? Why separate God from science?

[learning]

I am putting this question in the theist only thread, though it mostly concerns Christians.

(I had started it in Natural Science, but wanted more a theist or Christian perspective, and got mostly athiest/agnostic)

I'm wondering about the idea of separation of God and science, and if that is Biblically right. ie. Romans 1:20 tells us that nature/creation speaks to us about God, and is not science the study of that nature/creation?

My ? is, Is it right for a Christian to separate the idea of science and God, when the Bible speaks of nature/creation (which I believe science is the study of) telling us about God. How would/should we go about forming our view? (not advocating YEC, OEC, or TE here, but a different idea or way of looking at the world)

[rogero]

I am putting this question in the theist only thread, though it mostly concerns Christians.

(I had started it in Natural Science, but wanted more a theist or Christian perspective, and got mostly athiest/agnostic)

I'm wondering about the idea of separation of God and science, and if that is Biblically right. ie. Romans 1:20 tells us that nature/creation speaks to us about God, and is not science the study of that nature/creation?

My ? is, Is it right for a Christian to separate the idea of science and God, when the Bible speaks of nature/creation (which I believe science is the study of) telling us about God. How would/should we go about forming our view? (not advocating YEC, OEC, or TE here, but a different idea or way of looking at the world)

Good question, Learning, as always!

My counter-question is how would the inclusion of God in science affect the methodology of science? I'm sure that some readers and responders will force science to adhere to their particular interpretation of Scripture with respect to the age of Earth and Cosmos and the history of the biosphere.

Is the efficacy and necessity of a particular scriptural interpretation in relation to science what you're aiming for Learning? Or do you have a different point?

God's Love and Peace,

Roger

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Great question.

Actually, Thomas Aquinas answered it long ago. G.K. Chesterton wrote a great book on the saint that addresses this. Aquinas said for instance that we should accept a literal interpretation of Scripture unless it goes against known facts. (Take the Age of the Earth debate for instance.)

He also made it clear that you cannot have the "truth of science" and the "truth of faith." All truth is God's truth and it will never contradict. If we start with science and follow the evidence where it leads, it should take us back to God. (I'm not saying we'll become Christians but if an agnostic or atheist finds there is a God through science, they can begin the search through the religions of the world to see how God has revealed himself.)

Remember, the Bible says that he who seeks finds. Thus, if anyone is truly seeking, they will find. If we had listened to Aquinas and not downplayed reason or science or philosophy, we would not be in the struggle we are today.

Hope this Helps!

[learning]

Good question, Learning, as always!

My counter-question is how would the inclusion of God in science affect the methodology of science? I'm sure that some readers and responders will force science to adhere to their particular interpretation of Scripture with respect to the age of Earth and Cosmos and the history of the biosphere.

Is the efficacy and necessity of a particular scriptural interpretation in relation to science what you're aiming for Learning? Or do you have a different point?

God's Love and Peace,

Roger

I don't think I am aiming for a 'relation to science' but a different thing all together, in that science shouldn't (for the Christian) be separated from God, but not sure how to go about that. Perhaps it isn't for us Christians already?
(Like I said earlier, not connected to YEC, OEC, or TE)

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I don't think I am aiming for a 'relation to science' but a different thing all together, in that science shouldn't (for the Christian) be separated from God, but not sure how to go about that. Perhaps it isn't for us Christians already?
(Like I said earlier, not connected to YEC, OEC, or TE)

You can't really say it's not for Christians. Christians have been the main pioneers in science. It's just when atheistic philosophies hijacked it that we began to have trouble.

[learning]

OK, how does one answer the question of how atheists say that God isn't a part of science, and that He has nothing to do with it? How do we show, other than Him being behind the principles, that He is involved. They claim He is not. The Bible speaks of Him holding all creation together. Could there be a theory of how everything works together? I do believe He is the Creator, but not sure how to show this with the subject of science when it comes to things like testing, observing, etc. I know that HE is, behind creation, but not sure how to explain it when it comes to the study of creation, in the scientific method thing.

