C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
kaninchen
Now, one would expect that those who are arguing that science should change, in some way, should be able to describe ‘in what way’ and ‘to what end’.
Not sure about your point here. Isaac Newton did not use his Christianity to change science. Rather, he found in his science a reflection of his Christian values and his belief in God.
I don’t know of anyone in this thread who wants to impose a Christian methodology on activities in the scientific laboratory … except to the extent that laboratory work does not violate Christian values, such as the Nazis were capable of when they experimented horribly on dying prisoners.
There is a book titled Glimpses of the Devil, by psychiatrist Scott Peck (author of The Road Less Traveled). Psychiatry is a science. Peck has discovered patients of his own whom he believed to be possessed by demons, and has used both his skills as a psychiatrist and his beliefs as a Christian to combat these demons, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. This is a science, however, where the vast majority of practitioners are atheist or agnostic, and therefore ill equipped to detect whether their patients are suffering from a psychosis or possession. This comes as close an answer as I can give to the possible areas of collaboration between religion and science in a world where science is well known to be extremely hostile to religion.
The other area, of course, would be ID. But again, because there are so many victims of scientism (invariably atheists and agnostics) in the field of biology, that alone would account for why there is so much of a furor against the notion that the first living cell sure looks like it was designed.
Now, one would expect that those who are arguing that science should change, in some way, should be able to describe ‘in what way’ and ‘to what end’.
Not sure about your point here. Isaac Newton did not use his Christianity to change science. Rather, he found in his science a reflection of his Christian values and his belief in God.
I don’t know of anyone in this thread who wants to impose a Christian methodology on activities in the scientific laboratory … except to the extent that laboratory work does not violate Christian values, such as the Nazis were capable of when they experimented horribly on dying prisoners.
There is a book titled Glimpses of the Devil, by psychiatrist Scott Peck (author of The Road Less Traveled). Psychiatry is a science. Peck has discovered patients of his own whom he believed to be possessed by demons, and has used both his skills as a psychiatrist and his beliefs as a Christian to combat these demons, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. This is a science, however, where the vast majority of practitioners are atheist or agnostic, and therefore ill equipped to detect whether their patients are suffering from a psychosis or possession. This comes as close an answer as I can give to the possible areas of collaboration between religion and science in a world where science is well known to be extremely hostile to religion.
The other area, of course, would be ID. But again, because there are so many victims of scientism (invariably atheists and agnostics) in the field of biology, that alone would account for why there is so much of a furor against the notion that the first living cell sure looks like it was designed.
).