Conclusive scientific proof supporting christianity

lostboy

Well i was reading around the internet and somthing i did not know before came to my attention, The dead sea scrolls, containing fragments of every book of the old testament with the exception of esther and have been dated to from between 250-150BC.

to me that is some sort of proof of when the old testament was written and as such someone predicted christ before he was born.

That said i have always believed there was a man names Jesus alive around 2000 years ago but always questioned if he was simply making it up or if he was what the bible says he was.

so basically in a nutshell i started this thread to find more things like this such as someone said in another thread "proof of the resurrection"



I can see reading back over this aswell it will probabaly get quiet heated before long so im going to post a similar thread in A&A for opinions from that forum.

santing

The existence of science itself is ample conclusive scientific proof that supports christianity. Take away christianity, the christian culture and there would be no faculty possible called "science."

Just my two cents

Ickle Magoo

santing wrote: »

The existence of science itself is ample conclusive scientific proof that supports christianity. Take away christianity, the christian culture and there would be no faculty possible called "science."

Just my two cents

Are you suggesting non-christian countries have no science? Don't practice science? Would never have science if it wasn't for christianity? Really?

santing

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Are you suggesting non-christian countries have no science? Don't practice science? Would never have science if it wasn't for christianity? Really?

No, that's not what I am saying.... Science is based on the idea that matter/life has a purpose and is searchable/reasonable. When a philosophy / religion doesn't offer these foundations than science as we know it can not exist. Take the old greeks - they were great thinkers, but in their mind you couldn't trust reality - so an experience was always wrong.

Non Christian cultures today can practice science - but the science is based on a Christian/Jewish/[Muslim] foundation.

PDN

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Are you suggesting non-christian countries have no science? Don't practice science? Would never have science if it wasn't for christianity? Really?

For the most part they got it from civilisations with a long Christian history. It was no coincidence that that secular toleration, rationalism, and the scientific method have developed in those societies with the longest exposure to Christianity.

It was the Christian conviction that the world is created by God to run on orderly lines (rather than the pagan idea that physical phenomena were the actions of capricious deities) that motivated people like Bacon, Copernicus and Galileo to investigate how that worked.

Ickle Magoo

I appreciate that much of science has been conducted by or under christians/christianity but it's a bit of a leap to suggest without christianity, there would be no science or, indeed, that the fact science exists is proof of christianity.

Turtwig

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I appreciate that much of science has been conducted by or under christians/christianity but it's a bit of a leap to suggest without christianity, there would be no science or, indeed, that the fact science exists is proof of christianity.

Indeed. A huge leap.
Christianity is a far from a empirical philosophy.

Christianity was the religion with the most power and influence over society it is hardly surprising that it influenced modern science.

iUseVi

santing wrote: »

No, that's not what I am saying.... Science is based on the idea that matter/life has a purpose and is searchable/reasonable. When a philosophy / religion doesn't offer these foundations than science as we know it can not exist. Take the old greeks - they were great thinkers, but in their mind you couldn't trust reality - so an experience was always wrong.

Non Christian cultures today can practice science - but the science is based on a Christian/Jewish/[Muslim] foundation.

Its funny that you mention the ancient greeks. They were not christian and yet were nothing short of prolific in terms on their contribution to many fields of science. In fact prolific is probably an understatement. Physics, astronomy, mathematics, chemistry (well, alchemy), medicine and also to engineering.

And I could give lots of examples of progresses made for any of these fields you choose. Clearly not based on christian culture and yet that didn't stop 'em.

chalkitdown

PDN wrote: »

For the most part they got it from civilisations with a long Christian history. It was no coincidence that that secular toleration, rationalism, and the scientific method have developed in those societies with the longest exposure to Christianity.

It was the Christian conviction that the world is created by God to run on orderly lines (rather than the pagan idea that physical phenomena were the actions of capricious deities) that motivated people like Bacon, Copernicus and Galileo to investigate how that worked.

For the most part, christianity has consistently tried to undermine or slow scientific advances not in keeping with their ideals.

Turtwig

chalkitdown wrote: »

For the most part, christianity has consistently tried to undermine or slow scientific advances not in keeping with their ideals.

That may be true, but Christianity isn't the only culprit here.