[Soundsurfr]

OK, how does one answer the question of how atheists say that God isn't a part of science, and that He has nothing to do with it?



Good question, Learning. I don't speak for all atheists, but as an atheist I can tell you that it is not my position to say that “HE” has nothing to to with it. My position is that I don’t know who “HE” is, nor have I observed any scientific evidence of a “HE”. My position is that this does not preclude the existence of a “HE”. “HE” might very well be there, but unless or until that becomes clear through scientific measurement or observation, then science doesn’t really have anything it can say about this proposed “HE”. I can expand on that in more detail if you want.




How do we show, other than Him being behind the principles, that He is involved.



You can’t. That’s a matter of faith. Science tries not to take things on faith, because it really doesn't work well otherwise. Having said that, science does have to take one thing, and one thing only, on faith. Namely, that what we observe empirically somehow corresponds to an external and consistent reality. In other words, we must take it on faith that when we take a measurement or make an observation, we are actually measuring SOMETHING, and not imagining that we are. After that, faith is out, and only what we measure or observe is relevant.




They claim He is not.



No, we really don’t. We only claim that “He” has not shown up in any measurement or observation.




The Bible speaks of Him holding all creation together. Could there be a theory of how everything works together?



Yes, there could, and scientists have been looking for exactly that for a long time. Einstein spent the latter part of his life looking for it.




I do believe He is the Creator, but not sure how to show this with the subject of science when it comes to things like testing, observing, etc. I know that HE is, behind creation, but not sure how to explain it when it comes to the study of creation, in the scientific method thing.



Hope this helps.

[shunyadragon]

You can't really say it's not for Christians. Christians have been the main pioneers in science. It's just when atheistic philosophies hijacked it that we began to have trouble.

Yes, there are atheist scientists, but most scientists believe in God, and in the west most are Christian of one denomination or another. More than 95% of ALL scientists support evolution, and within related fields the figure is 99%+. Nothing appears to be highjacked.

I have never seperated science from God. Science is the best way for use to know and understand the physical nature of God's creation.

[learning]

no offense, sound surf, but this is theist only here.

If you wish to comment on this in the original post I made in Natural Science, go ahead.

I started this here, as I was trying to get a theist or Christian only view on this, instead of the majority of the atheist view on this that I got in the Natural Science thread.

sunnydragon, this is not about evolution. This is a different thing. I'm not sure how exactly to explain it. I'll try and get back after I've done some housework and thought about it some more.

[Soundsurfr]

no offense, sound surf, but this is theist only here.

Sorry, none taken. I didn't check the forum before I posted. :blush:

[learning]

that's OK, you actually had some very good answers, so I'm not going to ask that it be deleted. I especially liked the one about the general theory of everything, thing. Just wanting you to know where I want to go here.

[shunyadragon]

no offense, sound surf, but this is theist only here.

If you wish to comment on this in the original post I made in Natural Science, go ahead.

I started this here, as I was trying to get a theist or Christian only view on this, instead of the majority of the atheist view on this that I got in the Natural Science thread.

sunnydragon, this is not about evolution. This is a different thing. I'm not sure how exactly to explain it. I'll try and get back after I've done some housework and thought about it some more.

Agreed, and that was not my point. My point is that many scientists. like myself, do not seperate science and God, and how evolution is considered is an example only in response to 'science being highjacked by atheists'.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Learning. Have you considered the works of Philip Johnson? He points out that science tends to assume a naturalistic framework and the way to combat an idea such as evolution is not to argue about supposed evidences but to really look at the framework itself.

[shunyadragon]

Learning. Have you considered the works of Philip Johnson? He points out that science tends to assume a naturalistic framework and the way to combat an idea such as evolution is not to argue about supposed evidences but to really look at the framework itself.

I will take a look at this, but the potential of such an argument against science would be limited. Science only assumes a naturalistic framework for the nature and history of the physical existence. It does not assume a naturalist framework for the origins, why, or any possible Divine involvement in the creation of the physical nature and history of existence.

[learning]

Yes, that is, re: the origins thing, going into theological stuff. That is why I remember reading that some science foundation thing, took out of the definition of evolution, that it was 'mindless' and 'undirected' as that was getting into a theological thing, and that, they said, was not what science did.

