-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
At what age did you come to believe you had all the answers in life, so you felt confident enough to make a ruling that God doesn't exist? (Since you are not Agnostic).
And a follow up to that. Do you think it's egotistical and arrogant to assume that you, a lone individual in the universe has that ultimate knowledge, instead of being moved by mystery?
Also when did science become about making solid conclusions in the absence of proof?
And a follow up to that. Do you think it's egotistical and arrogant to assume that you, a lone individual in the universe has that ultimate knowledge, instead of being moved by mystery?
Also when did science become about making solid conclusions in the absence of proof?
Q
CNikki,
I was raised Baptist. I went to Christian school growing up and took many courses in the Bible and apologetics, etc. When I went to college, I majored in biology and found out that a lot of the stuff I had learned about science was demonstrably incorrect. At that point, I still believed in god but became skeptical of the Christian community's take on science. I began to pursue a more rigorous understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of nature vs. the supernatural, belief vs. knowledge, faith vs. certainty, etc. That ultimately led me to the conclusion that, in terms of reproducibility, supernatural explanations of the universe seemed to have built in mechanisms for dealing with situations where a particular event did not achieve a desired outcome. By comparison, science has nailed things down to the point where, if we launch a satellite or use GPS triangulation or whatever, science can give a consistent, reproducible, quantifiable, measurable answer that is correct 99% of the time. Of course, as time goes on and science becomes further refined, the answers on a particular question become more accurate and more accurate. Faith never seemed to have the same reproducibility. When things went wrong, it was part of God's plan. When things went right, to God be the glory. The randomness and lack of producibility seemed, to me, to indicate that the underlying philosophy did not accurately describe the universe. After that, I "came out of it" as you say.
I was raised Baptist. I went to Christian school growing up and took many courses in the Bible and apologetics, etc. When I went to college, I majored in biology and found out that a lot of the stuff I had learned about science was demonstrably incorrect. At that point, I still believed in god but became skeptical of the Christian community's take on science. I began to pursue a more rigorous understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of nature vs. the supernatural, belief vs. knowledge, faith vs. certainty, etc. That ultimately led me to the conclusion that, in terms of reproducibility, supernatural explanations of the universe seemed to have built in mechanisms for dealing with situations where a particular event did not achieve a desired outcome. By comparison, science has nailed things down to the point where, if we launch a satellite or use GPS triangulation or whatever, science can give a consistent, reproducible, quantifiable, measurable answer that is correct 99% of the time. Of course, as time goes on and science becomes further refined, the answers on a particular question become more accurate and more accurate. Faith never seemed to have the same reproducibility. When things went wrong, it was part of God's plan. When things went right, to God be the glory. The randomness and lack of producibility seemed, to me, to indicate that the underlying philosophy did not accurately describe the universe. After that, I "came out of it" as you say.
Q
Grey,
I'm a soft (negative) atheist. If god suddenly began appearing to me in visions every day, I would first do my best to rule out schizophrenia, hallucinations, someone drugging me, etc. and then I would begin to test what I saw/heard in the visions with the natural world. If god told me who was going to win the world series and it happened. I would find that to be very compelling evidence. Even then, however, parsing out whether then entity in question were physical or metaphysical would be a very difficult task, in my opinion.
I'm a soft (negative) atheist. If god suddenly began appearing to me in visions every day, I would first do my best to rule out schizophrenia, hallucinations, someone drugging me, etc. and then I would begin to test what I saw/heard in the visions with the natural world. If god told me who was going to win the world series and it happened. I would find that to be very compelling evidence. Even then, however, parsing out whether then entity in question were physical or metaphysical would be a very difficult task, in my opinion.
Q
David_1,
Question 1.) I don't believe that I have all the answers. So, I guess the answer is 0?
Question 2.) I do think that it is egotistical and arrogant to assume that you (or me), a lone individual in the universe, have ultimate knowledge. However, I think faith is the ultimate assumption in this sense because it goes much farther than merely not believing in something for which they have no evidence. Faith asserts itself to have, as you say, ultimate knowledge. This isn't limited to Christianity, either. Muslims claim to have ultimate knowledge through the Quran, Hindus through the Vedas, etc. As far as being moved by mystery, I am constantly moved by mystery. Mystery is why I do not believe in the existence of any deities. As far as I can tell, there are no deities. So, to me, I call it a mystery and leave it at that instead of making the bold assertion that I know what's going on.
Question 3.) I'm not sure how to answer this. I think Karl Popper ended the idea that one can "prove" anything with falsificationism. To prove something would, as you say, require ultimate knowledge. Therefore, all science can do is falsify an idea. In the scientific sense, the last idea left standing must be the truth. IF evidence came to light falsifying the last standing idea, then theorists would have to go to work coming up with another falsifiable idea that can be tested to generate reproducible evidence. Nothing in science is, as you say, solid. The minute new, reproducible evidence comes to light, prevailing scientific theory must change.