• Ancient Islam Post Arabic Enlightenment : Mathematics are an enemy of God.
• Tobacco Firms. (Harmful Smoking Denial)
• Oil Companies. (Climate Change Denial)
• Pharmaceutical Companies. (Thalimonide, Attempts to Exaggerate Swine Flu.)
• Governments. (Iran : HIV doesn't exist. UK : Cannabis is NOT less lethal than Alcohol.)

etc.

PDN

chalkitdown wrote: »

For the most part, christianity has consistently tried to undermine or slow scientific advances not in keeping with their ideals.

That is not borne out by history (as opposed to popular anti-theist propaganda). If that were so then societies without Christian influence would have been the ones that fully developed the scientific method.

iUseVi wrote:

Its funny that you mention the ancient greeks. They were not christian and yet were nothing short of prolific in terms on their contribution to many fields of science. In fact prolific is probably an understatement. Physics, astronomy, mathematics, chemistry (well, alchemy), medicine and also to engineering.

Unfortunately the medieval reverence for the ancient Greeks also served to hinder scientific development. For example, the Catholic Church messed Galileo around because his discoveries, based on his Christian beliefs, contradicted the scientific orthodoxy of the day which idolised Aristotle. (We would all probably agree that the Church shouldn't have been acting as the guardians of scientific orthodoxy - but no-one else was really interested in science at the time so by default they were the equivalent of the Royal academy and the Nobel Committee of the day).

santing

PDN wrote: »

which idolised Aristotle.

And as Aristotle wasn't a christian (he was before BC) we can't blame the christian faith for this. If we bring in Christian faith than we can say that it was Church POWER versus christian faith.

iUseVi

PDN wrote: »

Unfortunately the medieval reverence for the ancient Greeks also served to hinder scientific development. For example, the Catholic Church messed Galileo around because his discoveries, based on his Christian beliefs, contradicted the scientific orthodoxy of the day which idolised Aristotle. (We would all probably agree that the Church shouldn't have been acting as the guardians of scientific orthodoxy - but no-one else was really interested in science at the time so by default they were the equivalent of the Royal academy and the Nobel Committee of the day).

Fair point. I was just busting the myth that the Church was necessary, by showing that progress was being made before it existed. I won't claim that religion people/institutions cannot do science, or necessarily hinder it.

The ancient Greek society may not have been the ideal environment to stimulate science but I still think Santing's claim of "Take away christianity, the christian culture and there would be no faculty possible called "science." is completely erroneous.

Coriolanus

PDN wrote: »

Unfortunately the medieval reverence for the ancient Greeks also served to hinder scientific development. For example, the Catholic Church messed Galileo around because his discoveries, based on his Christian beliefs, contradicted the scientific orthodoxy of the day which idolised Aristotle. (We would all probably agree that the Church shouldn't have been acting as the guardians of scientific orthodoxy - but no-one else was really interested in science at the time so by default they were the equivalent of the Royal academy and the Nobel Committee of the day).

Eh, I'd argue that it was the solipsistic egotism of Aristotle's work that was of such appeal to the Church at the time rather than any curmudgeonly adherence to a strictly scientific orthodoxy. They assaulted his works as an affront to God, not as an affront to science. Now I'll concede that there were a couple of chuch-sponsored or clerical philosophers who disputed his work in a more rigorous and logical manner, but they were strictly in the minority.

For the most part they got it from civilisations with a long Christian history. It was no coincidence that that secular toleration, rationalism, and the scientific method have developed in those societies with the longest exposure to Christianity.

Now that's an interesting point. The key rescources that allow any civilisation to dominate it's neighbours happen to be abundant in Western Europe in particular, and numerous scholars have exploded the quaint, 19th C notion that the Wests pre-emminence was largely due to a cultural or racial superiority. I'd never really thought about the role of religion though. Was there something about the conditions so conducive to developement that also proved to be a better than average incubator of monotheistic religion?

FarmerGreen

Flavius Josephus is a bit of a laugh.
Written about the time of Christ, he was a Jew who reported back to Rome in plain language
Its available as reprint.
Simple, factual, stunningly honest.
Its well worth a read.

PDN

Nevore wrote: »

Eh, I'd argue that it was the solipsistic egotism of Aristotle's work that was of such appeal to the Church at the time rather than any curmudgeonly adherence to a strictly scientific orthodoxy. They assaulted his works as an affront to God, not as an affront to science. Now I'll concede that there were a couple of chuch-sponsored or clerical philosophers who disputed his work in a more rigorous and logical manner, but they were strictly in the minority.