But, this is the thing. I've seen on t.v. once, where there were three geologists or those guys that dig up dinosaurs anyways, two were atheists, and said right there on t.v. that they thought it meant there was no 'god' and that was OK by them, cause they could then not be beholden or reponsible to anybody, do what they want, and they laughed. But the other guy, he was praising God for what they were finding (dinosaur bones I believe) and this guy saw this as God's wonders, and he definitely believed in evolution, but saw it as the way God created. Now they no doubt knew that this man believed, and the way this man was praising God, they seemed a little amazed and but respectful. Perhaps our praise for God in what we see Him do is far more powerful than any debate. I know in all that I have read, seeing that man who believed in evolution AND God, has had far more an impact on me, because I know His praise to God was real and authentic. Those kinds of things, you can just tell.

edit to add
so this is the thing I am beginning with. Is it right for Christians to separate science from theology, when God is behind that thing of science we are studying? Sure, we can use the material method to study it, and God is not in the material, I can see that. But God is somehow seen in His creation, and just seeing that man mentioned above praise God for what they were finding, was something that seemed, to me, put the two together in a right frame work. I've got a book that sort of addresses this. I think Christians or theists are sort of afraid of seeing God in nature or science, because of the problem of possibly getting into pantheism and also, of the problems in the past, of where they thought God directly moved the planets (or angels or something) and then they found the natural laws. Now later, they could see that God was behind these laws, but for some, when some new ideas came to our knowledge, it seemed to remove God. It created the problem of the 'shrinking god'. And it is this thing, of course, that we need to be careful with, especially in things like the I.D. movement. I believe God is ultimately involved in the past, now and future, but I believe He has set some things up to run their course. To say that this takes away from God's glory is not necessarily true. I've heard Kenneth Miller describe a woman giving a lecture say this. (when questioned if her believing in evolution took away from the glory of God) Something about if you knocked all the billiard balls into the pockets one by one, would that seem great? No. But if you set off one that puts the others into the pocket, wouldn't that seem greater? That is how she saw evolution, that God had set up a chain event thing, that He let it run it's course until He was satisfied with how it turned out. (Kenneth Miller liked this view)

There may have been some tweaking here and there, (not sure how to tell this, other than God's word and how we humans are so very different) there definitely has been in miracles at times, but the wonder of it all, is the original framework that He set up.

[norwegen]

no offense, sound surf, but this is theist only here.

If you wish to comment on this in the original post I made in Natural Science, go ahead.

I started this here, as I was trying to get a theist or Christian only view on this, instead of the majority of the atheist view on this that I got in the Natural Science thread.As a theist (Christian, more specifically), I would agree with the atheist Soundsurfr. We can't show that God is involved in our observations of nature.

Science is atheistic in nature. To approach a hypothesis with any sort of presupposition is to risk tainting the outcome with such a bias.


[Science] does not assume a naturalist framework for the origins, why, or any possible Divine involvement in the creation of the physical nature and history of existence.Science does assume naturalistic frameworks for origins. Big Bang theory (or the increasingly popular brane theory) are naturalistic explanations for the origin of the cosmos, and chemosynthetic theory is a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life.

Your sentence is confusing, but I'll just say also that an ideology that assumes "any possible Divine involvement in the creation of the physical nature and history of existence," is not science.


Scientific disciplines, per se, weren't really around when Paul wrote to the Roman Christians. As believers, we can certainly perceive God's "invisible nature [. . .] in the things that have been made" because we have faith, not because we have microscopes and telescopes.

