John Calvin made the point that the Bible accommodates its language to help its target audience understand God's truth. God condescends Himself to help finite minds understand eternal truths. How can it be otherwise? He said of Genesis 1:6-8: "He who would learn astronomy and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. Here the Spirit of God would teach all men without exception and therefore...the history of creation...is the book of the unlearned."
@AchillesShield Fundamentalist insistence that the Bible can only be read in one particular way is UNHISTORICAL, and goes back to modenist developments in the 19th and 20th centuries. Fundamentalists/creationists are INNOVATORS, not defenders of orthodoxy.
Interesting video, see Truth-saves. ' creation week' can't be interpreted as millions of years since the story has Adam live more than one day of the week. Also it has Adam die at 930 years old.
Although I'm a conservative Christian (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE, because of entropy, couldn't have sustained itself from all eternity. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, time had a beginning! That beginning has to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
GENETIC INFORMATION CAN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE anymore than other forms of information can happen by chance. Therefore, it is far more logical to believe that genetic and biological similarities between species are due to a common Designer (Creator) who designed similar functions for similar purposes in all of life. What about "Junk DNA?" It's not junk, after all! These sections of DNA are not genes, but they regulate gene expression. Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their reproductive system and other vital organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
You argue for the compatibility of science and theology but science is based on observable evidence and logic, while theology is based on non-evidenced logic-defying belief (faith) in the supernatural. Science and religion ARE incompatible. The scientific method will continue to discard theism until such time as actual evidence of "god" is produced (good luck!). Theism sometimes modifies its presumptions to correspond with discoveries, but it is still founded on pretense of divine insight.
Those scientists don't apply their science to their religion; because if they did - they would have to conclude that their religion has insufficent scientific evidence to be considered valid. You can't reconcile Science and Religion you can only seperate them. Serious thinkers have been known to take this approach to avoid a mental breakdown as their science kills their religion - like what happened to Darwin.
You can't be honest, curious, intelligent, informed and a theist simultaniously.
@ackmonra "Those scientists don't apply their science to their religion..." Or their love life, or to their taste in music, or their taste in literature - there's a lot more to life than science.
"You can't be honest, curious, intelligent, informed and a theist simultaniously." - A silly assertion, since millions (or billions) have done exactly that.
@ackmonra Strawman. Most Christians aren't Biblical literalists. They don't "posit a false age of the earth," or disbelieve in germ theory. You've been listening to Creationist BS and believing that it applies to all Christians.
Forgive me if i didn't mention every possible scientifically unsupported claim and make the distinction that not every christian accepts them all.
However all christians accept some - if they didn't in what sense are they at all christian or religious?
It isn't my fault that some people have watered down their faith till its power is less than being a harry potter fan. You and they still call those people Christians - i do not because at best its confusing and at worst; dishonest.
@ackmonra So far, you haven't made an ounce of sense. Your misconceptions about religion are not my problem. And please spare me the "No True Scotsman" fallacy - I'd expect that BS from Creationists.
If you can't see very basic fine line i'm trying to draw here which would avoid the world Christian having zero explanitory power then I can't converse with you. Because when you say Chistian i have no idea who your refering to.
Sure it means i need to call some people who refer to themselves as Christian liars - but there are some god damned prerequisites.
Because if they believe none of it then they're us, arn't they? Am i a Christian? I just don't know anymore. lol
@ackmonra Apparently you are unaware (or choose to ignore) that there are tens of thousands of Christian denominations, and that their beliefs differ substantially. All you've done so far is construct a strawman, made bogus assertions, used logical fallacies... you're done here.
@papafox The difference is that religion makes big claims about things that supposedly exist, and things that supposedly happened. That places it within the domains of science and history. I can understand why some things would have to be taken on faith (such as the concept of a trinity,) but whether a supreme intelligence designed the universe is definitely something scientists would be interested in, and I think it's also something that can be determined through the scientific method.
How does one decide which parts of the Bible have any validity? If the creation story is wrong is the flood wrong? What about the stories of Lot, Job, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and John the Baptist? Doesn't the assumption that creationism is wrong throw the entire Christian concept of God into the dumper?