Much of the opposition to Galileo stemmed from Lodovico delle Colombe - not a churchman, but a devotee of Aristotle.

Actually Copernicus' and Galileo's ideas were much better received in areas where the Reformation had taken hold (for example, Discourses Concering Two New Sciences was published in the Netherlands).

Now that's an interesting point. The key rescources that allow any civilisation to dominate it's neighbours happen to be abundant in Western Europe in particular, and numerous scholars have exploded the quaint, 19th C notion that the Wests pre-emminence was largely due to a cultural or racial superiority. I'd never really thought about the role of religion though. Was there something about the conditions so conducive to developement that also proved to be a better than average incubator of monotheistic religion?

Time to dust off our copies of "Guns, Germs and Steel", eh? If I remember correctly Diamond's points applied more to Eurasia, rather than to Western Europe. China, for example, had a technological advantage and headstart over Europe - but that failed to develop for mainly cultural and religious reasons. So, while Christendom was seeking to obey the biblical mandate to 'subdue the earth', China was retreating into xenophobia and isolation, including enacting the death penalty for explorers who built ships, because they thought a fire in Beijing was a sign of the gods' displeasure.

Coriolanus

PDN wrote: »

Much of the opposition to Galileo stemmed from Lodovico delle Colombe - not a churchman, but a devotee of Aristotle.

Puhleeze! Contra Ill Moto Dell Terra was peppered with quotes from the Bible. Sure, he argued with some semblance of logical thought but the treatise is blatantly supportive of theism in general and the Churchs position on the solar system specifically.

Time to dust off our copies of "Guns, Germs and Steel", eh? If I remember correctly Diamond's points applied more to Eurasia, rather than to Western Europe. China, for example, had a technological advantage and headstart over Europe - but that failed to develop for mainly cultural and religious reasons. So, while Christendom was seeking to obey the biblical mandate to 'subdue the earth', China was retreating into xenophobia and isolation, including enacting the death penalty for explorers who built ships, because they thought a fire in Beijing was a sign of the gods' displeasure.

Never actually read it! Collapse was good though.

It was always my understanding that China sputtered just after the start line because of geographical concerns. Whoooole other thread though, and looks like I need to do some re-reading before it!

monosharp

santing wrote: »

The existence of science itself is ample conclusive scientific proof that supports christianity. Take away christianity, the christian culture and there would be no faculty possible called "science."

Just my two cents

Says the guy who posted about a creationism lecture yesterday. :pac:

That comment is absolutely ridiculous.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

For the most part they got it from civilisations with a long Christian history.

uh huh.

Might want to tell that to the ancient greeks, the Indians, the Chinese, the Japanese or the Koreans etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_technology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Indian_science_and_technology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_and_technology_in_China

Christianity has been a hinderence to science more then once and to suggest science itself mostly came about because of christianity is ludicrous.

It was no coincidence that that secular toleration, rationalism, and the scientific method have developed in those societies with the longest exposure to Christianity.

Thats just plain wrong.

Christianity today is one of the most intolerant religions in the world. If you want tolerance look up Buddhism or Hinduism, hardly clean records themselves but far better then Christianity today.

Rationalism ? Lets just pick one example shall we ? Who were the strongest denialists of dinosaurs a few hundred years ago ? (And probably still today)

The scientific method has nothing to thank Christianity for.

Christians have made a large contribution to Science but it was most certainly not because of their Christianity.

It was the Christian conviction that the world is created by God to run on orderly lines (rather than the pagan idea that physical phenomena were the actions of capricious deities) that motivated people like Bacon, Copernicus and Galileo to investigate how that worked.

Oh is it a match between Paganism and Christianity only ? If thats the case then you've probably got a point here, which religion was more 'beneficial' to Science ? if thats the question then I'd have to say Christianity too.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

uh huh.

Might want to tell that to the ancient greeks, the Indians, the Chinese, the Japanese or the Koreans etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_technology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Indian_science_and_technology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_and_technology_in_China

No-one is denying that technology has existed in various cultures. But I was referring to something very distinct, the development of the scientific method. Historians agree, for example, that Chinese technology was, at one time, streets ahead of the West - but for some reason they consistently failed to transfer or develop the obvious principles behind a piece of technology to other fields of knowledge.

