The reason the church is afraid of Science

You did ask...you needed to look...further...to see if 'I'm Delusional'

I'm just saving your time to look, that's all

OT

Originally posted by OldThinker
You did ask...you needed to look...further...to see if 'I'm Delusional'

I'm just saving your time to look, that's all

OT

Obviously I was being sarcastic. YOU said maybe you are delusional after I had mentioned gnostic christianity. You then started carrying on about lucifer being a loser and said you'd pray for me..

Riley, not here to argue, ok?

You are entitled to your beliefs, ok?

Science says…

www.cosmicfingerprints.com...

And… www.rationalpi.com...

And… www.rzim.org...

OT only gives info...kinda like Fox News...we report, you decide...it's a good line, u gotta admit...??

OT out...

edit: spelling, sorry...getting older

[edit on 1-10-2008 by OldThinker]

…No. Science as a methodology actually started about a thousand years ago with Ibn Al-Haytham. He was an Islamic philosopher and scholar who first set the basic methodology which would become the scientific method. He was also the father of modern optics…

No doubt.

Even before Scientific Method was codified, there were a whole-mess- scientists within the Christian Church.

Scientists started leaving the church en masse when the church started persecuting scientists for revealing some findings that didn't sit well with church doctrine.

See, the church relied heavily on the concept of "Infallibility" to keep the flock in line.

When scientists started making discoveries that countered things the church said, the church ran the risk of appearing to not being so infallible.

If the church loses infallibility, it could be a tad harder to frighten the flock into submission. Especially "Gods" Commandment to give the church 10% of their income.

A church needs a revenue stream to stay in business.

Science marches forward, making discovery after discovery. While the church never makes any forward progress in it's thinking.

This has the effect of making the churches outdated beliefs look more and more archaic as time marches on.

Back in the day (when Galilee was excommunicated) the church could have adopted a different tactic that could have kept them on top of their game to this day. Alas, they chose to fight for the concept of absolute infallibility instead.

Poor buggers.

reply to post by hlesterjerome


Absolutely agree. But I think we need to differentiate 'Religion' and 'belief in God'.

When I was a christian I knew that a relationship with God was personal, and with my understanding of science and my built-in skepticism the bible was not infallible or inerrant. I knew Christianity was not what it once was and that it's roots were very different. I knew the Jesus did not want to be deified and worshipped as a God as the church does. And I knew that the church was outright unnecessary (in the same way the federal reserve). I understood that the tolerance that the church has adopted towards other religions and science was not of God but of necessity because an intolerant church would not stand.

The bible, being entirely subjective, is interpreted this way and that, and Christianity in it's history have interpreted some fairly horrible things. Martin Luther- father of modern Christianity- wrote a book called 'The Jews and their Lies', which was an inspiration to Hitler. We can thank the church for such enlightening periods as the dark ages and the crusades. There is a historic 300 year set back in science and advancement, these kind of things happen when advancement is not to the will of the church, so they get in the way.

You could argue that religion has done great things in history, but it's a two sided coin as it has done equally bad things. A good example to this is our friend, Vlad Tepes, the most evil christian ever. He was even worse than the fictional character that he inspired- Count Dracula!

No, faith and science are not incompatible, but religion does tend to be.

I think the concept of 'tithe' is amoral and wrong, especially when the church doesn't encourage free thinking, but rather conformity.

I'm not christian any more, I'm an agnostic.

[edit on 10/1/2008 by Good Wolf]

[edit on 10/1/2008 by Good Wolf]

reply to post by OldThinker

Have you read THE scientist??? A. Einstein, who said… “I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene!”

There's quite a lot of quotes from Einstein regarding religion, and most of them are not flattering. While he may have been enthralled by the figure of the Nazarene - it obviously wasn't enthralling enough to convert him. He continued to be critical of organized religion and never joined any of the major denominations of any religion.

Indeed, when pressed for a definitive answer to his religious views, Einstein invoked "Spinoza's God" who "reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings". This would more or less make him a Pantheist, but that label isn't exactly accurate either. It's clear that Einstein believed in God only insofar as he exists as a social construct. Quotes such as "God does not play dice" are not indicative of a faith in god, but rather seem to invoke god's name as a popular personification when explaining the workings of the universe.

Science says…

www.cosmicfingerprints.com...

And… www.rationalpi.com...

And… www.rzim.org...

None of those are scientific publications and none of them speak for science. A common misconception among many theists I've seen is that they attribute to "science" things that they read in the media or see on TV through channels like Discovery or National Geographic. These are not scientific publications, nor are they bound to report accurately. They are entertainment (or, Infotainment, if you will), and they're out for ratings. Even publications like New Scientist aren't really scientific journals, but merely report for the laymen what is going on in Scientific circles. They are not necessarily bound to accuracy and honesty by the test of peer review either. Indeed, New Scientist has often been accused of peddling "Scientific Pornography" because of this.

