Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster > Christianity

[disgracian]

So what?

 

Cheers,

D.

[marlena]

there are plenty of Christian scientists.

 

I am sure there are ... as there are construction workers, biologists, teachers etc... That is neither here or there. The point I was trying to make is that Christians can not scientifically prove the existence of God as we can, say, prove the existence of gravity. Their belief is based on a book of literary and spiritual value perhaps but of no scientific value at all. They use this piece of literature as a foundation of their faith and a moral guideline to their actions. It in itself provides no proof of the existence of God anymore than Homer´s references to the Olympian gods provide concrete, indisputable proof that they indeed existed.

 

Of course, they did exist in the minds of the ancient Greeks much as God exists in the minds of Christians today. So, in that sense, yes, he does exist but only as a figment of the imagination. Until scientists can irrefutably prove the existence of God, the belief in his existence belongs to the sphere of fantasy.

[electric_sheep]

there are plenty of Christian scientists.

 

Actually, there aren't.

 

Having been a graduate student in 3 different science programs (mathematics, physics, and chemistry. Yeah, I'm indecisive.), I would say the number that would describe themselves as devote Christians was few. Actually, it depends on the science to a large extinct. The mathematics department had more religious people. Biologists tended to be the least religious, I think. I had friends in biology programs, which is how I know.

 

If you think about it though, this sort of makes sense. Scientists are trained to think critically and to be skeptical. The fields themselves rely and require evidence. Ideas and theories have to be testable, and usually they are tested over and over again. Skepticism is built right into science.

 

It's sort of difficult for someone who is used to thinking this way to put it all on hold when it comes to their personal beliefs.

 

Certainly, I know some religious scientists, but usually the way they interpret their religion would be considered abstract or non-traditional. They usually believe in evolution and the Big Bang, too. They believe in a non-interventionist God that essentially designed the original "rules", if you will. They almost ALWAYS demonstrate a degree of doubt, too, and uncertainty. In other words, they realize it's a "belief", not fact. Evangelicals and fundamentalists don't speak about their beliefs in that terminology. So, even if they are religious, it has a different character.

 

BTW, the best chemistry professor I ever had was a Christian. He told us on the last day of class.

 

Anyway, all of this isn't just my impression either. There are surveys to back it up.

 

"They concluded that academics in the natural and social sciences at elite research universities are significantly less religious than the general population. Almost 52 percent of scientists surveyed identified themselves as having no current religious affiliation compared with only 14 percent of the general population. "

 

 

I hate to say it, but I believe that academics, particularly science, may be one of the few social arenas in the US where there is pressure to NOT be religious. Personally, being an atheist/agnostic, I rarely feel comfortable sharing my beliefs (or lack of them, more accurately) with others. I feel right at home among scientists and academics however.

 

 

From yahoo answers:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080108213234AAeWHSr

 

"As you might expect, you find the same range of religious beliefs among scientists as among non-scientists, from atheists to fundamentalists; but the distribution is quite different. There is a much higher percentage of atheism/agnosticism among scientists than the general population, and a smaller percentage of fundamentalism.

 

It was also found that the most distinguished scientists are less religious than their less-well-known colleagues.

 

By the way, when I took one of my exams in graduate school, one of the three faculty members was a physicist who was a fundamentalist Christian. Fundamentalists are rare in science departments, but there are some."

[Moose]

If you think about it though, this sort of makes sense. Scientists are trained to think critically and to be skeptical. The fields themselves rely and require evidence. Ideas and theories have to be testable, and usually they are tested over and over again. Skepticism is built right into science.

 

It's sort of difficult for someone who is used to thinking this way to put it all on hold when it comes to their personal beliefs.

Ok....this is where I have to draw the line with this so called thought process.

 

A True Believer will always be skeptical! And should always think CRITICALLY....I don't believe everything my Pastor, Sunday School Teacher, or any other religeous figure does or says.....I test EVERYTHING according to Scripture, over and over and over again.....there isn't a situation that's come up in my life time or experiences that hasn't been tried and found True in Scripture.

[electric_sheep]

Ok....this is where I have to draw the line with this so called thought process.

 

A True Believer will always be skeptical! And should always think CRITICALLY....I don't believe everything my Pastor, Sunday School Teacher, or any other religeous figure does or says.....I test EVERYTHING according to Scripture, over and over and over again.....there isn't a situation that's come up in my life time or experiences that hasn't been tried and found True in Scripture.