For example, I quote from Science and Technology in World History:An Introduction by James E. McClellan III and Harold Dorn:

Traditional Chinese thought also lacked a concept of “laws of nature.”
Unlike Islam or the Christian West, Chinese civilization did not
entertain notions of a divine, omnipotent lawgiver who issued fixed
commandments for humans and for nature. Especially after the failure
of the Legalists, Chinese society by and large was not subject to strictly
defined positive law and law codes; the more flexible concepts of justice
and custom generally governed Chinese legal proceedings. As a
result, it made no sense for Chinese intellectuals to inquire into laws of
nature or to find motivation for scientific efforts to discover order in
God’s handiwork.
Science and Technology in World History:An Introduction by James E. McClellan III and Harold Dorn (page 139)

The application of the scientific method, as fully developed in societies with long exposure to Christianity, meant that in the West they quickly adopted Chinese technological inventions and applied them to other areas of life and built upon them.

Christianity has been a hinderence to science more then once and to suggest science itself mostly came about because of christianity is ludicrous.

I agree that on occasions Christianity can be a hindrance to science, and sometimes that is good. For example, Nazi scientists were able, by casting off the Christian values that Hitler despised, to carry out experimentation on Jewish children. At other times one form of Christianity might have hindered science but other forms encouraged it - a good example is how the Reformers' urge to produce printing presses and disseminate the Bible provided an environment in Holland where Galileo's works could be published.

The point is that no-one is arguing that conflicts between religion and science have never existed - but overall it should be obvious to any student of history (rather than some propagandaist grinding an axe) that Christianity facilitated the development of the scientific method and the spread of knowledge. It is asinine to argue that pure coincidence accounts for why the same societies with the greatest exposure to Christianity were the same ones that developed scientifically, and which first produced the kind of rational thinking and toleration most of us value today.

Christianity today is one of the most intolerant religions in the world. If you want tolerance look up Buddhism or Hinduism, hardly clean records themselves but far better then Christianity today.

I suggest you do some reading up on Hinduism. A good place to start might be the Partition of India. Both Muslims and Hindus killed hundreds of thousands.

Then you could try finding out what's happening in Orissa State in India where Christians are being raped and killed by Hindu fundamentalists.

Then you might like to investigate a movement like the BJP, whose extremely intolerant right-wing version of Hinduism attracts the support of hundreds of millions of Hindu voters in India.

Christendom, like all ideologies, has some horrible stains on its past - but to try to portray Christianity today as being generally intolerant is a joke.

Rationalism ? Lets just pick one example shall we ? Who were the strongest denialists of dinosaurs a few hundred years ago ? (And probably still today)

You and I both know that YECs are a small minority group. For you to try to use that to deny the historic role of Christianity in the development of science and rationalism is, quite honestly, pathetic. Get a grip, man, you're smarter than that.

The scientific method has nothing to thank Christianity for.

Christians have made a large contribution to Science but it was most certainly not because of their Christianity.

Your ideological commitment is noted - but history is against you. Many of the great thinkers and scientific pioneers of history professed that their investigations were prompted by their faith in an orderly universe that sprang from their religious beliefs.

Oh is it a match between Paganism and Christianity only ? If thats the case then you've probably got a point here, which religion was more 'beneficial' to Science ? if thats the question then I'd have to say Christianity too.

From a historical perspective it is about 'which religion' because atheism was for the most part non-existent. Atheism has, in the main, been able to develop more recently thanks to the greater toleration achieved in societies with a great exposure to Christianity (which is why we can have this discussion on a message board in Ireland rather than one in Iran or North Korea).

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

The application of the scientific method, as fully developed in societies with long exposure to Christianity, meant that in the West they quickly adopted Chinese technological inventions and applied them to other areas of life and built upon them.

PDN, I am not going to answer you, just suggest you read about the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method

You are incorrectly trying to associate your belief system with something which is completely foreign to such a thing.

I agree that on occasions Christianity can be a hindrance to science, and sometimes that is good. For example, Nazi scientists were able, by casting off the Christian values that Hitler despised, to carry out experimentation on Jewish children.

Do you really want to go down this route ? I can start listing out atrocities caused by Christians if you'd like but its a road we've both traveled far too often.

The point is that no-one is arguing that conflicts between religion and science have never existed - but overall it should be obvious to any student of history (rather than some propagandaist grinding an axe) that Christianity facilitated the development of the scientific method and the spread of knowledge.

No PDN, it is not. Please see the previously linked page.

