Proof that from the standpoint of Cultural Anthropology, Christians are more scientific than atheistic scientists

[holy_wood]

Atheistic scientists claim unequivocally that their system of understanding is based on science and not on faith. Let me start with definitions so we don’t have to quibble about those in rebuttals. Note none of the sources I will be quoting are creationist or religious sources.

Faith - 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

Science - 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
dictionary.reference.com/browse/science

These are the definitions I am dealing with and will restrict my discussion to these.

In atheistic scientific theory, it would be anathema to admit to a faith position, i.e. belief in something, per our definition which is not “of the physical or material world” and something not observable, quantifyable, measurable and demonstrable. So in order to avoid conflicts in their systematic theology, in the event that something does not act predictably or knowably in the material world, they will invent a hypothetical “entity” and assign it a suitably scientific name so it can be addressed in a scientific manner without admitting to a faith position. The “proof” of the existence of the hypothetical “entities” is their effects on the observable and natural world which in the presence of these “entities” does inexplicable and unexpected things. Thus they extrapolate the hypothetical, give it a fancy name, and call it “science”.

Three “entities” jump to mind. First, the entity called the “singularity”. Let us define the singularity:

1. astronomy hypothetical point in space: a hypothetical region in space in which gravitational forces cause matter to be infinitely compressed and space and time to become infinitely distorted
   encarta.msn.com/dictionary_18…ngularity.html

Note the word, “hypothetical”. The singularity cannot be touched, seen, measured (other than by its hypothetical effects on the physical and natural world around it) and the one supposedly which preceded the Big Bang can only be pointed at through supposedly billions of years of theorized but unmeasured and unobservable history (remember our definitions).

Thus belief in this hypothetical entity is crucial to explain the unexplainable, but it remains hypothetical and unobserved and unobservable directly. In science, faith in such an entity is called scientific, while belief in the same intangible, unmeasurable force in Christianity is called “blind faith”. In science, this entity is called “singularity” and in Christianity this entity is called “God” and yet singularity is scientific and God is blind faith.

A second example jumps to mind: “dark matter”. Let’s define “dark matter”.

In physics and cosmology, dark matter is hypothetical matter that does not interact with the electromagnetic force, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter. (this definition is pulled from the favorite atheist biblical work, the gospel according to Wikipedia)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

Note again the “hypothetical” matter whose presence can only be “inferred”. Remember our definitions. Dark matter cannot be seen, measured, or observed except in its effects on the things around it. This entity is called “dark matter” and this is scientific, while this same unmeasurable entity in Christianity is called “God” and this is blind faith.

The third entity which comes to mind is the “gluon” or “nuclear glue” which keeps atoms from splitting apart and vaporizing the universe in the process (which they should do according to the laws of physics). Let’s define “gluon”

According to QCD, only colorless objects may exist in isolation. Therefore, individual gluons and individual quarks cannot exist in nature, and only indirect evidence of their existence can be detected.
answers.com/topic/gluon

This definition did not use the word “hypothetical” but did state that only indirect evidence of their existence can be detected. They are massless, formless, cannot be observed or measured other than by natural objects (in this case atoms) failing to act in a manner consistent with their nature.

You see, the laws of physics say identically charged particles repel each other. Atoms are filled with identically charged particles which should fly away from each other but don’t. In fact when we force these particles to separate, the result is catastrophic destructive power (nuclear explosion). Yet something is keeping atoms from flying apart and disentegrating everything in the known universe. The hypothetical entity invented for this is the “gluon” and this is scientific while the Christian name for this same entity is “God” which is blind faith.

Now, we have atheistic scientists putting faith in three separate unprovable entities holding different parts of the fabric of the universe together.** In the realm of Cultural Anthropology this belief in the existence of multiple unprovable entities is known as Polytheism. **

Christians theorize that all these entities are in fact one single related entity acting on all different parts of the universe to give evidence of its existence and holding all things together by His will. This single entity has been given the scientific term “God”.

**Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.**

In Cultural Anthropology this belief in a single unprovable entity is called Monotheism. Now here is where this gets interesting.

Kind of an interesting way to look at things, don’t you think?

 

[MarcoPolo]

It might interest you to read Dr. Stephen Barr’s Modern Physics, Ancient Faith. He begins by detailing all the clergy who have been scientists…I didn’t know there were so many. Tying into your post, here’s my favorite quote from his book:

It is a very curious circumstance that materialists, in an effort to avoid what Laplace called the unnecessary hypothesis of God, are frequently driven to hypothesize the existence of an infinity of unobservable entities. We saw this before…with the speculation that an infinite time preceded the Big Bang. We saw it again…, with the idea that the first living thing might have arisen by chance if the universe is infinitely large and has an infinite number of planets. We see it now, in the idea of a large and possibly infinite number of domains or universes. We shall encounter it once more…with the so-called many-worlds interpretation of quantum theory. It seems that to abolish one unobservable God, it takes an infinite number of unobservable subsitutes. p. 156-7

 

[holy_wood]

I couldn’t agree more.

 

[Wirraway]

restricting an argument to strawman definitions and poorly understood astronomy is not a winning tactic. the OP posits:

*"A second example jumps to mind: “dark matter”. Let’s define “dark matter”.

In physics and cosmology, dark matter is hypothetical matter that does not interact with the electromagnetic force, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter. (this definition is pulled from the favorite atheist biblical work, the gospel according to Wikipedia) … Dark matter cannot be seen, measured, or observed except in its effects on the things around it. This entity is called “dark matter”"*

wikipedia is a secondary source, so using that as a whipping boy is horrendous reasoning, one of many strawmen in the post.

but anyway, its 13 o’clock on the OP’s timepiece. here’s evidence of dark matterdirect (from a primary source cited by the wikipedia article). a casual search turned up a lot of material published this year, the best of it well beyond the scope of a thread on a religious form, all of it pointing out, however, the flaws in concocting an argument based on outdated dictionary definitions.

the singularity and gluon contentions can also be disposed of.

 

[holy_wood]

wikipedia is a secondary source, so using that as a whipping boy is horrendous reasoning, one of many strawmen in the post.

My use of wikipedia was an effort to keep bias in definitions out of the discussion

but anyway, its 13 o’clock on the OP’s timepiece. here’s direct

 

[Wirraway]

Wirraway;4258697:

wikipedia is a secondary source, so using that as a whipping boy is horrendous reasoning, one of many strawmen in the post.

My use of wikipedia was an effort to keep bias in definitions out of the discussion

Ok, just answer me can you prove any of them exist other than inferring their existence from their apparent affects on nature?

If not my point still stands.

wikipedia is a secondary source and usually, and especially here, a poor choice for documenting answers. its even worse in your case because one of the sources cited refutes your claim.

the point is, you created a strawman and really don’t understand how science works.

for example. unless you have super powers, you personally haven’t “seen” RF radiation… but you infer its existence “through apparent effects on nature” when you turn on a radio and the circuitry translates the RF radiation into physical vibrations which create soundwaves. these you can experience directly, if you are not also deaf.

and, if you bothered reading the articles, you can see, with your own two eyes, dark matter imaged by the Chandra X-Ray Observatory.