[cbro]

QUOTE=norwegen
As a theist (Christian, more specifically), I would agree with the atheist Soundsurfr. We can't show that God is involved in our observations of nature

quote=cbro
We can't because it is beyond our abilities or because God has decided not to be what ever you mean by "involved"?

quote=norwegen
Science is atheistic in nature. To approach a hypothesis with any sort of presupposition is to risk tainting the outcome with such a bias.

quote=cbro
Do you really mean atheistic and not amoral in nature? Also I believe that the only way to reduce our bias is know what kind of biases we have. Such as not to know that it is a presupposition to think we can ever have no presuppositions. As shown by the idea that my idea is showing my presuppositions.

quote=norwegen
Science does assume naturalistic frameworks for origins. Big Bang theory (or the increasingly popular brane theory) are naturalistic explanations for the origin of the cosmos, and chemosynthetic theory is a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life.

quote=cbro what do you think of the quote below?
"Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, howerver, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith." Albert Einstein

Quote: Originally posted by learning
[Science] does not assume a naturalist framework for the origins, why, or any possible Divine involvement in the creation of the physical nature and history of existence.

Quote: Originally posted by norwegen
Your sentence (learning) is confusing, but I'll just say also that an ideology that assumes "any possible Divine involvement in the creation of the physical nature and history of existence," is not science.

quote=cbro
Which means that nothing became all or that the physical nature and history of existence has existed for all of past eternity and will exist for all of eternity future. Correct?

quote=norwegen
Scientific disciplines, per se, weren't really around when Paul wrote to the Roman Christians. As believers, we can certainly perceive God's "invisible nature [. . .] in the things that have been made" because we have faith, not because we have microscopes and telescopes.

quote=cbro
Do you mean Faith that our interpretation of what we see is true, because you will not have Faith that Jesus and the Bible are literarily & literally true? As my sig says? If so, you make Jesus and Christianity like any other religion and show yourself to be a needy person of my sig.

[shunyadragon]

We can't because it is beyond our abilities or because God has decided not to be what ever you mean by "involved"?

The hands-on involved God of the OT is decidedly not apparent in the modern world, particularly what we know of in science. The involvement of the God as a creator and revealer of 'God's Word' is not an issue in science itself, but a spiritual issue of the individual scientist.



Do you really mean atheistic and not amoral in nature? Also I believe that the only way to reduce our bias is know what kind of biases we have. Such as not to know that it is a presupposition to think we can ever have no presuppositions. As shown by the idea that my idea is showing my presuppositions.

By atheistic I feel he is referring to 'no religious presuppositions' that would bias the understanding and interpretation of science. Even though presuppositions are a given in human nature. Science has an extensive system of checks and balences and peer review that crosses many religious and cultural lines involving tens of thousands of scientists worldwide. Over time this system of methods tends to greatly reduce any biased influennces involving individual scientists.


what do you think of the quote below?
"Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, howerver, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith." Albert Einstein

This must be taken in context with Einstein's over all worldview which was not theistic, to explain what he meant by 'profound faith'.

Faith to Einstein must include ' . . . in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason.'



Which means that nothing became all or that the physical nature and history of existence has existed for all of past eternity and will exist for all of eternity future. Correct?

I do not feel that it is wise to assume that what we experience in the physical existence is eternal. Most things in the physical universe appear to have beginings and endings. The concept that there is an eternal nature to existence beyond this would be more plausible.



Scientific disciplines, per se, weren't really around when Paul wrote to the Roman Christians. As believers, we can certainly perceive God's "invisible nature [. . .] in the things that have been made" because we have faith, not because we have microscopes and telescopes.



Do you mean Faith that our interpretation of what we see is true, because you will not have Faith that Jesus and the Bible are literarily & literally true? As my sig says? If so, you make Jesus and Christianity like any other religion and show yourself to be a needy person of my sig.

The 'microscopes and telescopes' would be indifferent, as they should be, to the beliefs of the person using them. Science is necessarily indifferent to the choice or belief of the user concerning religion. In this light 'Jesus and Christianity like any other religion,' is a statement of fact concerning the worldview of science. Individual religions have to many presuppositions that may interfer with science to be considered anything more when making conclusions about the interpretation of scientific research and discoveries. This does not mean that science should be seperated completely from religion, because religion may provide a strong moral framework for science, and all scientists who believe in a religion consider it a reflection of their religious beliefs in oneway or another.