It is asinine to argue that pure coincidence accounts for why the same societies with the greatest exposure to Christianity were the same ones that developed scientifically, and which first produced the kind of rational thinking and toleration most of us value today.

That existed long before Christianity did.

I suggest you do some reading up on Hinduism. A good place to start might be the Partition of India. Both Muslims and Hindus killed hundreds of thousands.

Again, I know the slates not clean and I know what your telling me is the truth.

I also know that right now my brother-in-law is been dragged to church because of his wife and her family, I also know that if he didn't pretend to be Christian he would not be married to her, I also know that he has been forced to abandon many of his cultures ancient traditions because of the Christian view of them.

I also know that Catholics, Some Muslims, Hindus, Japanese Shinto's and other religions have no tolerance problem with the above.

Christendom, like all ideologies, has some horrible stains on its past - but to try to portray Christianity today as being generally intolerant is a joke.

Oh please explain how its not ? because we've had this conversation many times and it seemed to be the general conclusion that intolerance based on religion is 'acceptable' in places like Universities, family matters etc. Did I take you up incorrectly ?

You and I both know that YECs are a small minority group. For you to try to use that to deny the historic role of Christianity in the development of science and rationalism is, quite honestly, pathetic. Get a grip, man, you're smarter than that.

A hundred+ years ago it wasn't YECs who were protesting against dinosaurs etc, it was very mainstream Christianity, but yes you are right, today its not an issue.

Bduffman

santing wrote: »

Science is based on the idea that matter/life has a purpose

Since when? Science is probably more open to the idea that life has no purpose other than the continuation of its own existence.

Its more about the what & when rather than the who & why.

Gurgle

lostboy wrote: »

to me that is some sort of proof of when the old testament was written and as such someone predicted christ before he was born.

Practically every religion has a saviour who is coming / has come / will come again. The main point of contention amongst mono-theists is which of the above is accurate.

Glenster

I think the point that the previous poster was making was that although the Greeks and the Chinese were obviously very advanced they didn't make the connection between theoretical study and practical application, between positing a theory and testing or applying it.

Those people who came out of the Christian tradition (out of what we might call Christendom) did. Now I'm not saying that there is necessarily a link between the Catholic (and later Prodestant) Christian religion and the development of the scientific process, that would be harmfully reductive, but it is something to consider, perhaps the scientific ethos owes more to the Catholic/Prodestant ethic than currently accepted.



Also the only reason to dust off a copy of Guns, Germs and Steel is to burn it. That book is the bane of every serious historian, so many oversimplified, easy answers. It makes me depressed just thinking about it.

Zombrex

Religion is ultimately about trying to make sense of the world.

It is, in my humble opinion, a particularly bad way of making sense of the world, but it should really be of no surprise that some religious people are driven to find out more about the universe and to test what they discover in a more systematic fashion.

I think it is slightly inaccurate to say that Christianity motivates science. I think it is more accurate to say that the drive that makes some people Christians (or any other religion) is the same drive that makes them scientist, a drive to understand the world around them.

A desire to understand leads people to religion and it leads people to science and sometimes it leads people to both.

Getting back to the OP's post. Prophecies are only impressive if they are very specific and those who fulfill them are not aware of their existence.

The Bible prophecies fail both these requirements.

They are too general thus giving too many combinations they can be fulfilled that it is not surprising that someone eventually will come along claiming to fulfill them and end up having a life that can be fit into their narrative. It is like horoscopes. They are general enough that they fit most people but written in such a way as to make the person reading feel it was written specifically for them because they take the context of their life and apply it retroactively back onto the horoscope.

They were also well known to Jesus and his followers (who wrote down the account of his life years later). It is easy to "tweak" any specific details, such as him being born in Bethlehem after the fact. Was Jesus actually born in Bethlehem? Who knows. There is no way to verify that independently of what is claimed by the religion, and if Jesus or his followers where lying about details of Jesus' past to make it fit better with older prophecies they certainly wouldn't have been the first or the last cult members to do that.

Glenster

Wicknight wrote: »

I think it is slightly inaccurate to say that Christianity motivates science. I think it is more accurate to say that the drive that makes some people Christians (or any other religion) is the same drive that makes them scientist, a drive to understand the world around them.

As I was saying before, it is impossible to say.

You could easily make the claim that scientific discovery is encouraged by whatever ethic Western Christianity provides people with.

In the same way that you can make the claim that the ethos of christianity is fundamentally opposed to science.

