Religion and Science - Barbour’s dialogue model represents wise approach

[Anonymous]

Total straw man thread.

No one is saying theists must choose. No one. Nobody. Nada.

Just don’t make cosmological claims like “there must be a god who caused the big bang” without evidence to support it. Or, if you do, be prepared to be challenged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see nothing remarkable about the number of religious people who came around to believe in science. They basically had to to retain any credibiilty. The church eventually came around to believing the earth did revolve around the sun, but it took about 15 centuries. Some still argue against "eviloution." And believe the creation story in Genesis is literally true. I have heard this listening to Christian radio.

+1

At best, scientists aren't hampered by religion. At worst, they are called heretics and killed.

It is interesting that the most dogmatic and close-minded posters in this forum appear to be atheists.

Try reading the highly educated and brilliant Barbour and comment on his typology rather than regurgitating the same unnecessarily hostile opinions in every thread.

In summary, he uses divinity to explain the unknown.

You clearly did not read him or you would not summarize his work as such. Try reading the NYT article for a brief overview/ introduction to his work

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see nothing remarkable about the number of religious people who came around to believe in science. They basically had to to retain any credibiilty. The church eventually came around to believing the earth did revolve around the sun, but it took about 15 centuries. Some still argue against "eviloution." And believe the creation story in Genesis is literally true. I have heard this listening to Christian radio.

+1

At best, scientists aren't hampered by religion. At worst, they are called heretics and killed.

It is interesting that the most dogmatic and close-minded posters in this forum appear to be atheists.

Try reading the highly educated and brilliant Barbour and comment on his typology rather than regurgitating the same unnecessarily hostile opinions in every thread.

In summary, he uses divinity to explain the unknown.

You clearly did not read him or you would not summarize his work as such. Try reading the NYT article for a brief overview/ introduction to his work

I did. He doesn't explicitly say that, but that is what he is doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Total straw man thread.

No one is saying theists must choose. No one. Nobody. Nada.

Just don’t make cosmological claims like “there must be a god who caused the big bang” without evidence to support it. Or, if you do, be prepared to be challenged.

This is a perfect example of creating conflict where none was proposed -

That claim was not made - rather that belief in God is not in conflict with science. I personally believe in an infinite God but the Big Bang theory (created by a Roman Catholic priest) neither proves nor disproves this belief.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see nothing remarkable about the number of religious people who came around to believe in science. They basically had to to retain any credibiilty. The church eventually came around to believing the earth did revolve around the sun, but it took about 15 centuries. Some still argue against "eviloution." And believe the creation story in Genesis is literally true. I have heard this listening to Christian radio.

+1

At best, scientists aren't hampered by religion. At worst, they are called heretics and killed.

It is interesting that the most dogmatic and close-minded posters in this forum appear to be atheists.

Try reading the highly educated and brilliant Barbour and comment on his typology rather than regurgitating the same unnecessarily hostile opinions in every thread.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Total straw man thread.

No one is saying theists must choose. No one. Nobody. Nada.

Just don’t make cosmological claims like “there must be a god who caused the big bang” without evidence to support it. Or, if you do, be prepared to be challenged.

This is a perfect example of creating conflict where none was proposed -

That claim was not made - rather that belief in God is not in conflict with science. I personally believe in an infinite God but the Big Bang theory (created by a Roman Catholic priest) neither proves nor disproves this belief.

-1.

Community service reminder for the forum atheists and for any theists who think they have to choose between religion and science

That’s literally the first half-sentence of the first post, which was created in response to the other thread .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see nothing remarkable about the number of religious people who came around to believe in science. They basically had to to retain any credibiilty. The church eventually came around to believing the earth did revolve around the sun, but it took about 15 centuries. Some still argue against "eviloution." And believe the creation story in Genesis is literally true. I have heard this listening to Christian radio.

+1

At best, scientists aren't hampered by religion. At worst, they are called heretics and killed.

It is interesting that the most dogmatic and close-minded posters in this forum appear to be atheists.

Try reading the highly educated and brilliant Barbour and comment on his typology rather than regurgitating the same unnecessarily hostile opinions in every thread.

In summary, he uses divinity to explain the unknown.

You clearly did not read him or you would not summarize his work as such. Try reading the NYT article for a brief overview/ introduction to his work

I did. He doesn't explicitly say that, but that is what he is doing.

Ok to me he is discussing that religion and science address different aspects of seeking truth.

Science is a methodology for understanding physical phenomena in measurable ways that need to be able to replicated consistently.

Religion addresses meaning and ontological spiritual Experiences such as prayer, worship and acts of service based on shared spiritual beliefs. They are not only different forms of knowledge but approach truth in different ways.

Neither one has all the answers .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see nothing remarkable about the number of religious people who came around to believe in science. They basically had to to retain any credibiilty. The church eventually came around to believing the earth did revolve around the sun, but it took about 15 centuries. Some still argue against "eviloution." And believe the creation story in Genesis is literally true. I have heard this listening to Christian radio.

+1

At best, scientists aren't hampered by religion. At worst, they are called heretics and killed.

It is interesting that the most dogmatic and close-minded posters in this forum appear to be atheists.

Try reading the highly educated and brilliant Barbour and comment on his typology rather than regurgitating the same unnecessarily hostile opinions in every thread.

In summary, he uses divinity to explain the unknown.

You clearly did not read him or you would not summarize his work as such. Try reading the NYT article for a brief overview/ introduction to his work

I did. He doesn't explicitly say that, but that is what he is doing.

Ok to me he is discussing that religion and science address different aspects of seeking truth.

Science is a methodology for understanding physical phenomena in measurable ways that need to be able to replicated consistently.

Religion addresses meaning and ontological spiritual Experiences such as prayer, worship and acts of service based on shared spiritual beliefs. They are not only different forms of knowledge but approach truth in different ways.