For the record, I am a staunch atheist who, while considering theists to be crackpots, can't understand the basis for the opinions of those who consider the Bible to be a la carte.
@deedubya286 Where do you get the impression that Christians are "supposed" to take the Bible literally? Most Christians haven't done so for hundreds of years, and consider much of the Bible to be allegorical. The current crop of Young Earth Creationists are a relatively new movement.
@papafox I guess I get it from all the Christians I see waving it around and quoting from it. If they don't take it literally what do they use it for? Where does their ideology come from? If the story of creation, sin, and the resurrection of Jesus aren't considered to be true then what is the point of the exercise?
@deedubya286 Remember that philosophy question "If a tree fell in a forest, and nobody was around to hear it..." Whether it was an actual tree in an actual forest is irrelevant - it's a story meant to teach a certain point. Many of the stories in the Bible are just that - stories meant to teach philosophical or theological lessons about man's relationship with God or each other.
Religion is not here to prove or disprove any gods. It's here for our benefit, advancement, and survival. It seems weird that there are people who don't believe their god is smart enough or capable of creating the scientific process.
@TheOtherSide100 I know, that drives me nuts too. Check out the open letter from the Clergy Letter Project - to many Christians, to reject science is to reject God.
another bad thing about many theological people is that they have no historical knowledge of why and how there books were written, let alone do they take into consideration how words and phrases change over time, and even more with translation from one language to the next.
So taking a book (thousands of years old and written in a different language) literally in today's tongue is extremely foolish. And no one doing so understands it's actual message.
@AClRCLEOFLlGHT Very true. Take a look at some of ItsTheSuperFly's videos concerning Biblical history. He's an atheist, but he understands the history of the Bible better than most fundamentalists I've encountered. The history of how it's changed over the years is fascinating.
Great video papafox! We do need more Christians that speak out against creationism after all; if people took a literal sense of the bible (like you mentioned) there are indeed 4 corners of the earth! Numbers 15:38, Ezekiel 7:2, Isaiah 11:12, Job 37:3 and 38:13!
@LozTheAtheist I wish more moderates would speak out too, but a lot of them feel that it's a very private matter. I do too, but I'm just dumb enough to stick my head out of the trench. :-D
Thanks, papa. Even though I am not religious and dont believe in a god, I have many friends that do-ditto for my daughter. And, as a parent, I keep telling her while we believe one way and our friends do not, we still should respect them as people. However, those that arent educated make it difficult- and, unfortunately some of them can become borderline mean when they are faced with people like us. Its not just logic that comes with education-sometimes its also empathy and grace.
Very well said. I remember being astonished at a young age that some people took the bible very literally. As for people who ARE religious AND thinkers at the same time, one of my cats is named after a dear friend who was killed in a senseless road accident. He was a Lutheran minister and extremely intelligent. I miss him very much.
@allianceofdemons I'm pretty certain the answer would be 'no.' Biologos seeks to encourage cooperation between religion and science, and I think they would avoid anything that would threaten that relationship. I'm disappointed that they took it down, but I understand their reasoning.
@ItsTheSuperFly I like him too, and he's certainly one to challenge established thinking. IIRC, he's one of the first to suggest that dinosaurs were warm-blooded.
I'm so glad you didn't include the Templetard Foundation! :D
Thanks for this vid bud! One of the things that does irritate me though is how people like francis collins says: "Science shows god exists!" which doesn't sit well with me at all because it hasn't...
But thanks very much this is why you're featured on my youtube webzone. :)
@QuarkyGideon Thanks. Yeah, I'm uncomfortable with the thought that you "find" God through science. Sure, there are amazing, beautiful, awe-inspiring, humbling things out there to discover - but IMO they have nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of any deity.
Sorry I find it hard to rationalise reconciliation of the two. Surely unless one is actually "wanting it to be so", science would suggest that no such thing as a supernatural entity exists at all.
Though don't get me wrong, I would FAR FAR sooner have an intelligent, sensible, reasonable, open and nice fellow like you than a crazy dogmatic, unresponsive, creationist type (OHH I really don't like type).
if every believer was as decent and open as you I don't think religion would even be a problem
@martiangrundy Science can neither support nor refute the existence of the supernatural; if it's not observable or testable, it's irrelevant to science. Theology is outside the purview of science, just like philosophy, grammar, music, art... they're just different topics that all require a totally different mindset.
