Skip to main content

View Diary: Why Science and Christianity Are Incompatible (122 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The point is that scientists (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sparhawk

    don't /  can't do that.

    Hence, the fundamental divide between the two realms.

      •  I have no idea what that link (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sparhawk

        has to do with the idea that "science and christianity are incompatible"

        It more supports my point that christianity is a completely made up artifice that can incorporate anything.  

        While science can't (pretty much by definition).

        •  So explain how 40 percent of scientists (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Wee Mama, serendipityisabitch

          ended up subscribing to "completely made of artifices that can incorporate anything."

          As I pointed out in my first comment here, I think people are confusing science with empiricism.  Science is a method, that's all.  Empiricism is a philosophy holding that the only knowledge that is valid is knowledge generated by science and some additional methods we need not go into.  Science is a tool, empiricism is a belief system.

          •  Because they don't know what is in the Bible (0+ / 0-)

            Most Christians don't.   The Bible is one of the best deco version texts ever....

          •  It's the other way around (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sparhawk

            for one reason or another, a christian may come to the conclusion that not believing in science makes him or her look like a complete dumbass.

            So, they construct an artifice in their mind that their profoundly anti-scientific christian beliefs are not literal, but a metaphor of some type.  At that point, anything goes - the human imagination is a wonderful thing and they can then incorporate anything they like into the umbrella of their metaphorical christian beliefs - including acceptance of scientific methods.

            Which allows them to then become a scientist - where they are forced to discount anything that is not based on observation in whatever their field of study might be.  That constriction doesn't necessarily apply to other parts of their lives (why should it?) such as belief in christianity - which is entirely based on their imagination at this point or fantasy online role playing games for that matter (or watching Star Trek on TV to give another example).  Science is fundamentally incompatible with any of those things, but in no way precludes an one person from simultaneously engaging in  multiple combinations of them in their lives.

            •  Long story short (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Wee Mama

              We both agree a Christian can conduct science.  That a Christian can be a scientist.  I think our only disagreement is over the definition of science, but we don't need to beat that dead horse.  I'll just remember that your use encompasses the epistemic commitment to empiricism.

        •  You obviously aren't familiar with the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rduran

          handful of scientists who argue against anthropogenic global warming.
             

      •  the religious beliefs of scientists (3+ / 0-)

        or lack thereof are irrelevant. Their work should be viewed on its own terms.

        Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

        by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Mar 02, 2014 at 08:05:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site