The Case for Christianity

[pood]

Is this helpful? I feel like I'm running around in circles and not moving forward.

No, not helpful, and yes, you are moving in circles.

You seem to be gesturing at something along the lines of life being special and magical, with science only studying dead stuff and unable to come to grips with life. This is totally false. We have a huge understanding of life, evolution, biology, an understanding down to the cellular and atomic life, as as has been pointed out. Life is complicated chemistry, and chemistry itself is based on physics. Nothing supernatural at all. “Supernatural” is not even a coherent idea.

 

[bilby]

"Science doesn't have all the answers, therefore God exists"? Sorry, that argument isn't very compelling.

...and is even less compelling coming from a person who has demonstrated abject ignorance of what answers science does have.

 

[steve_bank]

One of the Christian myths I heard is that science began in Christian Europe.

The scary thing is that we have Christian politicians in power who think like and are as ignorant as Brunswick.

Many with degrees from top mainstream schools.

As I got older I began to appreciate the meaning of a classical education. I put down science for a while and read a wide diversity of books. A well rounded understanding so to speak. Not an expert in anything, a gneeral overview.

I had four classes in philosophy but tat was not enough.


In the long run it improved my work.

A classical education is a holistic approach to learning that emphasizes the study of the liberal arts and the great books of Western civilization, rooted in ancient Greek and Roman traditions. It focuses on developing a well-rounded individual through the trivium (grammar, logic, and rhetoric) and the quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy)

 

[Swammerdami]

I want to applaud Brunswick1954! Even though we will come to different conclusions, his opinions are obviously heart-felt and intelligent. And brave since he knows he's posting them in a hornet's-nest of easily outraged atheists!

If we are careful to acknowledge the validity of SOME points in his essays while identifying flaws, BOTH "sides" might learn something.

But alas, I don't like his chances! I'm condemned from all sides just for suggesting that Jesus of Nazareth, NOT a worker of wonders, actually existed and WAS crucified by order of Pontius Pilate.

In particular the following attack was much MUCH MUCH too vituperative.

Science began with Newton's Laws and the study of how objects move. It never got to the point of explaining why ameobas can move without an external force whilst stones can't. I'm not even asking if we can recreate life. Sure, we have biology, but it doesn't really come near to understanding how living things work. We also have medicine, but medicine only works in terms of curing diseases and helping to keep the body alive. Indeed, in medicine itself, it is widely accepted that the true healing comes from the patient, and that the level of faith that the patient has in terms of recovery affects the possibility and rate of recovery. The most important thing for the patient to heal is to rest and let the body, in effect, heal itself.

Speaking as a Molecular Biologist, I feel I must point out that literally every single part of this is wrong.

And not just slightly wrong; Wrong to a degree that leaves me aghast that any person could grow up in the twentieth or twenty first centuries, and yet be quite so completely oblivious of literally every element of the history of science, and of the current state of our knowledge of reality.

I mean, "Science began with Newton's Laws"?? Newton wasn't even born until 1643. Galileo Galilei had died over a year earlier, and Leonardo da Vinci had been dead for over 120 years.

In his haste, Mr. Brunswick probably used "Science began with Newton's Laws" as shorthand for a more nuanced claim. Jumping on this as though there was a divide-by-zero fault was a flagrant over-reaction.

In fact, if one were to identify the work of ONE SINGLE man as representing the most key turning point (or "inflection point") in the development of science, Isaac Newton's work would probably be the most popular choice.

Science began long before any of these three worthies though - the rennaisance was so called because it was the re-discovery of science that the Greeks and Romans, and before them the Egyptians, had known about a couple of thousand years earlier - but which had been lost during the Early Middle Ages, as Christianity took over from Roman and Greek polytheism, and knowledge of the natural world, technology, and even literacy, was abandoned in favour of violence and misery.

Do you seriously imagine that the Egyptians could have built the pyramids without science? ...

Technology is not the same as science. Early civilizations observed materials and observed the behavior of very simple machines; then used this knowledge in construction projects. That is NOT the same as "science" as the term is now almost universally understood. I think bilby himself understands this but lost the thread in his zeal to insult Mr. Brunswick.

If "atheism" at this Board is defined as visceral disgust at any notion of religious faith, perhaps I need to distance myself by changing my affiliation to "sober agnostic."

Bilby's denigration sinks to even lower levels: I'd like to apologize to Mr. Brunswick on behalf of all.

The depth of your ignorance horrifies me; Your willingness to parade it as though it were normal horrifies me more.