Neither one has all the answers .

Right. So he compartmentalizes. And when he finds some unknowns in science he assumes it’s divinity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see nothing remarkable about the number of religious people who came around to believe in science. They basically had to to retain any credibiilty. The church eventually came around to believing the earth did revolve around the sun, but it took about 15 centuries. Some still argue against "eviloution." And believe the creation story in Genesis is literally true. I have heard this listening to Christian radio.

+1

At best, scientists aren't hampered by religion. At worst, they are called heretics and killed.

It is interesting that the most dogmatic and close-minded posters in this forum appear to be atheists.

Try reading the highly educated and brilliant Barbour and comment on his typology rather than regurgitating the same unnecessarily hostile opinions in every thread.

In summary, he uses divinity to explain the unknown.

You clearly did not read him or you would not summarize his work as such. Try reading the NYT article for a brief overview/ introduction to his work

I did. He doesn't explicitly say that, but that is what he is doing.

Ok to me he is discussing that religion and science address different aspects of seeking truth.

Science is a methodology for understanding physical phenomena in measurable ways that need to be able to replicated consistently.

Religion addresses meaning and ontological spiritual Experiences such as prayer, worship and acts of service based on shared spiritual beliefs. They are not only different forms of knowledge but approach truth in different ways.

Neither one has all the answers .

Right. So he compartmentalizes. And when he finds some unknowns in science he assumes it’s divinity.

The idea for the dialogue model is to create thoughtful dialogue and meaningful connections between the two rather than compartmentalization, which is the hallmark of post Enlightenment Western thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see nothing remarkable about the number of religious people who came around to believe in science. They basically had to to retain any credibiilty. The church eventually came around to believing the earth did revolve around the sun, but it took about 15 centuries. Some still argue against "eviloution." And believe the creation story in Genesis is literally true. I have heard this listening to Christian radio.

+1

At best, scientists aren't hampered by religion. At worst, they are called heretics and killed.

It is interesting that the most dogmatic and close-minded posters in this forum appear to be atheists.

Try reading the highly educated and brilliant Barbour and comment on his typology rather than regurgitating the same unnecessarily hostile opinions in every thread.

In summary, he uses divinity to explain the unknown.

You clearly did not read him or you would not summarize his work as such. Try reading the NYT article for a brief overview/ introduction to his work

I did. He doesn't explicitly say that, but that is what he is doing.

Ok to me he is discussing that religion and science address different aspects of seeking truth.

Science is a methodology for understanding physical phenomena in measurable ways that need to be able to replicated consistently.

Religion addresses meaning and ontological spiritual Experiences such as prayer, worship and acts of service based on shared spiritual beliefs. They are not only different forms of knowledge but approach truth in different ways.

Neither one has all the answers .

Right. So he compartmentalizes. And when he finds some unknowns in science he assumes it’s divinity.

Yes and this is known as “the god of the gaps” and no different from thinking Thors hammer caused thunder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.famousscientists.org/great-scientists-christians/
34 Great Scientists Who Were Committed Christians
Here are some of the greatest scientists in history who were also deeply committed to their Christian faiths

What about great scientists who were committed to faiths other than the Christian faith?

Yeah this is where OP's post is disingenuous at best.

Keep your religious garbage out of our schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.famousscientists.org/great-scientists-christians/
34 Great Scientists Who Were Committed Christians
Here are some of the greatest scientists in history who were also deeply committed to their Christian faiths

What about great scientists who were committed to faiths other than the Christian faith?

Yeah this is where OP's post is disingenuous at best.

Keep your religious garbage out of our schools.

OP

Actually I like many other Christina firmly believe in division of church and state - and for public schools not proselytizing for any one religion.

This is a religion forum and the post is intended to foster more thoughtful dialogue rather than misguided and unnecessary hostility …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.famousscientists.org/great-scientists-christians/
34 Great Scientists Who Were Committed Christians
Here are some of the greatest scientists in history who were also deeply committed to their Christian faiths

What about great scientists who were committed to faiths other than the Christian faith?

Yeah this is where OP's post is disingenuous at best.

Keep your religious garbage out of our schools.

OP

Actually I like many other Christina firmly believe in division of church and state - and for public schools not proselytizing for any one religion.

This is a religion forum and the post is intended to foster more thoughtful dialogue rather than misguided and unnecessary hostility …

OP's concept of thoughtful dialogue is agreeing with OP's post. If not, well, that is unnecessary hostility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.famousscientists.org/great-scientists-christians/
34 Great Scientists Who Were Committed Christians
Here are some of the greatest scientists in history who were also deeply committed to their Christian faiths

What about great scientists who were committed to faiths other than the Christian faith?

Yeah this is where OP's post is disingenuous at best.

Keep your religious garbage out of our schools.

OP

Actually I like many other Christina firmly believe in division of church and state - and for public schools not proselytizing for any one religion.

This is a religion forum and the post is intended to foster more thoughtful dialogue rather than misguided and unnecessary hostility …

OP's concept of thoughtful dialogue is agreeing with OP's post. If not, well, that is unnecessary hostility.

Thanks for mansplaining my thought processes …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Total straw man thread.

No one is saying theists must choose. No one. Nobody. Nada.

Just don’t make cosmological claims like “there must be a god who caused the big bang” without evidence to support it. Or, if you do, be prepared to be challenged.

This is a perfect example of creating conflict where none was proposed -

That claim was not made - rather that belief in God is not in conflict with science. I personally believe in an infinite God but the Big Bang theory (created by a Roman Catholic priest) neither proves nor disproves this belief.

-1.

Community service reminder for the forum atheists and for any theists who think they have to choose between religion and science

That’s literally the first half-sentence of the first post, which was created in response to the other thread .

Yep