Quote:
Originally Posted by TimeFadesAway
The difficulty here is that the denominations of Christianity that are most 'compatible' with science are shrinking, at least in the Western world. Examples of those include the United Church (in Canada), the Anglican Church, and mainstream Catholicism. These sects properly see the bible as a collection of mythical stories.
The fastest growing sect of Christianity is Pentecostalism, which is fundamentally incompatible with science. They general take a more literal view of the bible, with the most extreme believing in things that are factually unproven or untrue, such as a worldwide flood or agreeing with Bishop Ussher's view that the year of creation was 4004 B.C.
I'd argue, then that Christianity as a whole is drifting away from compatibility with science, much like what has happened in Islam with its drift towards Wahhabism. It's a shame because some of the greatest scientists and scientific discoveries have come out of those who were firmly Christian or Islamic, but here we are.
With regards to morals, many Atheists, including myself, would say that they are not moral relativists, but that they just don't need to consult a book to figure out what is right or wrong, but that could be seen as a rather glib answer.
|
Two points. I would argue that there are two "science vs Christianity" arguments one often sees online. One is "science the investigative method" vs Christianity. Here I see no conflict. The scientific method has, and continues to be, the best method humanity has to investigate the natural world, but it has it's limitations. I quote from an online article from UC Berkley: "Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality."
Here's a link to the entire article if you're interested:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/understa...e-does-not-do/
The essence of Christianity is largely supernatural, though with applications of moral principles for the human world. The scientific method simply can't be applied to questions of aesthetics. morals or faith. My personal opinion is that there is no conflict here at all, as they exist indifferent ballparks, as it were.
As Einstein one famously said: "It has often been said, and certainly not without justification, that the man of science is a poor philosopher. Why then should it not be the right thing for the physicist to let the philosopher do the philosophizing?"
Disclaimer: yes, I know a lot of people who describe themselves as "Christian" routinely cross that line. There are roughly 2 billion Christians in the world representing roughly 45,000 denominations. We can't all be painted with the same brush
The other version of "science vs Christianity" seems to consist of non-scientist enthusiasts; science "boosters" as it were, who hold the belief that "science" can and will answer every question. They reject the idea that "science" has limitations, and take it upon themselves (for reasons of their own) to attack what they see is a challenge to their viewpoint. They often seem to claim ownership of "rational thought" in their attacks which characterize any kind of faith journey as the ramblings of the ignorant or feeble minded. There are many kinds of haters in this world, and personally I classify many of these people as part of that sad cadre.
My second point has to do with morality and moral relativism. I agree that many atheists have positive, uplifting personal moral codes. In fact, some of them practice it in their daily lives a heck of a lot better than many "Christians" do. Since they apparently "don't need to consult a book to figure out what is right or wrong" I'm not sure where they get their code from. Perhaps there is a moral code gene that has yet to be discovered by science? Anyway, I digress.
In a naturalistic world, humanity is a result of a series of purely natural processes. There is no intellect or purpose to it's existence, it simply arose, beating the greatest odds in the unthinking universe to become a thinking, self-aware creature. It is born, it lives, it dies. There is nothing before or after. It has no purpose other than the purpose it gives itself. Morality is just one of the tools it has created for it's own purposes.
Here's my question. Without an objective standard by which to judge one's morality, a standard set in place by a Creator intelligence, can one legitimately claim that some moral codes are better than others? If we all just make up our own rules, as it were, can we claim that the moral code of a Mother Theresa is better or worse than the moral code of a Pol Pot, Stalin or Hitler? Of course some people point to community standards or the importance of having a shared concept of "right" and "wrong" in order for societies to work, but history shows us that is not always the case. Was slavery "right" when it was considered by majorities to be beneficial? Majorities in the U.S. south felt that blacks were unfit to drink water from the same fountains as they did. Was it "right", then became "wrong" over time? How is there incentive for the individual to "do what's right" when it can be much more profitable, if one is clever enough, to be completely self-centred? In a world where humans are simply cosmic accidents, and where there is no "before" or "after", no "right " or "wrong" other than what we create for ourselves, then the moral standard that makes the most sense belongs to the Donald Trumps of the world; gat as much as you can for yourself, by any means, and be smart enough not to get punished by others. You live and die a completely self-centred life and then into oblivion.
I'm not saying Christianity has all the answers. In fact, Christianity itself says it doesn't have all the answers. The phrase "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." refers to the fact that, in this life, we only see part of our purpose, and that the nature of our existence will be revealed to us at a later date.
What I'm saying is, for me, in a completely personal declaration, Christianity is the best, most challenging, difficult, frustrating and ultimately fulfilling life for me. I've had moments in my adult life where I've had to confront the conflicting messages of the secular world and the Christian world, and been forced to choose between them. While I believe there are legitimate, rational reasons for accepting the existence of a Creator, I admit my reasons for staying a Christian are entirely personal. The life a secular world offers me is simply too banal and empty a vision for me to accept.
Christianity and science are not antagonists unless we want to make them so. If you ask the question "why does the water boil in the kettle?", the scientist will tell us the heat from the stove element acts upon the base of the kettle, making it's molecules speed up, which intern speeds up the motion of the molecules in the water, causing it to boil. If you ask a non-scientist "why does the water boil in the kettle?", they may answer "because I wanted to make myself some tea". They are both legitimate answers, and i feel both the scientific meths and Christianity have legitimate answers to our questions.
Prev
Linear Mode