There is information supporting both sides of the argument. as well as individual instances of any church promoting and suppressing scientic endeavours.

The point I was making was that I cannot see a way that one could form a definitive opinion one way or the other, only very subjective personal ones.

I was just reacting to several posters who for some reason think it self evident that christianity has been detremental to science.

Zombrex

Glenster wrote: »

I was just reacting to several posters who for some reason think it self evident that christianity has been detremental to science.

The problem with Christianity, and religion in general, is this idea of revealed truth

The foundations of religion are based on the idea that certain facts about the universe have been revealed to us by higher powers. This includes the "good news" the particular religion is presenting to its followers.

The issue being of course when someone comes along and demonstrates that what is supposed to have been revealed to us from a higher power to be true isn't actually true.

At which point the authority is called into question, which can be something a lot of people have trouble with because the authority is ultimately the same authority that is promising the good thing. Christians might not care too much about the specifics of the Genesis Flood, or Scientologists about how an Auditor is supposed read your theons, but they do care about the promise of salvation or the idea that your mental health will improve. And because all these claims are supposed to be revealed truths from authority, if you question one you call into question the authority itself.

So if one bit isn't true people begin to wonder why they shouldn't believe that the other bit is true. This leads to a range of responses, including in some a desire to suppress the evidence that the first bit isn't true to ultimately save the authority from question or doubt.

Sam Vimes

monosharp wrote: »

Christians have made a large contribution to Science but it was most certainly not because of their Christianity.

While I agree with what you're saying, I don't think you're being clear here. I'd say a lot of christians were inspired by their religion to go looking for answers but it was only their motivation to go looking that came from their religion, the contributions themselves owe nothing to christian teachings. Christians only made progress when they didn't assume the truth of christianity or when assuming it to be true was at best not a bad a hindrance to their work (eg Newton believing in a literal genesis wouldn't have hindered his work in physics)

PeakOutput

do we really need scientific proof that christianity exists? its pretty obvious it does to me. the questions is weather or not what christians believe in exists and i dont see how the existence of science in any way proves or disproves the existence of god, am i missing something op?

Ickle Magoo

PeakOutput wrote: »

do we really need scientific proof that christianity exists? its pretty obvious it does to me. the questions is weather or not what christians believe in exists and i dont see how the existence of science in any way proves or disproves the existence of god, am i missing something op?

The title is asking for "scientific proof supporting christianty", ie supporting the beliefs of christianity, not proof that christianity exists! :P

Glenster

Wicknight wrote: »

The problem with Christianity, and religion in general, is this idea of revealed truth

I suppose philosophically you could have a problem with the idea of revealed truth.

But only in the way that you could have a problem with any assumption.

Or indeed the innate human disposition to listen to someone in authority.

How many of us can prove that 1+1=2, I am aware that there is a proof out there and have seen it but I would make no claim to understanding. Yet I and most other people would have no problem asserting that 1+1=2, considering it self-evident.

We make leaps of faith like this every day and it doesn't seem right to single out religion as the only or the most severe perpetrator of revealed knowledge.

Sam Vimes

Glenster wrote: »

I suppose philosophically you could have a problem with the idea of revealed truth.

But only in the way that you could have a problem with any assumption.

Or indeed the innate human disposition to listen to someone in authority.

How many of us can prove that 1+1=2, I am aware that there is a proof out there and have seen it but I would make no claim to understanding. Yet I and most other people would have no problem asserting that 1+1=2, considering it self-evident.

We make leaps of faith like this every day and it doesn't seem right to single out religion as the only or the most severe perpetrator of revealed knowledge.

I might not be able to prove that 1+1=2 but I know that someone can. That I have not looked up the proof is largely irrelevant because a few minutes of googling could change that situation. While I might choose to take someone's word that 1+1=2 out of laziness, I don't have to and anyone who wants to prove it for themselves can do so. That's what science is all about. You're comparing a situation where someone has chosen not to look up the proof to one where there is no proof to look up and you have no choice but to take someone's word for it. Not really the same thing

Zombrex

Glenster wrote: »

I suppose philosophically you could have a problem with the idea of revealed truth.

But only in the way that you could have a problem with any assumption.

Or indeed the innate human disposition to listen to someone in authority.

How many of us can prove that 1+1=2, I am aware that there is a proof out there and have seen it but I would make no claim to understanding. Yet I and most other people would have no problem asserting that 1+1=2, considering it self-evident.