 

Well Moose, I can appreciate that. It's good to know people go back to the source.

 

Of course, if I was playing devil's advocate I'd ask... why don't you question the scripture itself? Question it's source and validity? Shoot, even if you don't question it's "ultimate" source, there is plenty of disagreement about translations, what books to include, etc, etc... Maybe mistakes were made in the Catholic church, and some books should have been included that were not, or vice versa. The Catholic church is primarily responsible for the current Bible we all share today. They are a human organization, and could have made mistakes. Even assuming you agree about it's ultimate source, there still are questions. For example, did God intend his words to be interpreted literally, or figuratively? If the former, then the various translations that have occurred over the years become of supreme importance.

 

Should it be considered a "living" document, in the sense that we should interpret it and try to apply it to current times? If so, we may have to extrapolate. For example, the Bible says little about abortion, from what I understand, but it does say "thou shall not kill". Does this apply to abortion? How about to war? (If so, are a lot of our soldiers going to Hell?) How about to the death penalty?

 

Then there is the question, why stop at the Bible? If God revealed his words once, why not again? Why not to Mohammad? Why not to John Smith (Mormon prophet)?

 

Since these 2 books came later, is it safe to say that where there is disagreement, they should take precedence?

 

If you are inclined to think those books are not divinely inspired, what is the basis of your skepticism? Plenty of people think they ARE the word of God, after all.

[electric_sheep]

Nope. There are plenty of them. I had a roommate in college and she was very Christian in values and her faith in God. She is now a successful biomedical engineer. we still email.

 

It's funny how you think one example is enough to generalize to the entire group. So, you having one friend in the sciences takes precedence over me working with chemists and physicists everyday for years?

 

Needless, to say, I wouldn't rely on my personal experience either. I suppose it's conceivable I could have randomly found myself amongst a group of particularly unreligious scientists. That's why I posted a couple of studies, for what they are worth. What exactly they are worth is, of course, somewhat a question for sociologists and statisticians.

 

The one fact that seems clear though is, for whatever reason a large percentage of scientists REPORT that they are not religious.

[electric_sheep]

You are doing the same thing you claim Christians are doing.....relying on "faith" that He doesn't exist.

 

Actually, I'm agnostic.

 

At least, I'm what Dawkins calls a "tooth-fairy" agnostic. Meaning, just like there is a chance there is a personal God, and Jesus was his son, there is a chance that there is a tooth-fairy. There is also a chance that there is a tea pot orbiting the Sun.

 

I think the terms atheism and agnostic sometimes get misused. Perhaps we are all agnostics deep down? That's why it's called "belief", after all.

 

I think the definition may be... to be an atheist is to BELIEVE that a personal God is unlikely. The number of people who emphatically state that they KNOW, without a shadow of a doubt, that there is no personal God, is probably pretty small, and most of them are likely immature 18 yo kids trying to get on peoples nerves.

 

Now, the number of people who state they KNOW, without a doubt, that there IS a God, is actually quite large. A lot of us find this irritating. This irritation also partly explains all those 18 yo atheists.

[Moose]

Of course, if I was playing devil's advocate I'd ask... why don't you question the scripture itself? Question it's source and validity? Shoot, even if you don't question it's "ultimate" source, there is plenty of disagreement about translations, what books to include, etc, etc... Maybe mistakes were made in the Catholic church, and some books should have been included that were not, or vice versa. The Catholic church is primarily responsible for the current Bible we all share today. They are a human organization, and could have made mistakes. Even assuming you agree about it's ultimate source, there still are questions. For example, did God intend his words to be interpreted literally, or figuratively? If the former, then the various translations that have occurred over the years become of supreme importance.

 

Should it be considered a "living" document, in the sense that we should interpret it and try to apply it to current times? If so, we may have to extrapolate. For example, the Bible says little about abortion, from what I understand, but it does say "thou shall not kill". Does this apply to abortion? How about to war? (If so, are a lot of our soldiers going to Hell?) How about to the death penalty?

 

Then there is the question, why stop at the Bible? If God revealed his words once, why not again? Why not to Mohammad? Why not to John Smith (Mormon prophet)?

 

Since these 2 books came later, is it safe to say that where there is disagreement, they should take precedence?