[cbro]

QUOTE=shunyadragon The hands-on involved God of the OT is decidedly not apparent in the modern world, particularly what we know of in science. The involvement of the God as a creator and revealer of 'God's Word' is not an issue in science itself, but a spiritual issue of the individual scientist.

quote=cbro
the question was:
We can't because it is beyond our abilities or because God has decided not to be what ever you mean by "involved"?
I believe your answer missed the point of the question. It would be no surprize if that missing was on purpose. Either way it is a stretch of the topic, if not etirely off topic. This seems like an unusual way to start replying to me again.
However, I do agree with the statement of your answer. In that God is not involved now as He was before and that Science can not prove God's involvement in Creation or it's operation. Unless It discovers how to time travel. Because now only the Legal Method can give any proof of what has happened in time past.

QUOTE=shunyadragon
By atheistic I feel he is referring to 'no religious presuppositions' that would bias the understanding and interpretation of science.

QUOTE=cbro
Again you miss the point even more obviously. In that you say nothing about the word "amoral" being better or worse then atheistic. Except by an implication that his wrong use of the word is actually correct.

QUOTE=shunyadragon
Even though presuppositions are a given in human nature. Science has an extensive system of checks and balences and peer review that crosses many religious and cultural lines involving tens of thousands of scientists worldwide. Over time this system of methods tends to greatly reduce any biased influennces involving individual scientists.

QUOTE=cbro
One problem with that method is that it resists the new good as well as the bad. In that individual scientists are resisted as wrong when their ideas are too radical, even though history shows other radicals to have been correct.
That problem is shown in the 50 years or so that it took to get it accepted that Light had a speed. Hopefully it won't take that long to accept the idea today of Light speed slowing down.

shunyadragon reply quoting cbro quoting einstein:
"Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, howerver, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith." Albert Einstein

This must be taken in context with Einstein's over all worldview which was not theistic, to explain what he meant by 'profound faith'.

Faith to Einstein must include ' . . . in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason.'

quote=cbro what do you think of this:
A human being is part of a whole, called by us the "Universe," a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty
Albert Einstein - Physicist (1879-1955)

QUOTE=shunyadragon
I do not feel that it is wise to assume that what we experience in the physical existence is eternal. Most things in the physical universe appear to have beginings and endings. The concept that there is an eternal nature to existence beyond this would be more plausible.

quote=cbro
Again I agree with your statment but not it's form of an answer to my question. Can't you just make a statment you think is related without it needing to be in the form of an answer? Maybe like a P.S. in the body of the reply instead of only at the end of the post?


QUOTE=shunyadragon
The 'microscopes and telescopes' would be indifferent, as they should be, to the beliefs of the person using them. Science is necessarily indifferent to the choice or belief of the user concerning religion. In this light 'Jesus and Christianity like any other religion,' is a statement of fact concerning the worldview of science. Individual religions have to many presuppositions that may interfer with science to be considered anything more when making conclusions about the interpretation of scientific research and discoveries. This does not mean that science should be seperated completely from religion, because religion may provide a strong moral framework for science, and all scientists who believe in a religion consider it a reflection of their religious beliefs in oneway or another.

quote=cbro
Scientists have a worldview,not Science itself. So Science has no facts to say one religion is like any other, or even what is a religion. However the religion that can most clearly show its essentials as eternally true, will give the strongest most clearly correct moral framework that will never be proved wrong. Which means it also will give the most correct science because, as I say in my sig, God meets their needs to be correct instead of them trying to meet their own needs in any way they can because of how great are their needs.

[norwegen]

QUOTE=norwegen
As a theist (Christian, more specifically), I would agree with the atheist Soundsurfr. We can't show that God is involved in our observations of nature

quote=cbro
We can't because it is beyond our abilities or because God has decided not to be what ever you mean by "involved"?To date, it's beyond our abilities. In the future, who knows?