But yeah, the anti-science types REALLY piss me off.
Hi There. Sorry for getting back to you so slowly, I wasn't sure I was going to bother. I have in the past tried to enter into discussions, and they never seem to go well. After a couple of back and forth's, I either inadvertently upset them in some way or they just decide not to respond. And I really didn't want to do so in this case. Jupy informs me that you're a decent guy, and I didn't want to jump right in with both feet and alienate you straight "off the bat".
be very thick skinned, and pretty much uninsultable. So can tend sometimes to imagine others can also cope with plain speaking. So I'll apologise beforehand, just in case. :-)
Science can certainly have something to say on the subject. Whether the source is said to be "supernatural" or not. It must in some way manifest, or it's effects, in the real world. This can certainly be tested for. And has been, always with negative results.
@martiangrundy If I ever come up with absolute undeniable scientific proof that a sunset is beautiful, I'll let you know. :-)
I love Sagan too, but there are many things that are outside of science - music, art, philosophy, etc. My attitude: "Don't like religion? Don't have one." Shrug.
My only point here is to communicate to other Christians that they don't have to follow along with the anti-science crowd.
Good vid, but its still irrational to know exactly how the world works & believe an invisible master of the world who is heavily involved in your day to day life. In the case of Christianity, it doesnt seem logical to me to say "this is the true book of god, & we must follow its teachings to the tee, unless science has debunked a lesson in which in that case would be considered non-literal".
@Key2daUnderground Too many vocal young-earth creationists out there have given people the impression that to be a Christian means you "supposed" to believe in Biblical literalism. The fact is, the rest of Christianity rejected that line of thinking hundreds of years ago.
Very nice video. How do you form a devision (if you do) in your faith and your rationalism; I ask as thats what I believe would allow some one to have faith in say Christianity and still accept scientific consensus or am I missing something?
@JimtheEvo In the same way that science, grammar, history, art appreciation, etc., are all different subjects, you have to approach each of them with a different mindset. I like the way Pope JPII put it in his "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth" speech (linked): basically, if your interpretation of religion conflicts with observed fact, then it's your interpretation that's a fault.
Science is naturalistic and does not accept supernatural explanations. Hence it IS incompatible with religion, which invariably does resort to such magic for explanations.
Religion also usually demands belief without evidence whereas the scientific method forbids dogmatically drawing conclusions without evidence.
Just because a few theists have been productive in certain aspects of science, it doesn't follow that their religious orientation has merit.
It depends on what kind of theist one is. If one accepts scientific evidence but also believes in something for which there is no evidence (gods), then it's not really in contradiction to science. The supernatural may or may not exist. We just can't test for it using science. But, if one believes in things that are in contradiction to science (like an afterlife or Noah's flood myth or an intervening deity) then that's a case of cognitive dissonance.
Yes, but to be fair, the label "Christian" is SO broad that if you were to tell someone that you're Christian, then based on that information alone not much could be ascertained about your beliefs. There are about 40 000 denominations, and I think even so there are almost as many different variations on Christianity as there are Christians. So, a little more is needed in order to understand what someone believes. But hey, it's the same with atheists.
@themsfightinwoids Your arguments boil down to pointing out that science and religion are different, but just because two approaches are different doesn't mean that they are incompatable (French grammar and Chinese history was papafox's metaphor). If you want to arue with papafox you have to point out where science and religion overlap, not how their methods differ. Some religious approaches are incompatable with science, yes, but it doesn't mean that they all are.
In other words, you say the supernatural (ie, that which does not conform to science) cannot be assessed by science because the supernatural gets a free pass.
WRONG. Science is NOT NEUTRAL wrt magic, including religion.
Similarly "Psychics" that "communicate" with the dead are fair game for science--the claim that what they do is beyond the scope of empiricism is a cop-out, just as is the analysis of the many mystical facets and dogmas of religion.