Sources such as Nature, PubMed, PNAS, and others would much better serve your cause. However, I don't recall any of these publications supporting the same conclusions you seem to think that they have.

reply to post by Lasheic


Lasheic, Appreciate your response…

With that said…

Number 1 - are you proposing your KNOW Albert Einstein’s inner thoughts, his death bed feelings…and his eternal destiny?

Number 2 – Also his personal views/inner thoughts concerning his quote. ‘God doesn’t play dice.’ ?

Number 3 – Who speaks for ‘science’? Do they have to have a lab coat and test tube? Science is the discovery of truth…just review history. Opinions/perspectives all change over time…

Number 4 - How is truth discovered? It’s called conflict/debate/dialog/research/propositions/experiments/etc…yesterday’s‘quack’ becomes today’s ‘genius’…after research is validated…

So I would be guarded…with who…you say is ‘scientific’ or what is a ‘scientific publication’

Number 5 - “peer review’ huh? Been reading Harvard and MIT too much have you? Just follow the lives of those so-called ‘experts’ to their end…there are more than you know who died lonely, bored and depressed…OT has a much broader view than you…at least currently..again time will tell…thankfully!

And lastly…

Number 6 - What conclusions have I come to-you are assuming a lot my man…it all boils down to a false-preconceived-idea you have, for one reason or another, probably behavioral based, as opposed to intellectually-founded…(if you have the ability to work thru it)…this is all typified by your SAD signature…you showed your cards bro!

As you will see my multiple posts…I am about dialog…and am not usually so direct…but for some reason I fell you KNOW better…and just need a push….yes an assumption on my part…but sincere, albeit…

OT concerned!

PS: Your are more than welcome to respond…I look forward to hearing more of your views…just be ready for the truth, ok?

PS: I have no pride, Lasheic, I’ve been blessed with a great life…seen more than you know…and am always ready to learn…I’ve just seen too many that are SOLID on their beliefs…and then get an epiphany from life and change….the Bible calls that GRACE…put a little research on that concept…you’ll need it one day…and boy you’ll appreciate it…………..Ephesians 2: 8,9

Originally posted by OldThinker
Riley, not here to argue, ok?

You are entitled to your beliefs, ok?

My original point was that the garden of eden story may have been created for political reasons.. to make desiring knowledge an "evil" thing: An excuse to deny people education. This may have been why the original illuminati was created so that knowledge (and the creation of it) was not just in the hands of the church.

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by OldThinker
Riley, not here to argue, ok?

You are entitled to your beliefs, ok?

My original point was that the garden of eden story may have been created for political reasons.. to make desiring knowledge an "evil" thing: An excuse to deny people education. This may have been why the original illuminati was created so that knowledge (and the creation of it) was not just in the hands of the church.

R, OK...thanks for the clarification...

Question-From your research who created the 'garden of eden'?

Question-Why do you feel some think 'knowledge is evil'?

Question-Who wants to deny people education? Have you researched the history of most early American colleges? You know they were Bible Institutes?


Let's keep the discussion going...I just think you've been exposed to some erroneous teaching...but I'm open, ok?

OT

If you have science AND you believe in GOD, what need is there for a Church?

If science can prove the existence of GOD, can it prove the existence of Hell?

Is the only reason for the existence of a Church is to scare people into going to church (and therefore giving them money)?

If science can prove my faith, why do I need to sit and listen to someone preach?

Why do I need the church to filter my money to the poor?

Originally posted by OldThinker
R, OK...thanks for the clarification...

Question-From your research who created the 'garden of eden'?

What do you mean what research? In the story god created it. Man would've created the story.. a few thousand years ago which is why I am baffled why you would bring up recent (american) history.

Question-Why do you feel some think 'knowledge is evil'?

Major religions like catholicism are based on this. Adam bit from the fruit of knowledge and forever they were punnished for it. Obviously god considers knowledge to be evil/bad if he's going punnish people for consuming it.
Why do you keep asking me really obvious questions?

Question-Who wants to deny people education?

Times have changed.. however trying to get creationism taught in science class is indeed denying education.
This is a good example where religion fears science and wants to deny/corrupt knowledge.

Have you researched the history of most early American colleges? You know they were Bible Institutes?

Why would I research american colleges? Thats recent history.. what has recent history got to do with politics from 5000 (apx) years ago when the creation story was thought up?

Let's keep the discussion going...I just think you've been exposed to some erroneous teaching...but I'm open, ok?

Erroneous teachings? No. They are just things you do not agree with.. it does not make them wrong.