We make leaps of faith like this every day and it doesn't seem right to single out religion as the only or the most severe perpetrator of revealed knowledge.

But that isn't revealed truth. As you say yourself the proof of this exists and you can go look at yourself and work out if it is true or not.

You are not expected to simply accept that you are told this by someone else. You can do if you like, but it is not a requirement.

Also if someone else comes along and demonstrates it is wrong it isn't going to shake the foundations of your beliefs.

People have likened the way religious people react to tenets of their faith being contradicted to the way children react to when someone demonstrates that something their parents have said isn't actually true.

It is more than simply a contradiction, it is in fact a fundamental challenge to how they have structured the world around them and the notion of authority.

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

But that isn't revealed truth. As you say yourself the proof of this exists and you can go look at yourself and work out if it is true or not.

You are not expected to simply accept that you are told this by someone else. You can do if you like, but it is not a requirement.

^
|
|
What he said

Glenster

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You're comparing a situation where someone has chosen not to look up the proof to one where there is no proof to look up and you have no choice but to take someone's word for it. Not really the same thing

I'm comparing two situations where people accept things without questioning them.

Which is what I've been talking about all along.

Sure you have the option to look up and study a proof, but how many people do, how many people could?

Are those people, by virtue of the fact that they have an option that they never exercise, somehow less worthy of your scorn than someone doesnt have that option?

Sam Vimes

Glenster wrote: »

I'm comparing two situations where people accept things without questioning them.

Which is what I've been talking about all along.

Sure you have the option to look up and study a proof, but how many people do, how many people could?

Are those people, by virtue of the fact that they have an option that they never exercise, somehow less worthy of your scorn than someone doesnt have that option?

You're comparing apples and oranges. Yes in both cases people accept things without questioning them but in one case I can do this and have my questions answered and in the other the person has the choice to accept it without question or ask questions which can never and will never be answered. One accepts without question out of laziness and the other accepts without question out of necessity

Glenster

Wicknight wrote: »

But that isn't revealed truth.

I dont know, if someone tells you something and you accept it without investigating it. Surely as far as you are concerned that is revealed truth.

The problem with revealed truth is that it is something that seems so self evident to someone that they cannot truly question it.

The universe obeys laws, I am not insane, grass is green, typing g on the keyboard wil make a g appear on the screen. Human beings are not robots, we cant question everything we believe. Our minds couldn't handle it.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that it is.

Glenster

Sam Vimes wrote: »

One accepts without question out of laziness and the other accepts without question out of necessity

Laziness is very harsh. There are an awful lot of complicated proofs that go into even the simplest function.

Also I dont understand why you think there is something more noble not looking something up that exists as opposed to not looking up something that doesnt exist.

We aren't arguing Science vs. Religion, or Knowing vs. Believing, I'm merely pointing out that we are all guilty of unexamining acceptance (what you might call faith or an unsupported belief system), and arguing that religion isn't to blame for it's existence.

Dave!

I've heard the phrase "Religion is a failed science", and I think that's pretty relevant here. It was a means of explaining the world a long time ago, but it's obsolete in that respect now. It may serve other purposes, but explain the physical world it does not.

eightyfish

santing wrote: »

The existence of science itself is ample conclusive scientific proof that supports christianity. Take away christianity, the christian culture and there would be no faculty possible called "science."

You could say the same about Islam. Or you could say that science is a product of human curiosity, independent of religion.

Ickle Magoo

Glenster wrote: »

The universe obeys laws, I am not insane, grass is green, typing g on the keyboard wil make a g appear on the screen. Human beings are not robots, we cant question everything we believe. Our minds couldn't handle it.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that it is.

But we do question everything we believe

For every belief you can guarantee someone else is questioning it, answers & explanations are being sought. Someone somewhere will be able to give a detailed explanation of how the retina works so we see grass as green, or on the working of a computer that allows that g to appear when you type...and our minds don't seem to ever have had an issue with expanding our knowledge - it was usually political or religious constraints rather than physical ones.

Sam Vimes

Glenster wrote: »

Laziness is very harsh. There are an awful lot of complicated proofs that go into even the simplest function.

Also I dont understand why you think there is something more noble not looking something up that exists as opposed to not looking up something that doesnt exist.

We aren't arguing Science vs. Religion, or Kbnowing vs. Believing, I'm merely pointing out that we are all guilty of unexamining acceptance (what you might call faith or an unsupported belief system), and arguing that religion isn't to blame for it's existence.

