Rational Christianity - A faith of reason?

Was listening to an evangelical program a couple of days ago. They were using DNA evidence to disprove the claims of Mormons.I think the correct point is that they reject the basic science underlying such DNA tests. To accept that basic science would be to accept evolution. However, they use the technology that arises from the science, at least when that technology is useful to them.

That's why I labeled tham as Irrational. Science is the scientific method, everything else is facts, evidence, questions, testing and analysis. Sure, Irrational Christians drive cars, teach Math, they are even Doctors and scientists too. I didn't say they were consistent - would you expect that from someone profoundly irrational? Their rejection is of the scientific method itself, not just evolution, even if they don't recognize that.

quote:

---

I think the correct point is that they reject the basic science underlying such DNA tests. To accept that basic science would be to accept evolution. However, they use the technology that arises from the science, at least when that technology is useful to them.

---

So they are verbally rejecting only in relation to their belief system. They aren't truly rejecting the technology that arises from science. That smacks of hypocrisy or rationalizing.As I mentioned in Message 28, nothing in the OP shows that the Irrational group considers the scientific method to be any less reasonable than the Rational group. Their problem with science only arises when they feel it conflicts with their faith.If they believe that it supports their faith, they like it, if not, they don't.The average person doesn't know what the underlying science is for DNA testing. I don't. How does the average person accept or not accept the underlying science? Why does accepting it mean I have to accept evolution?The average person doesn't know what the scientific method is. I had to look it up. I see it as a method of problem solving. From my viewpoint the average person does this on a daily basis whether they know it or not.So I find it inaccurate to say that irrational Christians reject the scientific method and branches of science totally. Their actions say otherwise.Now if this grouping is only refering to clergy, then again we have to look at their actions. As you pointed out they use science when it suits their purpose. To me by using it, they accept it.Sometimes I think clergy hang on to irrational ideas because it is job security or lucrative.From the nonfaith perspective, the various Christian faiths contain various degrees of irrational beliefs.

---

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton

The website you linked to, and many people in general, misunderstand the basic underlying philosophy of the scientific method. It demonstrates, it doesn't prove. It isn't in the prove game. All understanding is provisional, subject to revision.When Einstein's theories replaced Newton's, Newton's were not demonstrated to be wrong or incorrect. Einstein's simply described the real world more accurately, and made predictions based on the logic of the theories that were demonstrated to fit future observations.This is where Irrational Christians go beyond the pale, even if by training they know better. They demand proof, from a disipline that by definition, doesn't claim to provide it. That is what their version of "science" purports to provide.

quote:

---

The website you linked to, and many people in general, misunderstand the basic underlying philosophy of the scientific method.

---

Isn't that what I said? So you're saying its not a method of problem solving?
What is the underlying philosophy of the scientific method?

quote:

---

When Einstein's theories replaced Newton's, Newton's were not demonstrated to be wrong or incorrect.

---

I'm not a scientist, which you should have gathered from my statement, but this article on Newton and Einstein seems to disagree with you.

quote:

---

This is where Irrational Christians go beyond the pale, even if by training they know better. They demand proof, from a disipline that by definition, doesn't claim to provide it. That is what their version of "science" purports to provide.

---

To provide proof to support their belief system. From what I can see they are not trying to rewrite the science behind the internal combustion engine or how other technology works.You haven't shown me evidence to say otherwise.

---

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton

quote:

---

I'm not a scientist, which you should have gathered from my statement, but this article on Newton and Einstein seems to disagree with you.

---

Newton made sense in his own time and beyond; that he has been replaced by Einstein in our time is irrelevant.
Our time is no standard for all the ages to come, science is always an interaction of prevailing culture, individual eccentricity expressed as creativity, and empirical constraint. Einstein's theories shall someday be replaced, they are not absolute 'truths' or dogma, but provisional.To quote Martin Luther: "Hier stehe ich, ich kann nicht anders, Gott helfe mir, amen."This message has been edited by atthisaddress, 01-29-2006 04:30 PM

Then I don't understand why you deem the fundamentalist as irrational for not accepting the scientific method and searching for their own method since science is provisional according to you.Not following the crowd is not necessarily irrational.