Question 1.) I don't believe that I have all the answers. So, I guess the answer is 0?
Question 2.) I do think that it is egotistical and arrogant to assume that you (or me), a lone individual in the universe, have ultimate knowledge. However, I think faith is the ultimate assumption in this sense because it goes much farther than merely not believing in something for which they have no evidence. Faith asserts itself to have, as you say, ultimate knowledge. This isn't limited to Christianity, either. Muslims claim to have ultimate knowledge through the Quran, Hindus through the Vedas, etc. As far as being moved by mystery, I am constantly moved by mystery. Mystery is why I do not believe in the existence of any deities. As far as I can tell, there are no deities. So, to me, I call it a mystery and leave it at that instead of making the bold assertion that I know what's going on.
Question 3.) I'm not sure how to answer this. I think Karl Popper ended the idea that one can "prove" anything with falsificationism. To prove something would, as you say, require ultimate knowledge. Therefore, all science can do is falsify an idea. In the scientific sense, the last idea left standing must be the truth. IF evidence came to light falsifying the last standing idea, then theorists would have to go to work coming up with another falsifiable idea that can be tested to generate reproducible evidence. Nothing in science is, as you say, solid. The minute new, reproducible evidence comes to light, prevailing scientific theory must change.
Queequeq,
There is more proof and it is more reasonable to believe in God than anytime in the history of mankind. God has sent numerous miracles, many can be easily seen as unexplainable by Science. It is so much easier to ignore all of the proofs and miracles and say I am an atheist because I can't see him. If some saw him they would find other excuses not to believe. There is no excuse to not believe in God today, unless Faith was a gift from God. I'll pray that you receive it. Proofs can be based on reason and science. Use your reason. Don't stop searching.
God made you without your help, he will not save you without your help. Saint Catherine of Sienna - patron Saint of Europe.
There is more proof and it is more reasonable to believe in God than anytime in the history of mankind. God has sent numerous miracles, many can be easily seen as unexplainable by Science. It is so much easier to ignore all of the proofs and miracles and say I am an atheist because I can't see him. If some saw him they would find other excuses not to believe. There is no excuse to not believe in God today, unless Faith was a gift from God. I'll pray that you receive it. Proofs can be based on reason and science. Use your reason. Don't stop searching.
God made you without your help, he will not save you without your help. Saint Catherine of Sienna - patron Saint of Europe.
Sounds like God could be standing in front of you and you would not believe. The closer you get to God the more black and white everything becomes. Everything makes sense. Stay away and you will never find him. Know this though, your soul will live forever. Life is so much easier when you find God. Don't run from him, God's mercy is more powerful than anyone's sin.
Q
Bryancampbell,
I can assure you that the scientific community at large would be the first to ostracize a scientist that makes up their results. A well-known example is Jan Hendrik Schön, who was stripped of his doctorate after evidence surfaced that he had fabricated data. The central issue is reproducibility. If other scientists cannot run the same experiment and achieve the same results, your work either goes nowhere or you get investigated for academic misconduct.
As far as scientific disagreement, it is fairly common. However, regarding scientific issues in which the Christian community becomes involved, like evolution, the consensus among experts is fairly broad. There are always a handful of stragglers that ensure you never reach 100% consensus but I'll accept 99% consensus among the world's biologists as not indicating disagreement.
You make a good point about these ideas fitting in with what you believe. You should always remember that science began as "natural philosophy". Science is the philosophy of the natural world. Therefore, science is literally incapable of answering questions about the supernatural. Science merely informs us about how the natural world works. It says nothing about the supernatural, i.e. whether or not god exists, who god is, etc. I think it's perfectly rational for science and faith to go hand in hand.
I can assure you that the scientific community at large would be the first to ostracize a scientist that makes up their results. A well-known example is Jan Hendrik Schön, who was stripped of his doctorate after evidence surfaced that he had fabricated data. The central issue is reproducibility. If other scientists cannot run the same experiment and achieve the same results, your work either goes nowhere or you get investigated for academic misconduct.
As far as scientific disagreement, it is fairly common. However, regarding scientific issues in which the Christian community becomes involved, like evolution, the consensus among experts is fairly broad. There are always a handful of stragglers that ensure you never reach 100% consensus but I'll accept 99% consensus among the world's biologists as not indicating disagreement.
You make a good point about these ideas fitting in with what you believe. You should always remember that science began as "natural philosophy". Science is the philosophy of the natural world. Therefore, science is literally incapable of answering questions about the supernatural. Science merely informs us about how the natural world works. It says nothing about the supernatural, i.e. whether or not god exists, who god is, etc. I think it's perfectly rational for science and faith to go hand in hand.
Q
I would first have to rule out natural explanations. Schizophrenia is a real disease. I wouldn't immediately assume that it's god talking to me if a simpler natural phenomenon explained the situation. The ancient Greeks thought lightning was Zeus being angry. I would want to explore (and rule out) natural options before going with supernatural explanations. I don't think that's unreasonable...
- Status