 

If you are inclined to think those books are not divinely inspired, what is the basis of your skepticism? Plenty of people think they ARE the word of God, after all.

I've dealt with many of "devil advocates" and this is the argument used by all of them.

 

If you know the Bible cover to cover and read it as it was intended considering the context, genre, time and places it makes PERFECT sense....cover to cover.....

 

You can't just read it in bits and peices and expect it to make sense......

[electric_sheep]

OK, then right there your argument is blown. Sorry.

 

I don't see exactly how my argument is blown.

 

I acknowledge that there is a chance their exists a conscious creator entity we can all call God (however slim). I also acknowledge there is a chance that he has revealed himself to us in the form of the flying spaghetti monster.

[electric_sheep]

I've dealt with many of "devil advocates" and this is the argument used by all of them.

 

If you know the Bible cover to cover and read it as it was intended considering the context, genre, time and places it makes PERFECT sense....cover to cover.....

 

You can't just read it in bits and peices and expect it to make sense......

 

Well, since it all makes perfect sense to you...

 

What about all those soldiers?

What about the death penalty?

What about abortion?

 

Does the Bible make exceptions for it's commandment, "thou shall not kill"? Or is it an absolute, inviolable law?

 

Even if it doesn't make exceptions, there is the issue of when life begins. A question that is not relevant to prisoners and enemy combatants.

[Moose]

What about all those soldiers?

What about the death penalty?

What about abortion?

 

Does the Bible make exceptions for it's commandment, "thou shall not kill"? Or is it an absolute, inviolable law?

Scripture clearly deals with all of these issues.

 

We are commanded to, "render to Caesar what is Caesar's" in Matt 22:21

 

Even pay our taxes that were clearly not used to reinforce Christian morality in Romans 13:7

 

We are commanded to submit to mandated rulers in Titus 3:1

 

We are to submit to ALL authority assigned by our Government in 1 Peter 2:13

 

Even to the King and lesser officials in 1 Peter 2:17

 

This of course doesn't restrict us in any way as far as obeying God. When our leaders or rulers commands us to break God's moral laws.....that's when it gets hairy....

 

"For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it" (James 2:10).

 

That's why we need Christ to be the snow white covering over the dung that we truly are.....

[FleshNBones]

I acknowledge that there is a chance their exists a conscious creator entity we can all call God (however slim). I also acknowledge there is a chance that he has revealed himself to us in the form of the flying spaghetti monster.

The problem here is creditability. You see scientists as being creditable. You don't seem to think the religious leaders are very creditable at all.

 

Do you think the people who "witnessed" the flying spaghetti monster are creditable? Do you think there is anything overtly political about it?

Political people like to make caricatures of the people they don't like. Why go through the trouble if he didn't exist?

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.everythingweird.com/images/statue-of-liberty-smack-george-bush_49.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.everythingweird.com/entry/statue-of-liberty-smack-george-bush/&h=539&w=400&sz=49&hl=en&start=17&tbnid=0ny4hC1CiOHOWM:&tbnh=132&tbnw=98&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgeorge%2Bbush%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

[FleshNBones]

Well, since it all makes perfect sense to you...

 

What about all those soldiers?

What about the death penalty?

What about abortion?

 

Does the Bible make exceptions for it's commandment, "thou shall not kill"? Or is it an absolute, inviolable law?

 

Even if it doesn't make exceptions, there is the issue of when life begins. A question that is not relevant to prisoners and enemy combatants.

There is one reason why the church leadership was formed. The pope (the only legitimate leader for Catholics) is there to address the modern day problems, and help keep the church on track.

 

God is the ultimate judge. I wouldn't want defend taking the life of one of his own for the sake of convenience. Convenience is never a good excuse.

 

I believe Jesus said that saving the world and losing your soul in the process is unnecessary.

[Enema]

because a large percentage of the population in general aren't a religious group.

 

Now that's just flat out wrong.

 

The vast majority of the world is religious.

 

The fact that such a large percentage of scientists is non-religious is a telling statistic, regardless of the fringe percent that clings to their religious beliefs.

[I Luv the Chariot OH]

I don't disagree that a large percentage of scientists aren't religious, because a large percentage of the population in general aren't a religious group.