By involved, I mean that He has not shown Himself empirically. At least, not in modern history, and not beyond expressing Himself by way of those in His kingdom (i.e.born-again believers who attest to His reality).


quote=norwegen
Science is atheistic in nature. To approach a hypothesis with any sort of presupposition is to risk tainting the outcome with such a bias.

quote=cbro
Do you really mean atheistic and not amoral in nature?Yes.


quote=norwegen
Science does assume naturalistic frameworks for origins. Big Bang theory (or the increasingly popular brane theory) are naturalistic explanations for the origin of the cosmos, and chemosynthetic theory is a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life.

quote=cbro what do you think of the quote below?
"Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, howerver, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith." Albert EinsteinAs shunyadragon says, consider it in context. I would say, however, that Einstein's worldview was, indeed, theistic. He believed in a superior reasoning power, but he did not believe that this power interacted with its creation on a personal level.


Quote: Originally posted by norwegen
Your sentence (learning) is confusing, but I'll just say also that an ideology that assumes "any possible Divine involvement in the creation of the physical nature and history of existence," is not science.

quote=cbro
Which means that nothing became all or that the physical nature and history of existence has existed for all of past eternity and will exist for all of eternity future. Correct?I wouldn't say 'nothing.' The author of Hebrews suggests that everything that we can perceive came from something we can't perceive (11:3).

Neither the Bible nor science say that the physical, four-dimensional existence is eternal. Eternity cannot be defined by a physical dimension such as time.


quote=norwegen
Scientific disciplines, per se, weren't really around when Paul wrote to the Roman Christians. As believers, we can certainly perceive God's "invisible nature [. . .] in the things that have been made" because we have faith, not because we have microscopes and telescopes.

quote=cbro
Do you mean Faith that our interpretation of what we see is true, because you will not have Faith that Jesus and the Bible are literarily & literally true? As my sig says? If so, you make Jesus and Christianity like any other religion and show yourself to be a needy person of my sig.Yes, I have faith in our scientists that their interpretations of their observations are true. I am also inspired, as were the ancients, by the beauty and awe in the nature around me.

From an unbeliever's perspective, Christianity is like any other religion.

[learning]

As a theist (Christian, more specifically), I would agree with the atheist Soundsurfr. We can't show that God is involved in our observations of nature.

Science is atheistic in nature. To approach a hypothesis with any sort of presupposition is to risk tainting the outcome with such a bias.

Science does assume naturalistic frameworks for origins. Big Bang theory (or the increasingly popular brane theory) are naturalistic explanations for the origin of the cosmos, and chemosynthetic theory is a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life.

Your sentence is confusing, but I'll just say also that an ideology that assumes "any possible Divine involvement in the creation of the physical nature and history of existence," is not science.


Scientific disciplines, per se, weren't really around when Paul wrote to the Roman Christians. As believers, we can certainly perceive God's "invisible nature [. . .] in the things that have been made" because we have faith, not because we have microscopes and telescopes.


That was sunnydragons sentence, so not necessarily my view. Though I agree, that some scientists say that God cannot be taken out of abiogenesis.

[learning]

perhaps this explains my view better :smile:

"Earth's crammed with heaven,
And every common bush afire with God;
But only he who sees takes off his shoes;
The rest sit round it and pluck blackberries."
~Elizabeth Barrett Browning~

[shunyadragon]

perhaps this explains my view better :smile:

"Earth's crammed with heaven,
And every common bush afire with God;
But only he who sees takes off his shoes;
The rest sit round it and pluck blackberries."
~Elizabeth Barrett Browning~

I share your view based on this verse from the poem. Science would not be in conflict with the nature of creation.

My quote is - If you want to get baptized, take a walk in the rain withour your umbrella.

[oxmixmudd]

perhaps this explains my view better :smile:

"Earth's crammed with heaven,
And every common bush afire with God;
But only he who sees takes off his shoes;
The rest sit round it and pluck blackberries."
~Elizabeth Barrett Browning~

I agree. God is in science anytime there is a believer doing science. We bring God into the world by being His. The non-believer just does science. When I worked at Cape Canaveral, I was amazed at the number of Christians involved in the work there. But I began to realize that when we explore the world, learn about it, and grow in our understanding of it, we are doing what God originally intended.

"Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth" (NASB)

In our sinful state we corrupt that task, but I really felt I was on the cutting edge of what God was doing when I was down there.

The idea science excludes God I think comes from two areas.