Behnd the religion-is-immune-to-scientific-scrutiny idea lies the false idea that the supernatural has some credibility. NOTHING supernatural has EVER been scientifically demonstrated, period. That includes all magic and mysticism, which includes the concept of god. Religion has no more veracity than fairytales or other folklore. Most people think that some credible evidence for the paranormal or supernatural exists. They are simply uneducated and ignorant.
John Calvin made the point that the Bible accommodates its language to help its target audience understand God's truth. God condescends Himself to help finite minds understand eternal truths. How can it be otherwise? He said of Genesis 1:6-8: "He who would learn astronomy and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. Here the Spirit of God would teach all men without exception and therefore...the history of creation...is the book of the unlearned."
Genesis 1-11 is NOT History 101!
AchillesShield 3 days ago
@AchillesShield Fundamentalist insistence that the Bible can only be read in one particular way is UNHISTORICAL, and goes back to modenist developments in the 19th and 20th centuries. Fundamentalists/creationists are INNOVATORS, not defenders of orthodoxy.
AchillesShield 3 days ago
Interesting video, see Truth-saves. ' creation week' can't be interpreted as millions of years since the story has Adam live more than one day of the week. Also it has Adam die at 930 years old.
zytigon 5 months ago
Although I'm a conservative Christian (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 6 months ago
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE, because of entropy, couldn't have sustained itself from all eternity. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, time had a beginning! That beginning has to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 6 months ago
GENETIC INFORMATION CAN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE anymore than other forms of information can happen by chance. Therefore, it is far more logical to believe that genetic and biological similarities between species are due to a common Designer (Creator) who designed similar functions for similar purposes in all of life. What about "Junk DNA?" It's not junk, after all! These sections of DNA are not genes, but they regulate gene expression. Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their reproductive system and other vital organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 6 months ago
You argue for the compatibility of science and theology but science is based on observable evidence and logic, while theology is based on non-evidenced logic-defying belief (faith) in the supernatural. Science and religion ARE incompatible. The scientific method will continue to discard theism until such time as actual evidence of "god" is produced (good luck!). Theism sometimes modifies its presumptions to correspond with discoveries, but it is still founded on pretense of divine insight.
TheAnniepies 9 months ago
I believe in God, I also believe in science,
what label do I wear?
rickster348 1 year ago
@rickster348 You can't believe in science, it's fact. You can accept that facct or not
ChaosN 5 months ago
staunch atheist that contridiction staunch would imply you unable to change your mind maybe you should say strongly unconviced
InquisitorDracomual 1 year ago
Well, you can have faith and still accept science.
But the honest thing to do is give up religion and accept reality. Which DOES conflict with religion.
You can pretend it doesn't, but that doesn't make the evidence go away.
Shavarnarak 1 year ago
@Shavarnarak
The way I see it, many religious people can and DO in fact accept science, and some are even scientists.
But to be religious means to believe in the supernatural. And the supernatural directly conflicts with reality.
Shavarnarak 1 year ago
Those scientists don't apply their science to their religion; because if they did - they would have to conclude that their religion has insufficent scientific evidence to be considered valid. You can't reconcile Science and Religion you can only seperate them. Serious thinkers have been known to take this approach to avoid a mental breakdown as their science kills their religion - like what happened to Darwin.
You can't be honest, curious, intelligent, informed and a theist simultaniously.
ackmonra 1 year ago
@ackmonra "Those scientists don't apply their science to their religion..." Or their love life, or to their taste in music, or their taste in literature - there's a lot more to life than science.
"You can't be honest, curious, intelligent, informed and a theist simultaniously." - A silly assertion, since millions (or billions) have done exactly that.
papafox 1 year ago
@papafox Yes but their tastes in music don't posit a false age of the earth.
Their love lives don't suggest an alternative to the germ theory of disease.
Most other aspects of a person arn't also classified as "Bad science" But their religion is just that.
"A silly assertion, since millions (or billions) have done exactly that. "
No, they havn't. Most either become dishonest in accepting the unacceptable or their curiosity ends at the edge between their science and religion.
ackmonra 1 year ago
@ackmonra Strawman. Most Christians aren't Biblical literalists. They don't "posit a false age of the earth," or disbelieve in germ theory. You've been listening to Creationist BS and believing that it applies to all Christians.
papafox 1 year ago
@papafox
Forgive me if i didn't mention every possible scientifically unsupported claim and make the distinction that not every christian accepts them all.
However all christians accept some - if they didn't in what sense are they at all christian or religious?
It isn't my fault that some people have watered down their faith till its power is less than being a harry potter fan. You and they still call those people Christians - i do not because at best its confusing and at worst; dishonest.
ackmonra 1 year ago
@ackmonra So far, you haven't made an ounce of sense. Your misconceptions about religion are not my problem. And please spare me the "No True Scotsman" fallacy - I'd expect that BS from Creationists.
papafox 1 year ago
@papafox
Fuck you too.
If you can't see very basic fine line i'm trying to draw here which would avoid the world Christian having zero explanitory power then I can't converse with you. Because when you say Chistian i have no idea who your refering to.
Sure it means i need to call some people who refer to themselves as Christian liars - but there are some god damned prerequisites.
Because if they believe none of it then they're us, arn't they? Am i a Christian? I just don't know anymore. lol
ackmonra 1 year ago
@ackmonra Apparently you are unaware (or choose to ignore) that there are tens of thousands of Christian denominations, and that their beliefs differ substantially. All you've done so far is construct a strawman, made bogus assertions, used logical fallacies... you're done here.
papafox 1 year ago
@papafox
Don't ya love it when faith haters spout fallacies?
ivlfounder 1 year ago
@papafox The difference is that religion makes big claims about things that supposedly exist, and things that supposedly happened. That places it within the domains of science and history. I can understand why some things would have to be taken on faith (such as the concept of a trinity,) but whether a supreme intelligence designed the universe is definitely something scientists would be interested in, and I think it's also something that can be determined through the scientific method.
servantofsaber 1 year ago
@ackmonra
Darwin never once doubted god at the very least he was agonostic
InquisitorDracomual 1 year ago
Good video bro.
martysaysso 1 year ago
How does one decide which parts of the Bible have any validity? If the creation story is wrong is the flood wrong? What about the stories of Lot, Job, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and John the Baptist? Doesn't the assumption that creationism is wrong throw the entire Christian concept of God into the dumper?
For the record, I am a staunch atheist who, while considering theists to be crackpots, can't understand the basis for the opinions of those who consider the Bible to be a la carte.
deedubya286 1 year ago
@deedubya286 Where do you get the impression that Christians are "supposed" to take the Bible literally? Most Christians haven't done so for hundreds of years, and consider much of the Bible to be allegorical. The current crop of Young Earth Creationists are a relatively new movement.
papafox 1 year ago
@papafox I guess I get it from all the Christians I see waving it around and quoting from it. If they don't take it literally what do they use it for? Where does their ideology come from? If the story of creation, sin, and the resurrection of Jesus aren't considered to be true then what is the point of the exercise?
deedubya286 1 year ago
@deedubya286 Remember that philosophy question "If a tree fell in a forest, and nobody was around to hear it..." Whether it was an actual tree in an actual forest is irrelevant - it's a story meant to teach a certain point. Many of the stories in the Bible are just that - stories meant to teach philosophical or theological lessons about man's relationship with God or each other.
papafox 1 year ago
Sounds like you are in good company, papa.
Hopefully, this will at least get some folks to think.
debbieomi 1 year ago
@debbieomi I hope so. *crosses fingers* ;-)
papafox 1 year ago
Excellent points.
Religion is not here to prove or disprove any gods. It's here for our benefit, advancement, and survival. It seems weird that there are people who don't believe their god is smart enough or capable of creating the scientific process.
TheOtherSide100 1 year ago
@TheOtherSide100 I know, that drives me nuts too. Check out the open letter from the Clergy Letter Project - to many Christians, to reject science is to reject God.
papafox 1 year ago
another bad thing about many theological people is that they have no historical knowledge of why and how there books were written, let alone do they take into consideration how words and phrases change over time, and even more with translation from one language to the next.
So taking a book (thousands of years old and written in a different language) literally in today's tongue is extremely foolish. And no one doing so understands it's actual message.
AClRCLEOFLlGHT 1 year ago
@AClRCLEOFLlGHT Very true. Take a look at some of ItsTheSuperFly's videos concerning Biblical history. He's an atheist, but he understands the history of the Bible better than most fundamentalists I've encountered. The history of how it's changed over the years is fascinating.
papafox 1 year ago
Brilliant Mr Fox :)
Samakain 1 year ago
@Samakain Thanks. :-)
papafox 1 year ago
It starts getting particularly interesting at 2:57.
But ALL of the vidio was awesome!
SinnFein4ever 1 year ago
@SinnFein4ever Thanks. If it gets people to think, I'm happy. :-)
papafox 1 year ago
Great vid. Allow a portuguese translation?
ddimensoes 1 year ago
But! but! these people aren't REAL Christians if they believe in evilution! haha, sigh.
anubis2814 1 year ago
@anubis2814 - LOL, but it's true that some Biblical literalists think that way about other Christians.
papafox 1 year ago
@papafox I know and an ex-fundie creationist, I believed the same
anubis2814 1 year ago
Great video papafox! We do need more Christians that speak out against creationism after all; if people took a literal sense of the bible (like you mentioned) there are indeed 4 corners of the earth! Numbers 15:38, Ezekiel 7:2, Isaiah 11:12, Job 37:3 and 38:13!
LozTheAtheist 1 year ago
@LozTheAtheist I wish more moderates would speak out too, but a lot of them feel that it's a very private matter. I do too, but I'm just dumb enough to stick my head out of the trench. :-D
papafox 1 year ago
Good vid man.
Nicely done.
atthetopofmyvoice 1 year ago
@atthetopofmyvoice Thanks. :-)
papafox 1 year ago
Excellent video, PapaFox! Wish I was this articulate.
DixieComic 1 year ago
@DixieComic Thanks, though it took me a long to get this one right, to say it the way it hopefully made sense.
papafox 1 year ago
Thanks, papa. Even though I am not religious and dont believe in a god, I have many friends that do-ditto for my daughter. And, as a parent, I keep telling her while we believe one way and our friends do not, we still should respect them as people. However, those that arent educated make it difficult- and, unfortunately some of them can become borderline mean when they are faced with people like us. Its not just logic that comes with education-sometimes its also empathy and grace.
skeletonmom 1 year ago 5
@skeletonmom Well said. I think you're spot-on about education - it can teach us that there are many different ways to view things.
papafox 1 year ago
@skeletonmom You sound like an excellent parent.
I wish many more parents taught their kids the things you do.
Kudos to you! B-)
kalamain 1 year ago
@kalamain - Ah, shucks...thanks...
We all are huddled on this blue ball that is hurtling thru an expanding universe. Just trying to make it a pleasant ride. ;D
skeletonmom 1 year ago
Very well said. I remember being astonished at a young age that some people took the bible very literally. As for people who ARE religious AND thinkers at the same time, one of my cats is named after a dear friend who was killed in a senseless road accident. He was a Lutheran minister and extremely intelligent. I miss him very much.
prodigyat9 1 year ago
@prodigyat9 Me too! The first time I ever heard of Biblical literalism, I thought they were joking.
papafox 1 year ago
If you missed the chance to take a copy of that video, have you considered contacting the maker of the video?
allianceofdemons 1 year ago
@allianceofdemons I'm pretty certain the answer would be 'no.' Biologos seeks to encourage cooperation between religion and science, and I think they would avoid anything that would threaten that relationship. I'm disappointed that they took it down, but I understand their reasoning.
papafox 1 year ago
Good vid papa
Elenkhos 1 year ago
@Elenkhos Thanks. :-)
papafox 1 year ago
@ItsTheSuperFly I like him too, and he's certainly one to challenge established thinking. IIRC, he's one of the first to suggest that dinosaurs were warm-blooded.
papafox 1 year ago
Excellent video
BaronesaReturns 1 year ago
@BaronesaReturns Thanks Nesa :-)
papafox 1 year ago
I'm so glad you didn't include the Templetard Foundation! :D
Thanks for this vid bud! One of the things that does irritate me though is how people like francis collins says: "Science shows god exists!" which doesn't sit well with me at all because it hasn't...
But thanks very much this is why you're featured on my youtube webzone. :)
QuarkyGideon 1 year ago
@QuarkyGideon Thanks. Yeah, I'm uncomfortable with the thought that you "find" God through science. Sure, there are amazing, beautiful, awe-inspiring, humbling things out there to discover - but IMO they have nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of any deity.
papafox 1 year ago
Sorry I find it hard to rationalise reconciliation of the two. Surely unless one is actually "wanting it to be so", science would suggest that no such thing as a supernatural entity exists at all.
Though don't get me wrong, I would FAR FAR sooner have an intelligent, sensible, reasonable, open and nice fellow like you than a crazy dogmatic, unresponsive, creationist type (OHH I really don't like type).
if every believer was as decent and open as you I don't think religion would even be a problem
martiangrundy 1 year ago
@martiangrundy Science can neither support nor refute the existence of the supernatural; if it's not observable or testable, it's irrelevant to science. Theology is outside the purview of science, just like philosophy, grammar, music, art... they're just different topics that all require a totally different mindset.
But yeah, the anti-science types REALLY piss me off.
papafox 1 year ago
@papafox
Hi There. Sorry for getting back to you so slowly, I wasn't sure I was going to bother. I have in the past tried to enter into discussions, and they never seem to go well. After a couple of back and forth's, I either inadvertently upset them in some way or they just decide not to respond. And I really didn't want to do so in this case. Jupy informs me that you're a decent guy, and I didn't want to jump right in with both feet and alienate you straight "off the bat".
I tend to
Cont.---
martiangrundy 1 year ago
@papafox
---Cont.
be very thick skinned, and pretty much uninsultable. So can tend sometimes to imagine others can also cope with plain speaking. So I'll apologise beforehand, just in case. :-)
Science can certainly have something to say on the subject. Whether the source is said to be "supernatural" or not. It must in some way manifest, or it's effects, in the real world. This can certainly be tested for. And has been, always with negative results.
If there is no manifestation in
Cont.---
martiangrundy 1 year ago
@papafox
---Cont.
the real world then it really is a moot point, as whatever it is has no effect at all so is in effect indistinguishable from non existence.
And surely as Sagan said. "Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence", and I see none whatsoever.
An assertion made with no supporting evidence, can also be disregarded with no evidence.
Leaving as far as I can ascertain, faith.
What's your definition of faith?
Were you raised to be a believer, or did you come to it later?
Peace
martiangrundy 1 year ago
@martiangrundy If I ever come up with absolute undeniable scientific proof that a sunset is beautiful, I'll let you know. :-)
I love Sagan too, but there are many things that are outside of science - music, art, philosophy, etc. My attitude: "Don't like religion? Don't have one." Shrug.
My only point here is to communicate to other Christians that they don't have to follow along with the anti-science crowd.
papafox 1 year ago
@papafox
Well M8.
That is a worthwhile message, in any case.
If you ever wanna chat give me a shout.
Peace.
martiangrundy 1 year ago
funny when you can put me at a loss for words :) just brilliant!
tattooskin72 1 year ago
@tattooskin72 *Beams* My work is done here. :-)
papafox 1 year ago
Great video.
AtheistAussie 1 year ago
@AtheistAussie Thanks man. :-)
papafox 1 year ago
Wonderful video. :) Thanks for posting.
Lovingdoubt 1 year ago
@Lovingdoubt Thanks. :-)
papafox 1 year ago
Good video, maybe you might open some peoples mind.
cheers
fight4th3truth 1 year ago
@fight4th3truth I hope so!
papafox 1 year ago
Good vid, but its still irrational to know exactly how the world works & believe an invisible master of the world who is heavily involved in your day to day life. In the case of Christianity, it doesnt seem logical to me to say "this is the true book of god, & we must follow its teachings to the tee, unless science has debunked a lesson in which in that case would be considered non-literal".
Key2daUnderground 1 year ago
@Key2daUnderground Too many vocal young-earth creationists out there have given people the impression that to be a Christian means you "supposed" to believe in Biblical literalism. The fact is, the rest of Christianity rejected that line of thinking hundreds of years ago.
papafox 1 year ago
Very nice video. How do you form a devision (if you do) in your faith and your rationalism; I ask as thats what I believe would allow some one to have faith in say Christianity and still accept scientific consensus or am I missing something?
JimtheEvo 1 year ago
@JimtheEvo In the same way that science, grammar, history, art appreciation, etc., are all different subjects, you have to approach each of them with a different mindset. I like the way Pope JPII put it in his "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth" speech (linked): basically, if your interpretation of religion conflicts with observed fact, then it's your interpretation that's a fault.
papafox 1 year ago
Great work as always.
Cheers Christine
christinepeace 1 year ago
@christinepeace Thanks Christine. :-)
papafox 1 year ago
You hit this one right outta the park :)
Christheatheist1 1 year ago
@Christheatheist1 Thanks Chris. I hope it help people to know that they don't have to reject science just because their local preacher says so.
papafox 1 year ago
This is a great video!!
rationalwarrior 1 year ago
@rationalwarrior Thanks man.
papafox 1 year ago
I liked this :)
Vogter2100 1 year ago
@Vogter2100 Thanks. Education FTW. :-)
papafox 1 year ago
Science is naturalistic and does not accept supernatural explanations. Hence it IS incompatible with religion, which invariably does resort to such magic for explanations.
Religion also usually demands belief without evidence whereas the scientific method forbids dogmatically drawing conclusions without evidence.
Just because a few theists have been productive in certain aspects of science, it doesn't follow that their religious orientation has merit.
themsfightinwoids 1 year ago
@themsfightinwoids
It depends on what kind of theist one is. If one accepts scientific evidence but also believes in something for which there is no evidence (gods), then it's not really in contradiction to science. The supernatural may or may not exist. We just can't test for it using science. But, if one believes in things that are in contradiction to science (like an afterlife or Noah's flood myth or an intervening deity) then that's a case of cognitive dissonance.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks Exactly. For most Christians, the suggestion that the two are incompatible results in a "lol wut?" :-)
papafox 1 year ago
@papafox
Yes, but to be fair, the label "Christian" is SO broad that if you were to tell someone that you're Christian, then based on that information alone not much could be ascertained about your beliefs. There are about 40 000 denominations, and I think even so there are almost as many different variations on Christianity as there are Christians. So, a little more is needed in order to understand what someone believes. But hey, it's the same with atheists.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@themsfightinwoids Your arguments boil down to pointing out that science and religion are different, but just because two approaches are different doesn't mean that they are incompatable (French grammar and Chinese history was papafox's metaphor). If you want to arue with papafox you have to point out where science and religion overlap, not how their methods differ. Some religious approaches are incompatable with science, yes, but it doesn't mean that they all are.
conradleviston 1 year ago
@themsfightinwoids Science is neutral on the topic of religion. Since it is not observable or testable, it is outside the purview of science.
papafox 1 year ago
@papafox
In other words, you say the supernatural (ie, that which does not conform to science) cannot be assessed by science because the supernatural gets a free pass.
WRONG. Science is NOT NEUTRAL wrt magic, including religion.
Similarly "Psychics" that "communicate" with the dead are fair game for science--the claim that what they do is beyond the scope of empiricism is a cop-out, just as is the analysis of the many mystical facets and dogmas of religion.
themsfightinwoids 1 year ago
@themsfightinwoids
Behnd the religion-is-immune-to-scientific-scrutiny idea lies the false idea that the supernatural has some credibility. NOTHING supernatural has EVER been scientifically demonstrated, period. That includes all magic and mysticism, which includes the concept of god. Religion has no more veracity than fairytales or other folklore. Most people think that some credible evidence for the paranormal or supernatural exists. They are simply uneducated and ignorant.
themsfightinwoids 1 year ago
Thank you so much for making this! This is the same sort of argument I've had to have with many atheists and theists alike (hugs)
abbynormal0ne 1 year ago
@abbynormal0ne Me too. Doesn't that just make you want to rip your hair out at times? :-D
papafox 1 year ago
@papafox Not just my hair.....
abbynormal0ne 1 year ago