Like the person above me said, the vast majority of the world (especially western) actually IS religious. According to wikipedia. 33% of the world is Christian (and those numbers are way higher in North America, where it's the dominant religion). What happens, though, is there is a mass underrepresentation of Christian people in "educated" fields like science (this was also my experience at university--even in my religious studies classes, almost nobody was Christian).

 

Not sayin' anything, just sayin'

[disgracian]

I test EVERYTHING according to Scripture, over and over and over again

I'm sure you do, in the same way that people think they're studying the Bible by repeatedly reading it and memorising passages. It's a very common form of myopia though. Do you actually test the scripture itself against reality though? I'm sure you will come back and proclaim in all manner of bold, italics, allcaps and underlined text that you have. But I of course will remain dubious because I think you're exhibiting a very common pattern of thinking among believers.

 

Cheers,

D.

[disgracian]

That's why we need Christ to be the snow white covering over the dung that we truly are.....

Speak for yourself.

 

Right now I see so many parallels between believers such as yourself and battered wife syndrome. No wonder so many believers fall over themselves in praise for a god-figure that does nothing for them but convince them of their own worthlessness. No wonder they view themselves as children (which, emotionally they are) blindly follow any authority figure (thanks for quoting verses in support of this).

 

What a vile religion you follow. This is not aimed at you, but at that which has enslaved your mind and your soul.

 

Cheers,

D.

[disgracian]

Why go through the trouble if he didn't exist?

Why go to the trouble of witnessing to people who have other beliefs if their gods don't exist?

 

Cheers,

D.

[elaina]

Why go to the trouble of witnessing to people who have other beliefs if their gods don't exist?

 

Cheers,

D.

 

Let's say that you believe that people who do not know Jesus as their Savior would go to hell when they die. If you loved and cared for other people, then wouldn't you want to witness to them and tell them about Jesus?

 

That's why Christians witness, cause they care about the "afterlife" you could say, or eternity, and based on beliefs, want people to be forever ok, you see what I mean?

 

Peace and God bless

[FleshNBones]

Why go to the trouble of witnessing to people who have other beliefs if their gods don't exist?

 

Cheers,

D.

You seriously think people are trying to convert you in a thread with this title.

Seriously...

[disgracian]

That's why Christians witness, cause they care about the "afterlife" you could say, or eternity, and based on beliefs, want people to be forever ok, you see what I mean?

Likewise, I speak up because I care as well. I want people to recognise their kinship with every other human and living creature on this planet (and the planet as well for that matter) because I think it's vital to the continued survival of the species. This cannot be accomplished with the exclusivist and horribly primitive and tribal belief systems we have today.

 

Cheers,

D.

[disgracian]

You seriously think people are trying to convert you in a thread with this title.

Seriously...

What on earth are you babbling about now? You do not appear to grasp what is being said here at all.

 

Cheers,

D.

[FleshNBones]

What on earth are you babbling about now? You do not appear to grasp what is being said here at all.

 

Cheers,

D.

The spaghetti monster is about as noble as Sambo. There is no legitimate argument or truth here. It is all one big joke.

The people here seem to be taking you guys seriously.

 

I can just as easily say that you are and other athiests/agnostics are transvestites from transsexual transylvania here for the purpose of fulfilling some sick fantasy, and tell you to prove me wrong.

[disgracian]

As I said before, you speak as somebody who hasn't the first clue what is going on here. I suppose that's what happens when you spend your life taking things literally instead of reading between the lines.

 

Cheers,

D.

[electric_sheep]

He may have one, but I know several. Some work for NASA and a few others for contractors and one in medical research. I don't disagree that a large percentage of scientists aren't religious, because a large percentage of the population in general aren't a religious group.

 

This is sort of disintegrating into idiocy, and I'm not even sure anymore why it matters if scientists are religious or not. I'm not invested in the answer one way or the other. The religious defendants on this thread certainly don't care what science or scientists think or have to say, so I'm not sure why the answer is relevant to them.

 

I was reading the thread, and I simply noticed the statement because it's completely contrary to what I've experienced in the 10 or so years I've spent in the field of science, be it in academia or industry. So, I googled, just being curious. It was just natural curiosity, that's all.

 

The studies I found show that scientists are NOT as religious as the general population, or at least they report that they are not. I couldn't find any studies that contradicted this. If someone knows of some, I'd be interested (curious). That's just the way I am, I suppose... curious. Now, of course, one can always question the studies, which is fine. I don't have the resources to perform my own study.