The first is the fact that discovering HOW the natural world works means we look for natural explanations, not supernatural. In this endeavor is the realisation that God's presence in the natural is in the establishment and maintenance of its rules. We do not look for His exceptions, we look for His rules. The rules are the natural. The exceptions the supernatural. Thus, science is about the natural.

The second comes from the atheistic world view applied to the fact science is about the natural. In ignorace, man has ascribed acts of God which conform to His rules (the natural) with acts of God that are His exceptions (the supernatural). On learning that lightning is no longer an exception (a 'miracle'), but rather the way God made things to work (not a miracle), and learning that most things in the world happen by God's laws, not His exceptions, a person prone to reject God assumes this implies there is not a God at all.

Finally, and this is the difficult part, science doesn't work if we start invoking God's exceptions to explain the natural. So to do science in an area, one must first assume God has made that area one constrained by His rules. If one attempts to discover if an event traditionally ascribed to miraculous origin is really of natural origin, one must of necessity exclude the supernatural. If one then discovers a natural set of rules that will produce the event, one appears to be taking God out of the event. But that is true only if one views God as being active only in exceptions (miracles).

I for one am amazed at the beauty and power or what God has made. The fact a lot of what happens here takes place by His rules only shows all the more how great a God He is. And by discovering those rules, I only learn more about who He is and what He has made. So from my viewpoint, God and science being separate is only an illusion created by those who prefer He not be there.



Jim

[learning]

Wonderfully said! You've explained what I knew but couldn't say, and sort of could sense from nature and that poem, but thank you for explaining it so clearly!!!

What did you do at Cape Canaveral? (If you don't mind my asking)

[*Apollyon*]

Don't seperate God and science. In the middle ages Theology was the Queen of the sciences because it gave unity to the diversity of our knowledge, thats where we get the word university. General revelation speaks of Gods glory and we should not shut our eyes to it. But our sinful nature keeps us from observing creation the way it was supposed to be, and we must be wary of our assumptions. The Big-bang does not conflict with the Genisis account but speaks to Gods attributes of being greater than time/space. This line of thinking also helps with understanding Gods transendence, because the universe could not contain Him. But a God that can be proven is an idol. Grace and Peace to you.

[oxmixmudd]

Wonderfully said! You've explained what I knew but couldn't say, and sort of could sense from nature and that poem, but thank you for explaining it so clearly!!!

What did you do at Cape Canaveral? (If you don't mind my asking)

Your welcome! It did me a lot of good to find some words for that thought as well. Its not often my synapses fire together well, so I'll try to remember how I managed to get there :lol:

At CC I was just out of school, so I was more in awe of the place and the people there than making significant contributions myself. However, I was in charge of analysing and then writing a simulator for a range safety tracking system. They wanted to be sure that if a missile was headed for someone's back door, the system in question would notify them in time to blow it up before it got there. :wink:


Jim

[cbro]

QUOTE=shunyadragon The hands-on involved God of the OT is decidedly not apparent in the modern world, particularly what we know of in science. The involvement of the God as a creator and revealer of 'God's Word' is not an issue in science itself, but a spiritual issue of the individual scientist.

quote=cbro
the question was:
We can't because it is beyond our abilities or because God has decided not to be what ever you mean by "involved"?
I believe your answer missed the point of the question. It would be no surprize if that missing was on purpose. Either way it is a stretch of the topic, if not etirely off topic. This seems like an unusual way to start replying to me again.
However, I do agree with the statement of your answer. In that God is not involved now as He was before and that Science can not prove God's involvement in Creation or it's operation. Unless It discovers how to time travel. Because now only the Legal Method can give any proof of what has happened in time past.

QUOTE=shunyadragon
By atheistic I feel he is referring to 'no religious presuppositions' that would bias the understanding and interpretation of science.

QUOTE=cbro
Again you miss the point even more obviously. In that you say nothing about the word "amoral" being better or worse then atheistic. Except by an implication that his wrong use of the word is actually correct.