Where did you go to school?? Did you go to school? Whomever[sic] your teachers were, they have done you an injustice that makes me weep, by allowing you to be quite so astonishingly unaware of the most basic facts about our world's history, the history of science, the nature of science, and indeed the heights to which science has now reached.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

"Science doesn't have all the answers, therefore God exists"? Sorry, that argument isn't very compelling.

Furthermore, are you saying that because "science doesn't have all the answers" that this provides proof that just so happens to validate the God that was written about and explained by authors living in a pre-scientific era?

Besides, as the late great Carl Sagan said,

Science is more than a body of knowledge. It is a way of thinking; a way of skeptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility.​

If we are not able to ask skeptical questions, to interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then, we are up for grabs for the next charlatan (political or religious) who comes rambling along.​

I think buried in the overly simplistic Chicken Soup for the Soul dreck is the foundational thought that science doesn't answer questions to address our doubt and uncertainty about existence itself. And generally, that'd be right as it is outside the venue of science. And philosophy and religion and spirituality can help bridge that side of the equation, however, that doesn't mean they are or any are specifically valid. One would need to test them to see how valid they are. Far Eastern philosophies contain a lot of value. But again, they aren't warrantied and should only be used as tools, not as a rigid rulebook.

 

[pood]

If "atheism" at this Board is defined as visceral disgust at any notion of religious faith, perhaps I need to distance myself by changing my affiliation to "sober agnostic."

I have no such disgust and anyway, the board will probably not have a univocal response to any subject.

 

[Brunswick1954]

I haven't had so much fun in years. You people are simply hilarious. Anyway, I set up my altar outside my cave, as I always do, and prayed to God last night. My grandmother, who taught me Newtonian physics, had said that much of classical science was founded upon Newton’s principles and framework, and is referred to as Newtonian science in contrast with the later science of relativity and nuclear physics. Little did I know that molecular biology is founded on Egyptian science. As I prayed, Jesus Christ physically appeared before me and told me to leave this group. I asked him why and he said something about sheep and goats. When I pressed him further, he smiled and said I wouldn't understand. So, regrettably, I must leave. Jesus calls.

 

[pood]

 

[ideologyhunter]

I dunno....humorously claiming a Jesus sighting AND putting words in JC's mouth...isn't that the kind of blasphemy that Christians used to torch each other for?
In any case, I had me a normal day for an aggressive atheist. Pinched a Joyce Meyer doll for a while. Searched for a stray kitten, but my neighborhood hasn't seen one of those since the last atheist BBQ/convocation. Finally went over to godschatroom and trolled as a born again with a customized agenda. Pretended to be a Biblical literalist but slyly pointed out discrepancies between Matthew, Max, Luke and John. Pointed out that Christian doctrine begins with Billy Graham's 1949 Crusade appearance in LA (this is provably true). Credited Mel Gibson with The Hemorrhage of the Christ, widely thought to be the original Crucixion narrative. Agreed with C.S. Lewis that the tripartite god was modeled after the Three Billy Goats Gruff, only for deities, not billy goats (Mere Christianity, pg. 102 footnote). As of 6p.m. EST, I see that I have drawn 22 de-converts from the website. Eight of them have already donated to the ACLU.
And that's cross pollination, B54. If I can do it there, you can keep on doing it here.

 

[bilby]

Technology is not the same as science.

No, but it is dependent upon it.

Early civilizations observed materials and observed the behavior of very simple machines;

That IS science.

then used this knowledge in construction projects. That is NOT the same as "science" as the term is now almost universally understood.

Indeed; THAT part is "technology".

 

[bilby]

Bilby's denigration sinks to even lower levels: I'd like to apologize to Mr. Brunswick on behalf of all.

I have denigrated nobody and nothing; I have simply replied to what was said.

Your unfounded opinion about the subtext doesn't match mine - that is not a fault on either my part or yours, though your apparent belief that your opinion here is the only possible correct interpretation is a fault on your part, and (ironically) is also a denigration of me for which you ought to apologise.

You don't have the authority here to apologise on behalf of anyone other than yourself; And I note that your apparent dislike of me personally doesn't actuay make me wrong, and isn't a helpful bit of baggage to bring to this (or any) discussion thread.

 

[bilby]

Little did I know that molecular biology is founded on Egyptian science.

All of science is founded on all previous science, so yes, it is.

I would say that I am glad to hear that you have learned something, but I suspect that you are attempting sarcasm here.

 

[Swammerdami]

Bilby's denigration sinks to even lower levels: I'd like to apologize to Mr. Brunswick on behalf of all.

I have denigrated nobody and nothing; I have simply replied to what was said.