No one ever said that religion was to blame for the existence of unexamining acceptance, it's human nature. The point is that one person chooses not to look at the proof even though he could if he wanted and the other knows that there is no more proof for something than there is for the flying spaghetti monster and so chooses not to ask questions that he knows no one can answer. I don't see what's so hard to understand aout the difference between the two.

Fanny Cradock

Actually, I would say that science itself works only if certain assumptions are made. Faith that the universe is comprehensible, the rationality of the mind is such that we can understand the universe through science and that the properties of matter are reproducable across the board.

Sam Vimes

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

But we do question everything we believe

For every belief you can guarantee someone else is questioning it, answers & explanations are being sought. Someone somewhere will be able to give a detailed explanation of how the retina works so we see grass as green, or on the working of a computer that allows that g to appear when you type...and our minds don't seem to ever have had an issue with expanding our knowledge - it was usually political or religious constraints rather than physical ones.

Exactly. I can choose to accept what the guy who understands the retina says but if I don't accept it I can ask him to explain it to me and if I don't understand that's my problem. On the other hand I can either accept what the revealed truth of the bible says or.............no that's pretty much it

def

the names of people or factuality of events in the bible are not important in the slightest , its the message ,the idea of unconditional love for your fellow man regardless of age ,sex, religion ,mindset or any life choice

no church claiming to follow the teachings of the bible today truely does the movment was hijacked by rome , and they have used it for political means ever since

the pope wears red shoes! , this says more than a thousand words could ,
more or less every church supports the war on drugs , values money and popularity over love and forgivness , catholic ,evangelist what ever it dosnt matter there all "wrong" if they suggest they are more "right" than another , if they are more loved than the next,

the golden cow ..... dont worship the golden cow ,worship the love between friends and family ,live with respect

love is all you need....(thanks and forgiving wont do any bad either)

eightyfish

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Actually, I would say that science itself works only if certain assumptions are made. Faith that the universe is comprehensible, the rationality of the mind is such that we can understand the universe through science and that the properties of matter are reproducable across the board.

Not faith though. Fiath is belief without evidence. Science is the accumulation of evidence. As Einetein (didn't) put it: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Actually, I would say that science itself works only if certain assumptions are made. Faith that the universe is comprehensible, the rationality of the mind is such that we can understand the universe through science and that the properties of matter are reproducable across the board.

I'm afraid not Fanny Cradock. We determine that the universe is comprehensible through repeatable experiments. Anyone at any time of their choosing can run, for example, the Rutherford experiment and they will get exactly the same results that Rutherford got all those years ago. We don't assume that the properties of matter are reproducible across the board, we have determined where they are reproducible. Yes we could all be brains in jars but that does not mean that a scientific theory that has undergone years of scrutiny is as valid as some random guy's crackpot theory.

Dave!

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Actually, I would say that science itself works only if certain assumptions are made. Faith that the universe is comprehensible, the rationality of the mind is such that we can understand the universe through science and that the properties of matter are reproducable across the board.

All humans operate within those parameters -- you don't find many people exiting the house through their bedroom window, because they believe that the world is predictable and gravity is constant, and they will plummet to the ground.

Technological advances also provide an objectively verifiable means of testing these assumptions. We were able to fly a rocket to the moon and get back alive because we understand the laws of physics that govern such an adventure.

So yeah we make certain assumptions, for good reasons, and within those parameters science is king.

Ickle Magoo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Actually, I would say that science itself works only if certain assumptions are made. Faith that the universe is comprehensible, the rationality of the mind is such that we can understand the universe through science and that the properties of matter are reproducable across the board.

Certain aspects of science require assumptions to build a model or hypothesis but they are open to change, criticism and only valid until the next step of progress towards a generally accepted theory is made - that's not the same thing as having an immovable faith in one stance, forsaking any evidence either for or against or, indeed, absent altogether.

PDN

eightyfish wrote: »

Not faith though. Fiath is belief without evidence.

No, it isn't. Spare us having to address that strawman yet again.

If you really want to discuss what Christians think about faith then why not find out what we believe first?

eightyfish

PDN wrote: »

No, it isn't. Spare us having to address that strawman yet again. If you really want to discuss what Christians think about faith then why not find out what we believe first?

Fair enough.

Do you agree with santing's original statement though, that it requires faith to accept science?