---

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton

That's for sure!!However, one also has to recognize when one is on a wild goose chase. Those who don't like science as a method for learning have after some decades not even begun to have a glimmer of something else.They cling to a method which, over centuries, showed that it only gets something right on rare, apparently random, occasions.This does start to appear to be irrational after enough time. In fact, we have a number here who claim that rationality is wrong as a way of learning things and are not claiming to attempt to be rational (that is use reason).The arguments they offer never venture into rational discussion unless they decry the fruits of learning things. On that I have to agree that there is caution needed. We seem to have rapidly gotten to a point where our learning outstrips our ability to use it wisely.Of course, a major problem with our ability to use what we learn wisely is that, as a whole, when making decisions about it's use we are NOT rational. It isn't the rational approach that is the problem.Given what we have had good clues about for decades and rather solid support for for years why do we not discourage use of fossil fuels; in fact encourage it? Is this rational? How many examples of this are there?

However Newton produced ways of accurately calculating results over a range of circumstances these methods are NOT exactly right. They are wrong.In addition, his whole understanding of the nature of matter, energy and space and time itself is utterly wrong.What is left is something of practical use not a correct description of the universe.

So do you feel that the average fundamentalist rejects the scientific method of gathering information even when the knowledge doesn't clash with their belief system?Granted they may just be following their clergy, but if they are using technology, then by using it they have accepted the benefits of the knowledge, IMO.

---

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton

I deem them irrational because the scientific method is the rational approach to understanding knowledge in context and describing the natural world. The best we can ever hope to do is build models and compare them to what we observe.
Knowledge advances, perspectives change, observations widen, so the models have to change to account for that.

But from your own comments you've shown that even using the scientific method doesn't mean the results are truly correct. They can eventually be shown to be incorrect. (Eggs are good for you, bad for you, good for you, etc.)So from what I can tell from what you have written, the irrational Christians, use the scientific method (depending on their job) as necessary, but are in the process of trying to find a method that will not lead to the conclusion that reality does not completely support their belief system.So it appears that they only have a problem with the scientific method when they feel that the resulting knowledge threatens their system of belief.In Message 4 you've shown that the rational Christians solved their problem by placing their religion in the supernatural and have deemed it out of reach of science. Is that really more rational?The majority of Christians do deal with the natural world rationally on a daily basis.When it comes to the Christian belief systems, the secular world will see varying degrees of irrationality.

---

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton

quote:

---

But from your own comments you've shown that even using the scientific method doesn't mean the results are truly correct. They can eventually be shown to be incorrect. (Eggs are good for you, bad for you, good for you, etc.)

---

That is the accurate reflection of the state of knowledge and our ability to describe reality. It is the opposite of dogma.

quote:

---

So from what I can tell from what you have written, the irrational Christians, use the scientific method (depending on their job) as necessary, but are in the process of trying to find a method that will not lead to the conclusion that reality does not completely support their belief system.

---

Not exactly. They have come to pre-determined conclusions, and these conclusions are dogma, unchallengable by any observations or evidence - the opposite of the scientific method.
For example, they reject carbon dating, not based on any direct evidence or observations, but simply because it conflicts with their interpretation of the Bible. That isn't a "method" per se, simply a Biblical veto.

quote:

---

So it appears that they only have a problem with the scientific method when they feel that the resulting knowledge threatens their system of belief.

---

Considering that this includes nearly every field of scientific study in one way or another, and empirical conclusions drawn from mathematics, the term "only" is, in my opinion, a modest way to describe it.

quote:

---

In Message 4 you've shown that the rational Christians solved their problem by placing their religion in the supernatural and have deemed it out of reach of science. Is that really more rational?

---

Yes. It removes conflict with demonstrable knowledge.

quote:

---

The majority of Christians do deal with the natural world rationally on a daily basis.

---

The vast majority of Christians belong to denominations that I define as Rational.

quote:

---

When it comes to the Christian belief systems, the secular world will see varying degrees of irrationality.

---

When it comes to supernatural beliefs, sure. But Rational Christians can also accept the natural world and scientific knowledge to the point that they can operate universities, medical schools, hospitals. Irrational Christians don't.This message has been edited by atthisaddress, 02-28-2006 01:48 PM

Can we ever know if we have a "correct" description of the universe? I'm thinking we can know we have an improvement in accuracy, a better description which value is shown by the increaed use it can be put to but my feeling is we can never know that our description won't at some point be discovered to be inadequate at some task.Perhaps you meant something else by correct though. Would you be willing to expand on your statement I've quoted?lfen

Do you really believe there are no objective criteria for judging that this: is more aesthetically pleasing than this?

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible