Flying Spaghetti Monster, what is done to combat them?

[exoflare]

The religious person looses if they allow themselves to be dragged into pre-set conditions designed to deny Christianity. Drag them into the realm of Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm, et al. and watch them sputter. Problem is, they don’t go there. Simply return the favor.

The problem is that usually it is not Christianity itself being refuted, but a sort of strawman version of Christianity. They won’t go into the realm of Augustine and the others simply because they wish to believe all of “Christianity” consisted of purely blind-faith Fundamentalist denominations which really do sound ridiculous.

 

[exoflare]

I don’t agree with the use of evolutionary theory or Big Bang theory to preach atheism either – the topic of God, extant or otherwise, should simply not be a part of any science class. Leave that to the philosophy and religion departments.

Exactly

 

[ComradeAndrei]

They won’t go into the realm of Augustine and the others simply because they wish to believe all of “Christianity” consisted of purely blind-faith Fundamentalist denominations which really do sound ridiculous.

True, most folks that are used to tilting at windmill “Christianity” don’t know what to do when confronted with Catholicism.

I don’t agree with the use of evolutionary theory or Big Bang theory to preach atheism either – the topic of God, extant or otherwise, should simply not be a part of any science class. Leave that to the philosophy and religion departments.

If science is doing what they say they can do, then they shouldn’t be talking about God at all since by definition, God is beyond the bounds of what science can observe. In this way I would agree with you.

While I don’t think we need to teach Catechism in biology class, since God is our First Begining and Final End it is kind of hard to ignore Him in all matters even as small as small thanksgivings for what we learn in science.

 

[mikew262]

True, most folks that are used to tilting at windmill “Christianity” don’t know what to do when confronted with Catholicism.

If science is doing what they say they can do, then they shouldn’t be talking about God at all since by definition, God is beyond the bounds of what science can observe. In this way I would agree with you.

While I don’t think we need to teach Catechism in biology class, since God is our First Begining and Final End it is kind of hard to ignore Him in all matters even as small as small thanksgivings for what we learn in science.

As I’ve said in other threads, I believe science is the study of how God actually did it.

 

[reggieM]

It does cause a big problem because science can only work from a philosophical foundation. There is a huge difference in studying the origin of life, for example, from an atheist perspective as from a Christian perspective.

Additionally, the question of “how God did it” is in many ways, impossible for science. How did God resurrect Jesus? I would think that question would be impossible or irrelevant for atheistic science to deal with. But it’s a real event that happened in our universe – affecting physical things.

To look at things like the origin of life, the universe, the human soul as if there is no God would actually be very faulty and poor science if there is, indeed, a God who created and shaped the very things that science is attempting to understand.

I would be like trying to understand a great novel but by believing that it didn’t really have an author but just came together by itself. Obviously, the more correct way to study the novel is to know much about the author also.

 

[Mirdath]

As I’ve said in other threads, I believe science is the study of how God actually did it.

That’s a very neat way of putting the boundary between science and religion into words

reggieM:

It does cause a big problem because science can only work from a philosophical foundation. There is a huge difference in studying the origin of life, for example, from an atheist perspective as from a Christian perspective.

God could have stirred the primordial soup and mixed things together just right or it could have happened by chance (the way I personally think it happened, but then I’m agnostic). Either way you get molecules bumping into each other and forming the amino acids – which is all science is concerned about.

Additionally, the question of “how God did it” is in many ways, impossible for science. How did God resurrect Jesus? I would think that question would be impossible or irrelevant for atheistic science to deal with. But it’s a real event that happened in our universe – affecting physical things.

Miracles are by definition events which defy science and the laws of nature. Not to mention that that particular one is impossible to objectively verify at all. The fact of death and decay (if the corpse is not preserved) still holds true for humans; God (if he exists), of course, can bend, suspend, or totally break the laws science has verified.

To look at things like the origin of life, the universe, the human soul as if there is no God would actually be very faulty and poor science if there is, indeed, a God who created and shaped the very things that science is attempting to understand.

I’d argue otherwise: it would give us insight as to how God shaped those. Understanding the design and blueprints behind the work can give us a greater appreciation for the finished product, and help us use, maintain, and preserve them better

 

[reggieM]

I’d argue otherwise: it would give us insight as to how God shaped those. Understanding the design and blueprints behind the work can give us a greater appreciation for the finished product, and help us use, maintain, and preserve them better

Yes, that’s right but I think you’re explaining things from a Theistic perspective by using the words “design and blueprints” and even “work” and “finished product”. All of those terms are speaking about a Designer.

It could be true that all of the work of God looks like it was created in a way that did not require a God at all.

If that was the case, then there would really be no need for a God since the entire universe, life and everything could be explained without a Creator God ever having been a part of any of it. The random combination of atoms does not need a Designer.

But if God did shape things and make things possible that otherwise would never happen – then science would need to admit and acknowledge that. In other words, it would be impossible for life of the universe to exist without God.

I think that’s the major difference between atheistic science and science based on Christianity.

If God was involved in any way – in the creating of natural laws or the shaping and moving of things, then to try to explain everything as if it all happened by accident would be mistaken and wrong – wouldn’t it?

 

[Mirdath]

If that was the case, then there would really be no need for a God since the entire universe, life and everything could be explained without a Creator God ever having been a part of any of it. The random combination of atoms does not need a Designer.

But if God did shape things and make things possible that otherwise would never happen – then science would need to admit and acknowledge that. In other words, it would be impossible for life of the universe to exist without God.

Where those natural impossibilities begin is where science ends. Science exists to uncover and explain the explainable, not the divine.

I think that’s the major difference between atheistic science and science based on Christianity.

Science has no business being anything but atheistic. If we want ‘Christianity-based science’, remember, we’re also going to need ‘Hinduism-based science’, ‘Zoroastrianism-based science’, ‘Shinto-based science’, ‘Asatru-based science’, and so on and so forth – because science cannot know which if any religion has the right idea about which deity or deities created and maintain the universe.

If God was involved in any way – in the creating of natural laws or the shaping and moving of things, then to try to explain everything as if it all happened by accident would be mistaken and wrong – wouldn’t it?

If God played by the own natural and physical laws he established – then no, actually. And given that the things you believe were created by God are still around, it would seem that they were created in accordance with those laws.

 

[exoflare]

Science has no business being anything but atheistic.

Agnostic, maybe?

 

[InTheWilderness]

If science is based on atheism, then the teaching of science is teaching a religion as if it were the absolute objective truth. That would make all science classes unconstitutional here in America.

Clearly, science can not and must not assume the atheist position. Atheism, after all, is the positive belief that there is not, never has been, and never will be, any sort of supreme being(s).

In order for science to be consistent with its own standards, it MUST take a neutral view toward anything supernatural. After all, the mere notion of something as supernatural puts it beyond the realm of scientific study. So, science must not assume the truth of a hypothesis that it has no means of testing. Science can not prove that there is a God (based on our current knowledge of the issue). At the same time, it is generally accepted that a negative can never be proved for a certainty (you can show one thing to be true, but you can not show that something else is absolutely false). Therefore, science can not take the atheist position. It could perhaps take a position similar to agnosticism, but really it should simply remain silent on the issue.

Similarly, while science can offer lots of interesting knowledge about what is observable, that ultimately offers no real incite into the great questions. Science offers an mechanism to describe what the observable natural world is. It can’t tell us what should be. It can’t tell us why it is. Science must therefore be silent on those issues.

Real science does not make any sort of values judgments. Individual scientists may, but as a discipline, it can not.

 

[PhilVaz]

All right, so I get to mock both Dembski and Dawkins

bringyou.to/BILLY.htm

bringyou.to/DICKY.htm

Phil P

 

[Mirdath]

Agnostic, maybe?

You are completely right and that’s the word I should have been using. Oops

Science is not concerned with the question of God at all, and should not be taught as if it is. It is not ‘based’ on atheism or theism, but on what can be seen and explained in the world around us – empiricism.

 

[reggieM]

An agnostic science would mean that there “could be a God” who created things out nothing, created laws, sustains and directs processes in a miraculous manner which science can never comprehend, created life, the human soul and more.

So an agnostic science would have to keep that option open. It couldn’t just state that there was no God and no possibility that God created things from nothing. That is far different than atheistic science - certainly.

If God created the natural laws, science would need to admit that. Obviously, the nature of God, His wisdom, His justice, His perfections – all of that would be reflected in the laws He created.

Science as we know it really did come from the Christian worldview. Science as based on other religions and philosophies came up with different results.

 

[reggieM]

If science can only discuss the physical world on empirical data, then science really can’t discuss the origin of the universe – since that occurred before there was physical matter to study. Additionally, it strains the concept of science to discuss something like the origin of life since it cannot be strictly empirical – nobody was around when it happened.

But this doesn’t stop a lot of scientists from giving theories about the origin of the universe and the evolution of life from non-living matter. That seems like an abuse of science to me.

 

[Julianna]

My mama always says

A clown will perform if it has an audience.

 

[Mirdath]

An agnostic science would mean that there “could be a God” who created things out nothing, created laws, sustains and directs processes in a miraculous manner which science can never comprehend, created life, the human soul and more.

Actually it would hold the perspective that there could be a God or gods, but that they are completely outside the scope of science, and that therefore we should not be discussing them in a scientific context.

So an agnostic science would have to keep that option open. It couldn’t just state that there was no God and no possibility that God created things from nothing. That is far different than atheistic science - certainly.

‘Science’ is not concerned with theism, atheism, or religious agnosticism. The existence of the divine is simply not germane to the subject.

If God created the natural laws, science would need to admit that. Obviously, the nature of God, His wisdom, His justice, His perfections – all of that would be reflected in the laws He created.

Maybe they are. What matters to science is not what attributes of God are displayed in Creation – that’s what things like the Kabbalah are for. Science is concerned with what they do, not with what they represent.

Science as we know it really did come from the Christian worldview. Science as based on other religions and philosophies came up with different results.

Actually it came just as much from Islamic, Hindu, and Taoist/Buddhist/Confucian (Chinese) worldviews. Western civilization had no number zero until they made contact with the Middle East. And no, it doesn’t have different results: if you pour bleach into ammonia, your religion doesn’t matter – you’d better be wearing a gasmask.

If science can only discuss the physical world on empirical data, then science really can’t discuss the origin of the universe – since that occurred before there was physical matter to study. Additionally, it strains the concept of science to discuss something like the origin of life since it cannot be strictly empirical – nobody was around when it happened.

According to the latest theories, there was a Singularity (an infinitely dense point, a cosmic unknown) from which matter and energy came; this is where science starts operating. Before that, science has no information to work with, or any reason to be concerned about it. If you want to make theological conjectures there, feel free to do so.

As to the origin of life, no, we weren’t there with our microscopes and our scalpels – but we can trace back from what we have now.

But this doesn’t stop a lot of scientists from giving theories about the origin of the universe and the evolution of life from non-living matter. That seems like an abuse of science to me.

It isn’t. Both the formation of the universe (after the Singularity) and of life can be researched with what information is available about those events – and there’s a lot. It’s hardly an ‘abuse’ to take what we have and carefully extrapolate and hypothesize, then experiment to test those hypotheses: that’s the scientific method.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Actually it came just as much from Islamic, Hindu, and Taoist/Buddhist/Confucian (Chinese) worldviews. Western civilization had no number zero until they made contact with the Middle East. And no, it doesn’t have different results: if you pour bleach into ammonia, your religion doesn’t matter – you’d better be wearing a gasmask.

Actually, empirical science has its roots in the Christian (Catholic) worldview. While certain concepts or inventions (like zero, or gunpowder) came from other parts of the world or developed independently the actual basis for what we know as science comes from Christianity.

 

[Mirdath]

Actually, empirical science has its roots in the Christian (Catholic) worldview. While certain concepts or inventions (like zero, or gunpowder) came from other parts of the world or developed independently the actual basis for what we know as science comes from Christianity.

Experimental chemistry came from Egypt and the Middle East. It was called ‘alchemy’ after Al-Khem, the ‘Black Land’ or Egypt. Mathematics would have stayed limited to addition and subtraction with Roman numerals until the introduction of Hindu numbers (via the Arabs) and decimals. And a lot of modern engineering comes to us from China, the Middle East, and ancient Greeks and Romans. The whole picture we have now is pretty much a group effort though.

As to worldviews, keep in mind that while a lot of the great Western scientists we usually associate with the rise of modern science were Catholic, just as many were Protestant, and an awful lot of them were Jews.

 

[cheddarsox]

Science does not default to “accident” as the explanation for why things are the way they are. It is not a case of “God made it that way” or “it’s an accident”, and because Science does not “give God credit” therefore “they” expect us to believe it’s all an accident.

Science is based on the understanding that there are patterns in the way things operate. Some refer to these patterns as natural laws. If these patterns exist…then careful observation can detect them,allowing us to make predictions, changes in our behavior and plans that will result in the playing out of the pattern we desire.

Scientists don’t consider natural laws “accidents”. Atoms don’t just “accidentaly” combine into “random” forms. If scientists believed that, there would be no point in studying it. If it were all accidental, random and chaotic, there would be no patterns to study.

So…the oft used arguement…“if they don’t give credit to God…they’re saying its all a great big accident” is nonsense. We are all coming from the place of recognizing order in the universe. Science studies the order, religion deals with the “meaning” and “source” of the order.

Now, as our methods and tools become more sophisticated, science begins to uncover patterns that point to the “source” of the order in some ways. We begin to understand new “forces” that operate on minute scales…and macro scales etc.

I think sometimes religious people fear that one day science will discover the “source” for all the patterns, and that it may not look like “God”. So they lable science the enemy…due to their own lack of faith.

If you know God is the source of it all, there is nothing to fear. No matter how “far” science goes, it can only uncover what you already know.

If you have the truth, how does something that happens in a petri dish endanger it?

If God is the order in the universe…what is there to fear?

cheddar

 

[reggieM]

Well, I do fear the imposition of an atheistic model on science. This would mean that God is not the author of the “order” that we see in nature.

Science should admit that the order and laws which are the basis of it’s own study could not have come into existence by accident. But that is never done.

Since God is the author of the order that you are talking about, why can’t science admit that? Why must it pretend that there is no God?

If God shaped the physical reality, why is that not essential to the study of science?

Can God break the natural laws? Did God ever break the natural laws? Those are absolutely essential for understanding what the natural laws produced.

How does God move and shape physical matter in the universe? What physical matter did God create directly? Why are those questions not relevant to the study of physical matter and therefore to science?

Again, the fear is that by eliminating all reference to God – who actually created matter, the laws and the patterns of the universe, there is an assumption that God does not exist.

That is the spread of atheism and unbelief under the guise of science. Yes, that is something I’m very much afraid of. It’s an abuse of science, as I said. Since God exists, science should be free to make that fact known.