Your unfounded opinion about the subtext doesn't match mine - that is not a fault on either my part or yours, though your apparent belief that your opinion here is the only possible correct interpretation is a fault on your part, and (ironically) is also a denigration of me for which you ought to apologise.

It's true that I have a high opinion of my own opinions!. If this is a fault, it's one from which you yourself suffer far more than I do. I know what I know and, more importantly know what I do NOT know. For this you call me "condescending." It takes one to know one! You have expert knowledge on a broad range of topics but seem unwilling to admit there are things you don't know.

You don't have the authority here to apologise on behalf of anyone other than yourself;

True. That is why I did NOT apologize for the group. Instead I called attention to my lack, stating "I'd like to apologize to Mr. Brunswick on behalf of all." I'd also like to drive a Lamborghini.

And I note that your apparent dislike of me personally doesn't actuay make me wrong, and isn't a helpful bit of baggage to bring to this (or any) discussion thread.

I don't dislike you! In some ways you and I are very similar. Wait a week, calm down, and take a look at the post where you insulted Brunswick. I think your calmer self will agree you went much too far.

 

[Brunswick1954]

Little did I know that molecular biology is founded on Egyptian science.

All of science is founded on all previous science, so yes, it is.

I would say that I am glad to hear that you have learned something, but I suspect that you are attempting sarcasm here.

Not at all. I'm just trying to rise to the level of intelligent discourse displayed in this thread. BTW, what are the fundamental principles of Egyptian science? I had the crazy idea that science evolved from the Christian universities of Europe in an attempt to understand the mind of God. But what does my grandmother know?

 

[Brunswick1954]

Bilby's denigration sinks to even lower levels: I'd like to apologize to Mr. Brunswick on behalf of all.

I have denigrated nobody and nothing; I have simply replied to what was said.

Your unfounded opinion about the subtext doesn't match mine - that is not a fault on either my part or yours, though your apparent belief that your opinion here is the only possible correct interpretation is a fault on your part, and (ironically) is also a denigration of me for which you ought to apologise.

It's true that I have a high opinion of my own opinions!. If this is a fault, it's one from which you yourself suffer far more than I do. I know what I know and, more importantly know what I do NOT know. For this you call me "condescending." It takes one to know one! You have expert knowledge on a broad range of topics but seem unwilling to admit there are things you don't know.

You don't have the authority here to apologise on behalf of anyone other than yourself;

True. That is why I did NOT apologize for the group. Instead I called attention to my lack, stating "I'd like to apologize to Mr. Brunswick on behalf of all." I'd also like to drive a Lamborghini.

And I note that your apparent dislike of me personally doesn't actuay make me wrong, and isn't a helpful bit of baggage to bring to this (or any) discussion thread.

I don't dislike you! In some ways you and I are very similar. Wait a week, calm down, and take a look at the post where you insulted Brunswick. I think your calmer self will agree you went much too far.

Thank you, @Swammerdami, for coming to my defence. I do appreciate it, even though I wonder if the rest of our readers do.

 

[pood]

But what does my grandmother know?

Not too much about the history of science, it seems.

 

[Elixir]

Raise your hand if your opinion of your opinion isn’t better than your opinion of other people’s opinions.
What? No hands?
I’m gobsmacked.

 

[Brunswick1954]

But what does my grandmother know?

Not too much about the history of science, it seems.

True. I look forward to learning from the people in this thread.

 

[bilby]

Wait a week, calm down, and take a look at the post where you insulted Brunswick.

I didn't make any posts where I insulted Brunswick.

Seriously, pointing out that someone has made a factually erroroneous statement is not an insult. Nor is accusing them of ignorance, if the accusation is true (which it demonstrably is in this case).

Please, quote to me the part of my post that you believe to be insulting.

 

[bilby]

Little did I know that molecular biology is founded on Egyptian science.

All of science is founded on all previous science, so yes, it is.

I would say that I am glad to hear that you have learned something, but I suspect that you are attempting sarcasm here.

Not at all. I'm just trying to rise to the level of intelligent discourse displayed in this thread.

Really? Then you are failing.

BTW, what are the fundamental principles of Egyptian science?

The same as any science - observe, hypothesise, test, repeat.

I had the crazy idea that science evolved from the Christian universities of Europe in an attempt to understand the mind of God. But what does my grandmother know?

If she thinks that, then "Nothing about the history of science, or apparently about what science even is" would be a good summary. That certainly is a crazy idea, and appears to be Christian propaganda that ignores a massive history prior to 1088.

Is there a particular reason why you think your grandmother is an appropriate authority? Did she study the history of science?