How do you theists view science in all aspects?

[steve_bank]

I am not opening a debate on science vs religion, or something like creationism vs evolution.

Theists on the forum periodically invoke science as a pejorative.

What do you think science is from practice, to workers, to organization, to intent, and beliefs. What do you associate with science?

 

[Lion IRC]

I love science

 

[Tigers!]

I am not opening a debate on science vs religion, or something like creationism vs evolution.

Theists on the forum periodically invoke science as a pejorative.

Whom and when did they do so?

What do you think science is from practice, to workers, to organization, to intent, and beliefs. What do you associate with science?

I've always liked Kepler's quote "Thinking God's thoughts after him" (can't find exact quote)

God gave us a universe to explore with our minds and our senses. Science is one way we do that.

 

[James Brown]

Growing up, every Creationist who spoke at my school or church always spent the first five minutes of his talk explaining how much he LOVED science. The next five minutes were explaining how shocked he was to learn about the vast cover-up in the science community as they pushed their top-down atheistic immoral anti-Christian agenda.

Then the rest of the presentation was spent on how the Grand Canyon was formed in a month and how Noah fit a pair of T-Rexes on the ark.

 

[Lion IRC]

Well this theist really loves science.

 

[skepticalbip]

Theists generally love science... except when it offers any scientific understanding that contradicts one of their beliefs.

Different theists will have problems with different sciences, some with some of them, some with all of them;
Anthropology
Geology
Paleontology
Astronomy
Cosmology
Genetics
Evolution
etc., etc.

However, most theists don't have any problem with Newton's laws of motion.

 

[Politesse]

I'm sometimes called a "theist" due to my participation with Christianity and Wicca, but I've never rejected or impugned science, so I guess I'm not who the thread is for?

Science is beautiful, in any case, and I reject the notion that it is or ought to be religiously (or non-religiously) partisan somehow. The whole point is that anyone can use it.

 

[atrib]

I love science

I love science. Except when it contradicts what the Bible says, and then I reject it. So I end up rejecting a lot of science, like the age of the earth, the evolution of life, the geologic record, the genomes of living things, the formation of the universe, and so on and so forth. And as science advances, the list grows. But I really, really like science. Really, I love science. Like Newton's Laws of Motion. I love Newton's Laws of Motion!

 

[abaddon]

Science is beautiful, in any case, and I reject the notion that it is or ought to be religiously (or non-religiously) partisan somehow. The whole point is that anyone can use it.

Exactly. But often theists don't mean science when they say they love science. They mean "theist science"... a partisan science... which doesn't exist. They'll remind everyone that science developed in Christian nations, and Isaac Newton was a theist. So it was "theist science" in the past, they think. What motivated the scientists of the past was to know the mind of God, and that's the right and proper role of science.

But (many theists say) atheists have corrupted science and turned it into "atheistic science". As if it were still partisan but now "in the wrong way". Which it is not. Science just happens to end up "atheistic" because it's nonpartisan. The fact denied by too many theists is science is wholly open to their ideas, and does in fact test their claims when it can. Just it never works out well for theism. "Bias!" cries the advocate of "theistic science" now that it no longer seems partisan "in the right way".

So anyone can "use it". The trouble is when they think it's somehow being abused in a conspiracy against God-belief because it doesn't support theist ideas. Which it can't do, because of the vacuous nature of theist ideas.

 

[steve_bank]

On the forum theists when confronted with scince as opposed to scripture interpetion claim scince is some kind of orgaqnized atheist conspiracy to disenfranchise religion.

For a theist who has twisted science to say he loves religion sounds like a passive aggressive gambit.

BTW, I do not love science as some amorphous thing

My question when confabbing with fellow theists who have a literal interpretation of scripture, how is science discussed?. Over the last decade Christians in the media paint science as anti religion without understanding how it works, like theists on the forum who conflate objective physical science with a philosophy, moral intent, or some other ism.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

On the forum theists when confronted with scince as opposed to scripture interpetion claim scince is some kind of orgaqnized atheist conspiracy to disenfranchise religion.

For a theist who has twisted science to say he loves religion sounds like a passive aggressive gambit.

BTW, I do not love science as some amorphous thing

My question when confabbing with fellow theists who have a literal interpretation of scripture, how is science discussed?. Over the last decade Christians in the media paint science as anti religion without understanding how it works, like theists on the forum who conflate objective physical science with a philosophy, moral intent, or some other ism.

The believers I know aren't very interested in science, nor do they display scientific curiosity. Science get used like their bibles get used. If something scientific disagrees with their religious teaching they reject the science, not the religious teaching. They'd be totally lost and bored in an actual scientific discussion.

And that makes sense because if they honestly appreciated the science they wouldn't continue to believe in invisible alien sky creatures.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

On the forum theists when confronted with scince as opposed to scripture interpetion claim scince is some kind of orgaqnized atheist conspiracy to disenfranchise religion.

For a theist who has twisted science to say he loves religion sounds like a passive aggressive gambit.

BTW, I do not love science as some amorphous thing

My question when confabbing with fellow theists who have a literal interpretation of scripture, how is science discussed?. Over the last decade Christians in the media paint science as anti religion without understanding how it works, like theists on the forum who conflate objective physical science with a philosophy, moral intent, or some other ism.

The believers I know aren't very interested in science, nor do they display scientific curiosity. Science get used like their bibles get used. If something scientific disagrees with their religious teaching they reject the science, not the religious teaching. They'd be totally lost and bored in an actual scientific discussion.

And that makes sense because if they honestly appreciated the science they wouldn't continue to believe in invisible alien sky creatures.

I recently explained to a former believer what "Solstice" means and what exactly the winter solstice is, and then said that it is the ultimate origin of the Jesus myth. At that point I got this very confused and disdainful look.

I then had to explain that celebrating the winter solstice is not some kind of new-agey woo woo and that for three days the sun "stands still" at it's rising and setting points on the horizon before beginning to move again, marking the return of light, warmth, crops and a time for celebration, and that all cultures celebrated this time of year. I then heard, "I never knew that."

This is a typical "scientific" exchange with a believer and I might add, former believers, when it comes to their scientific understanding generally. The scientific topics vary of course.

 

[Politesse]

Summary of thread: theists actually do like science, atheists just think they like it "wrong".

 

[PyramidHead]

Summary of thread: theists actually do like science, atheists just think they like it "wrong".

Well... not exactly. The problem is that science is not just a body of knowledge, it's a mindset for investigating reality. And in the sense that it recommends all of our conclusions about it be provisional, empirically driven, and subject to falsification, it poses a problem for many kinds of theism that accept revelation as a sufficient basis for knowledge.

 

[rousseau]

Being a theist is as much a social/political stance as it is a spiritual one. Like anything, any given person is going to appreciate science until it starts threatening their social and political ties. This is the same with any ideology, which usually serves as a glue for social cohesion among a group.

You're not going to find a lot of people shouting 'aha, my 20 closest friends and family members have no idea what the fuck they're talking about' from the rooftops. Unless said person decides truth is more important to them than any material impacts of switching beliefs.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Summary of thread: theists actually do like science, atheists just think they like it "wrong".

Incorrect!

Theists actually do like those aspects of science that do not threaten their comforting illusions.

Atheists do not necessarily understand science any better than theists.

 

[abaddon]

Summary of thread: theists actually do like science, atheists just think they like it "wrong".

I don't see that anywhere in the thread.

Lion IRC gave a link to expand on what he means by "I love science". The link indicates that, for Lion, what he loves in science is whatever things science does that seem to him to advance his theistic causes. Hadn't you commented on partisan uses or abuses of science?

Tigers! answered the question (what do you theists think science is?) more directly and sensibly. Science is one way to explore the universe. If another way is theology, that makes sense if the universe is God's thoughts as suggested by the Kepler quote. In this view, science becomes a subset of theology.

From here:

Many of Kepler's writings reflect his deep desire to testify to God's glory. On one occasion, he wrote, "I was merely thinking God's thoughts after him. Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it benefits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God."

Maybe that'd be a beautiful way to see it, if it weren't for everything else that God turns out to be in the hands of "biblicists".

 

[atrib]

Summary of thread: theists actually do like science, atheists just think they like it "wrong".

I disagree. I think SOME theists do generally love science and embrace its findings, while others pick and choose what findings they are willing to accept. And the picking and choosing for the latter group is not based on the scientific merits of the specific case, but on the impact the findings have on their worldview. I would not say that the latter group "likes" science, more like they tolerate or concede to some aspects of science while rejecting others.

 

[Politesse]

Well, I am no fan of abuses of science, though I find they are rampant in all quarters. I would agree that religious devotion is a common source of bias, but we would all be better off if it were the only one.

 

[Lion IRC]

Summary of thread: theists actually do like science, atheists just think they like it "wrong".

Incorrect!

Theists actually do like those aspects of science that do not threaten their comforting illusions.

Atheists do not necessarily understand science any better than theists.

Despite what abaddon mistakenly thinks about my love (appreciation) of science being selective,
I do not cherry pick only the results I like.

I might do that IF science contradicted my biblical worldview. But it doesn't and so I don't.
Quite the opposite. Science not only doesn't conflict with theism, it reinforces theism.
Have I not consistently argued that scientific discovery is adding more 'gaps' than it fills?