QUOTE=shunyadragon
Even though presuppositions are a given in human nature. Science has an extensive system of checks and balences and peer review that crosses many religious and cultural lines involving tens of thousands of scientists worldwide. Over time this system of methods tends to greatly reduce any biased influennces involving individual scientists.

QUOTE=cbro
One problem with that method is that it resists the new good as well as the bad. In that individual scientists are resisted as wrong when their ideas are too radical, even though history shows other radicals to have been correct.
That problem is shown in the 50 years or so that it took to get it accepted that Light had a speed. Hopefully it won't take that long to accept the idea today of Light speed slowing down.

shunyadragon reply quoting cbro quoting einstein:
"Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, howerver, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith." Albert Einstein

This must be taken in context with Einstein's over all worldview which was not theistic, to explain what he meant by 'profound faith'.

Faith to Einstein must include ' . . . in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason.'

quote=cbro what do you think of this:
A human being is part of a whole, called by us the "Universe," a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty
Albert Einstein - Physicist (1879-1955)

QUOTE=shunyadragon
I do not feel that it is wise to assume that what we experience in the physical existence is eternal. Most things in the physical universe appear to have beginings and endings. The concept that there is an eternal nature to existence beyond this would be more plausible.

quote=cbro
Again I agree with your statment but not it's form of an answer to my question. Can't you just make a statment you think is related without it needing to be in the form of an answer? Maybe like a P.S. in the body of the reply instead of only at the end of the post?


QUOTE=shunyadragon
The 'microscopes and telescopes' would be indifferent, as they should be, to the beliefs of the person using them. Science is necessarily indifferent to the choice or belief of the user concerning religion. In this light 'Jesus and Christianity like any other religion,' is a statement of fact concerning the worldview of science. Individual religions have to many presuppositions that may interfer with science to be considered anything more when making conclusions about the interpretation of scientific research and discoveries. This does not mean that science should be seperated completely from religion, because religion may provide a strong moral framework for science, and all scientists who believe in a religion consider it a reflection of their religious beliefs in oneway or another.

quote=cbro
Scientists have a worldview,not Science itself. So Science has no facts to say one religion is like any other, or even what is a religion. However the religion that can most clearly show its essentials as eternally true, will give the strongest most clearly correct moral framework that will never be proved wrong. Which means it also will give the most correct science because, as I say in my sig, God meets their needs to be correct instead of them trying to meet their own needs in any way they can because of how great are their needs. shuny, all my work here means nothing to you? or do you not give a reply because it means more then you can deal with?

[rogero]

shuny, all my work here means nothing to you? or do you not give a reply because it means more then you can deal with?

To what "work" are you referring? Condemning all those with whom you disagree to the torment of the Lake o' Fah as is implied by your signature?

One work I do commend you for is your continually improved usage of the English language. Are you taking ESL? Or are have you progressed from a 12-year-old to a young teen that has actually paid attention in English class?

Ya still gotta work on that TWeb Quote feature -- My, how complicated it is! Quantum Mechanics has nothing on it. :lol:

R

[cbro]

To what "work" are you referring? Condemning all those with whom you disagree to the torment of the Lake o' Fah as is implied by your signature?

One work I do commend you for is your continually improved usage of the English language. Are you taking ESL? Or are have you progressed from a 12-year-old to a young teen that has actually paid attention in English class?

Ya still gotta work on that TWeb Quote feature -- My, how complicated it is! Quantum Mechanics has nothing on it. :lol:

RIf you mean what you say then you will go to the "cbro's sig" thread in Apologetics 301 where I expain my sig. Or you will show how great is your need to show how bad is your example of christianity.

ps I will continue to use the quote function if God uses it so you are more christ like.

[rogero]

If you mean what you say then you will go to the "cbro's sig" thread in Apologetics 301 where I expain my sig. Or you will show how great is your need to show how bad is your example of christianity.

ps I will continue to use the quote function if God uses it so you are more christ like.

Wow!! You managed to figure out the TWeb quote feature! I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that this wasn't dumb luck -- like a stopped clock is exactly right twice a day.

My tentative conclusion is that you're as smart as a tack. Now go revel in the glory. :lol:

R