe of people who are vested in scientific fact, but it can't be the foe of science itself.

 

[bilby]

The quick dismissal was simply because the neurologist was also a Christian.

No, it was because he has a history of allowing his religious beliefs to bias his scientific research.

Sir Isaac Newton was a devout christian; Nobody dismisses his work in optics or mechanics because of his faith, and the reason they don't is that he didn't let his faith distract him from reporting accurately what he found, and he didn't let it prejudice his hypotheses.

The fact is that lots of scientists have been Christians or Muslims, sometimes even of high standing in their respective religions; But they have nevertheless been effective and successful scientists because they ignored their religious beliefs when doing science.

Religious people always ignore their religion when they need to genuinely understand a part of reality. Because failing to do so leads to erroneous conclusions.

 

[Learner]

The quick dismissal was simply because the neurologist was also a Christian.

No, it was because he has a history of allowing his religious beliefs to bias his scientific research.

In my opinion, I think your opinions (plural) of this particular individual has an undertone of atheist bias.

Sir Isaac Newton was a devout christian; Nobody dismisses his work in optics or mechanics because of his faith, and the reason they don't is that he didn't let his faith distract him from reporting accurately what he found, and he didn't let it prejudice his hypotheses.

I agree, no one dismisses his work, but, you're mentioning here the area of the aptly named term, 'Newtonian physics' - to which I would say - his ideas or discoveries would have had no detrimental affect from his religion at all.

Today we are touching upon further areas of newer physics, philosophies or hypothetical ideas. Consciousness, soul, etc, of that degree seems popular now on several threads. The neurologist in question is about s different discussion, something different to Newton.

The fact is that lots of scientists have been Christians or Muslims, sometimes even of high standing in their respective religions; But they have nevertheless been effective and successful scientists because they ignored their religious beliefs when doing science.

They can keep their beliefs, while doing their respective fields of work. It's not going to affect their method of investigation, or the processes of thought as professionals, who understand the natural world in it's physical state.
They too, like their secular counterparts, will believe there are scientific explanations for most phenomenons.

Religious people always ignore their religion when they need to genuinely understand a part of reality. Because failing to do so leads to erroneous conclusions.

I totally understand what you mean here. No disputing you here.

I would say... I also go with Rosseau's post #13 i.e. Christianity is not an opposition to science, just the individuals (not doctrines or the science method) who are finding reasons to debate with.

 

[steve_bank]

More than individuals, it is also a collective group behavior.

On FOX you cam hear 'atheist scinceis out to destroy religion

About 10 years ago I was working qith a new grad from the Univ Washington. He told me a group of Christians on campus approached him and said he shoud drop enginering because science is bad. He huself is Christian.

Christians engineers I worked wit who were quite good generally compartmentalized religion and science. Some believing in creationism while applying science.

The hard core believes in supernatural Christianity can not balance the obvious truth of science as it applies in daily life with their belie

One of the recnt popes went on recrd saying to theeffct that given the scince and evidnce evolution may be part of god's plan. A classic example of Catholic theology evolving as it has for 2000 years. From reporting there is an ongoing palace political battle in the Vatican, conservatives vs reformers.

I have looked at mainstream Christian sect sites and found similar sentiment.

A new potical term is value signaling, IOW a dog whistle to gather the troops. For some groups science has become a bogeyman, a rally point. Abortion is another one.

Christians thrive on self righteousness.

There was a Muslim science rationalist reform movement around the 18th or 19th century, and it got squashed by conservatives.

Before their decline and sceince passed to Europe, Arabs and Pressings were leaders in science. Science did not come out of nowhere in Europe. The foudatio was in Persia and Arabia.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Science = looking at the preponderance of evidence and drawing conclusions.

Christianity = admitting (or manufacturing) only evidence that supports a predetermined conclusion.

Victor Stenger puts it this way: If a belief and evidence are in conflict, then science trashes the belief, and religion trashes the evidence. While this characterization may be a bit simplistic because it is an ideal, I think it is generally true.

Would you agree that trashing evidence to opt for a belief harms science?

 

[rousseau]

Science = looking at the preponderance of evidence and drawing conclusions.

Christianity = admitting (or manufacturing) only evidence that supports a predetermined conclusion.

Victor Stenger puts it this way: If a belief and evidence are in conflict, then science trashes the belief, and religion trashes the evidence. While this characterization may be a bit simplistic because it is an ideal, I think it is generally true.

Would you agree that trashing evidence to opt for a belief harms science?

How does one harm science? What or who is being harmed?

I get the gist of what you're getting at, but framing science/religion as being in opposition sets science up as being ideological, or purposeful. There is no intent to undermine religion by scientists, or achieve a particular goal. Undermining religion just happens by coincidence when we methodically investigate reality.

So framing the problem as you're doing is problematic because it reinforces the idea that science has some form of agency, and is actually aiming to do something. This can't be the case because science is a methodology, not an institution.

Scientists have an aim in mind when they perform science, science itself can't have an aim. So religion can't harm science, but it can impede someone from trying to perform science that it doesn't like. On the other hand, religion can encourage science that it does like. So is it harming or helping science?

 

[pood]

The quick dismissal was simply because the neurologist was also a Christian.

No, it was because he has a history of allowing his religious beliefs to bias his scientific research.

In my opinion, I think your opinions (plural) of this particular individual has an undertone of atheist bias.

Bilby Is correct about my response while you mischaracterized it. Also, Michael Egnor is a raving loon.

 

[pood]

Anyway, my main point in this discussion is that Christian apologists often misrepresent atheists claiming they deny any kind of harmony between science and religion. I don't know of any atheist who argues that there is no such harmony.

See P. Z. Myers and Jerry Coyne, among others. Coyne even wrote a book on the subject.