[edit on 1-10-2008 by riley]

reply to post by OldThinker


Number 1: We can know Einsteins internal thoughts on various subjects by the written and recorded material he left behind. A quote can be taken out of context, but taken as a whole and viewed against the body of his works we can determine his thoughts on the subject. Further, reason tells us that were he so enthralled by Jesus, he would have converted to Christianity. However, Einstein didn't - so it stands that he wasn't quite as enthralled by Jesus as some would lead you to believe. I also have respect for the Jesus figure, but that doesn't necessarily mean I believe in Jesus or that he was the son of god.

Number 2: Again, you can see his feelings on the subject by reading his views on religion from other sources and comparing them to each other and contrasting them against the actions he took in life.

Number 3: Science is not an organized institution for which there needs to be a mouthpiece. This is part of what I was trying to impart to you. However, there are checks and measures to ensure truth and accuracy in publication - and one of the most important of these is the peer-review process.

Number 4: Truth is not discovered through debate. It's discovered through falsification. Debate helps the falsification process, but it is only a part - just as observation and experimentation are only parts. Debate in and of itself accomplishes little, which is why philosophy hasn't really advanced mankind. Nor can you really get a job with a philosophy major (except perhaps as a precursor to a law degree).

Number 5: I really don't understand what you're getting at here. Are you suggesting that those who subscribe to the peer-review process are lonely, miserable, or elsewise detestable? Harvard and MIT have little to do with the peer-review process. Peer Review simply means you publish your research in a scientific journal, to which other scientists in your field read your paper and attempt to either recreate or falsify it's conditions and conclusions. This allows errors in your theory to be exposed and corrected. If your theory can survive this brutal process, along with any subsequent modifications, it's more reasonable to believe that is an accurate description of a phenomena.

Number 6: You said that "Science says", and then proceeded to list links which are not supported by science. One of which has nothing to do with science, and is instead a religious ministry. The fact that you are promoting those sites indicates that the conclusions they have come to are shared by you. Otherwise I see no reason for you to link to them. Especially since you did not single out individual portions of their content to back up a point, but rather just linked to them wholesale.

Further, I have to ask, what do you mean that I've "shown my cards"? Are you implying a measure of deceit or duplicity on my part? I have nothing to hide, and no strategy to push any sort of an agenda. I'm simply speaking my mind openly, and honestly.

Oh, and lastly, epiphany is not always religious in nature. In the context that it is, epiphany does not always lead people towards religion. Just as often, it leads people away from religion.

Originally posted by GirlNextDoor
Or maybe what we don't see is that science is actually leading us closer to God, but our perceptions of God need to change (i.e., take Him out of the box we've put Him in, or rather take our minds out of the box we've put them in).

Just a thought I've been having lately.

I'm thinking this especially in the areas of string theory, multiple dimensions, etc.

What if it's not Either-Or? What if it's And?
quote]

Hi GirlNextDoor,

Yea I would definitely go along with this...

But many people don't like to think about this possibility....

As for me, well I enjoy exploring the True Mind and try to learn and understand Creation in its true context, rather than look at it as most do.

After experiencing Death as in "brain dead" for more than 30 minutes and being recorded medically as brain dead for more than 30 minutes, I could never view the world again, as I did before this experience.

I also think that many treat science as a religion too, as much of science is theoretical and thankfully is reviewed every now and then and is replaced with updates, according to our overall understand, which I must add is very, very, primitive.

Well i believe in Jesus as my "personal"lord and savour.
I also believe the universe is full of life other than our own.
I have seen two ufo's.
I can divine water.
I believe in the power of prayer (Big Time).

Now i am not so conflicted about the two subjects anymore infact i embrace both of them as Sir Winston Churchill put it.

"Christianity is sheltered in the
strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly
struggled,"

This is the science that has protected Christianity with Weapons,Enginering
and Medicine to name a few.(some could say that is the will of god) That helpd build Europe and the America.

Some Christians (like my self i guess) will move forward with out fear and open other doors other ideas ponder other biblical scripturs look out of the box in certain areas of the bible maybe re interprate some of what we have been taught Infact i think we need to re learn a lot of what we have been taught over the past 2000 years.
Just my opinion

I think a church that is brave enough to embrace some of the more fundermental areas of science admit the Bible is not perfect as a whole but perfect in parts, is in good stead to move forward to a better colective thought.

(sorry for spelling im not on fire fox today)

reply to post by OldThinker
That article starts off with the silly notion that christmas is the celebration of christ's birth! That is a pagan holiday that along with many others the Christians adopted!
Then it goes on to list the good things that christianity has done it cannot be argued that christians have accomplished many things that might not have ever been accomplished! But still the arguement for christianity is not any stronger, it still is all faith! Many religions have passed and many are still being practiced those people all have/had faith in their religion! Did it make zeuss real? No! Does your faith make god real? No!
I also read some of the silly creationist links you posted. They fail miserably to make any scientific case for their belief!

I have no problem of a mans belief in a higher power (Allah, God, Buddha, Zheus whatever). But what I do have a problem with is people's belief in ancient texts that tell them how to believe in that deity.

Of course the arguement is that these aren't to be taken literally but how in the heck could they not be taken literally. When you sit down with the Bible it has explicit instructions for sacrificing animals to please god and explicit instructions for creating candles and the like for god, explicit instructions on what priests must wear in churches and other things that get down to very minute details. Your telling me that stuff isn't to be taken literally? Please, your only saying that because it CAN'T be taken literally otherwise we'd still have slaves women wouldn't be able to speak, we'd stone people and their animals for retarded rulte breaking, and we'd be executing people for very unjust reasons.

I have a problem when someone knocks on my door and wants to share their religion with me then starts bible qouting like a mad man pulling up all these verses and throwing them at me to impress me or show me the light or whatever they think the effect is. The bible is a load of crap and I'm not sorry for offending anyone out there all these different books of religion are what inspires people to blow themselves up on other people, fly planes into buildings, cause wars in the name of ethical cleansing, and remove basic freedoms from other human beings.

Enjoy your faith but please READ your bible, quran, or whatever really READ into it. You'll notice that it was written by some ignorant sheep herders that lived in uncivilized areas and needed something to scare people into being civilized so they could progress as a Civilization. I still cannot understand how we live in this modern age and people still read into this stuff, then cherry pick the good stuff and say the rest doesn't really count or is out dated? So what even if it is that means God has acted like that in the past? Thats scary if so, I know if I believed in a god I wouldn't want something like the Bible or the Quran representing him.

reply to post by OldThinker


I grew up with religion albeit not by CHOICE. At age 12 mentioned to my father that I thought the bible was in code and did not make sense to me! His reply.... Oh shut up u don't know what your'e talking about! Guess what? I shut up! Left home at 16 after years of sexual abuse from my loved by the community pastor father! I forgave my father and decided I would study and learn and find out for myself what life was about and listen to everyone who entered my life because I had a deep seeded understanding that I was here to learn about life by opening my mind to everything I heard and learnt. I picked the bible up again at age 40 with a strange idea that this time I would understand. I read revelations first and genesis last. GUESS WHAT I DISCOVERED ALL BY MYSELF! That the bible is talking in metaphors and parables and is in code. Strangely for me when I put two and two together I wondered why my intelligent but disturbed father didn't get it! The bible is talking about the planets, the stars, the symbols of stars, the moon and the SUN! Not son as people believe. I mean seriously christians drive around with the fish symbol on their cars, the pisces astrology symbol! Around long before christianity... All I can say is open your mind to anything and the light will come to u... This is my opinion only and am not in any way attempting to sway anyone with my view.. peace and love to everyone. We live in dark times and bible prophecy is coming true. But read between the lines and answers will come.

Originally posted by Brothers
Which church are you talking about. The Catholic Church isn't saying anything ...

Yes ... which church??

The Catholic Church has come out and said that EVOLUTION is possible and it is alright to believe that's how we got here AND it has come out and said that life on other planets is PROBABLE.

Doesn't sound like fear to me.

The Catholic church isn't afraid of Science directly.

They are afraid that Scientific discoveries could erode the iron fisted grip they had on the followers of the "faith."

When more people realize that the Catholic church doesn't really know what the hell they are talking about, more people will question whether they want to continue funneling their hard earned cash into the church.

If enough people stopped propping the church up financially, the church will eventually go bankrupt and not be able to support itself.

The church leaders in the past used fear to keep the people coming back and handing over operating revenue.

They convinced the people the only why to NOT burn in hell for eternity was to abide by the rules and regulations put forth by the church leaders. That included handing over money to the church. The church convinced the people that God DEMANDS that they give 10% of their money to the church.

Scientific discoveries have the effect of revealing that the church leaders don't really know everything. The catholic church is afraid of losing the concept that the catholic church is infallible. They need people to believe that if any one disagrees with them, the church is ALWAYS right.

The more the church clings to old, outdated archaic ideas, the more silly those ideas appear to the general masses.

Of course the catholic church is saying that it’s alright to believe in evolution. The evidence for evolution it too overwhelming. If they were to continue to refute the overwhelming evidence for evolution, they will continue losing people that follow them and therefore lose their revenue stream.


[edit on 2-10-2008 by hlesterjerome]

[edit on 2-10-2008 by hlesterjerome]

As a Christian and biochemist, I have not noticed any disconnect between the two. Two-thirds of my office who are also Christians (of one form or another) and scientists would likely agree. We would not be afraid of our daily occupation.