Rational Christianity - A faith of reason?

quote:

---

but I feel compelled to address one specific observation on your part, that they only have a problem with science when it conflicts with their faith. I don't think this demonstrates an awareness on your part just how deep and complete their rejection of the scientific method is.

---

The following links support my statement that the irrational rejects what conflicts with their faith. Separating Religious Fundamentalist "Science" from ScienceAiG

quote:

---

In field after field after field, all these calculations are denied and denounced by Irrational Christians. They deny basic Chemistry. They deny basic Geology. They deny basic Atomic Theory. They have gone so far as to set up their own version of science, complete with annual meetings of Irrational Christian 'scientists' to present the 'correct' methodology of these basic fields of study to determine conclusions consistent with literal Bible verse.

---

Even here, you state that they are trying to determine conclusions consistent with literal Bible verse. So if it isn't in the Bible there is nothing to be consistent with.If they completely reject the scientific method, are there no irrational Christian computer geeks?

---

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

I'm not in disagreement with anything but the word "only". Rejection of basic fields like Chemistry, Geology, Atomic Theory, Biology, Genetics, Anatomy - do I really need to list out the 95%+ fields of science they reject? - and go so far as to set up their own version of science - that's a profound repudiation. Nearly all fields of science have an immediate conflict with their faith!!To me, your position is like describing someone that rejects almost all language by saying "they only have a problem with words that begin with a letter of the alphabet - except for Q".Their 'scientists' say they only participate in the scientific method until a time when they can break away, when Irrational Christian 'science' will be recognized and replace the scientific method.This message has been edited by atthisaddress, 01-26-2006 02:50 AM

I've been thinking about this for awhile, and I don't see a conflict. When science comes up with an explanation for something like self-awareness, that will be described in terms of the chemicals generated by the sensation, the pathways of the brain utilized, whether it is an adaptation that confers an evolutionary advantage or was just along for the ride, so to speak, as a by-product of having a big brain.Any kind of thought has to use the processes of the brain, for example the emotion of love was the topic of research papers that described in detail the chemicals generated, pathways created and used, etc.What theology will address is the value of these aspects of human consciousness, the abstract concepts and aesthetic experience behind the physical nuts and bolts.I can't see how an abstract concept like Freedom could be defined and measured in the physical world.

quote:

---

I don't understand why one can't build a case for why something is their favorite. It is a rational personal choice based on the fact that that item makes the person happy. Choosing something that makes you happy is not unreasonable. Choosing something that makes you unhappy would be unreasonable or an irrational choice.

---

I would say this is outside of being rational or irrational because it is assigning a personal subjective value - favorite - that can't be measured or examined objectively. Further, the value is based on feelings. I would say that choosing favorite things is natural - we are human.

quote:

---

I suppose we might define a "rational belief" as one for which we can build a case. By this definition, an aesthetic choice would be irrational.

---

As defined, a "rational belief" would not be an aesthetic choice. I don't see how it follows that a personal aesthetic choice based on a value outside of objective measurement would be irrational.I look at this from a different perspective. A rational believer, or belief system, accepts rationality where it applies, the real world.As to religious belief, faith, modern theologists have defined these as having to exist in those elements of human existence that allow us to have self-awareness and the ability to assign an aesthetic, subjective, value. From their viewpoint, those atributes, those abilities are what define us as human, and God - notably undefined, not described as a entity per se - would be only be perceptive to us by that which makes us human. While all of creation can be appreciated and people can look to reality for examining their application of internal values, faith by definition cannot be confirmed in the real world.Just like the generations before them, they seek revelation, but to be accepted as guidance with the humble knowledge of human nature. They are followers of Jesus, accept the mysteries of his life, death and resurrection, but seek a more perfect understanding of these events and his teachings. The belief, faith, acceptance and understanding is all internal, the real world is where values are applied to conduct and evaluated for authenticity.

quote:

---

would say this is outside of being rational or irrational because it is assigning a personal subjective value - favorite - that can't be measured or examined objectively.

---

What are you trying to examine objectively or measure?There have been studies that can show how certain things affect people emotionally. Color TherapyColors do have an affect on us whether they are our favorites or not.

---

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

quote:

---

I'm not in disagreement with anything but the word "only". Rejection of basic fields like Chemistry, Geology, Atomic Theory, Biology, Genetics, Anatomy - do I really need to list out the 95%+ fields of science they reject?

---

No, but to make your point and disprove mine, you would need to show that they reject scientific results concerning things that are not addressed in the Bible. I'm talking about their actions, not just their words. A group who rejects anatomy, IMO, would not agree to xrays or major surgery.Christian Fundamentalism, which is what you are labeling as the irrational Christian, is divided into three groups: Flat-earthers, Geocentrists, and Creationists.The flat-earthers, and geocentrists have pretty much died out due to scientific discoveries. The creationists are still hanging on, but they don't believe the earth is flat or the center of the universe, so IMO they do accept scientific results when they don't conflict with their belief system.

quote:

---

Nearly all fields of science have an immediate conflict with their faith!!

---

Do they reject the entire field or a subset of the field?My reason for going this route is because, IMO, your two groups of Christians are doing the same thing. They have no problem with science until it conflicts with their foundational beliefs.The irrational Christian has problem with the evolution theory because it clashes with their idea of creation, but they do accept that the earth rotates around the sun, which does not clash with their beliefs.The Rational Christian has no problem with evolution, but will balk when evidence is used to deny the resurrection as an event.Most people of faith will have a problem with anything that threatens their belief system. Belief systems vary.Even in the scientific world, scientists battle to hang on to their pet theories, trying to prove the other guy wrong. What's the difference?

quote:

---

Their 'scientists' say they only participate in the scientific method until a time when they can break away, when Irrational Christian 'science' will be recognized and replace the scientific method.

---

If they come up with a method that can provide cures for illnesses, or predict storms, etc.; is that method necessarily wrong?

---

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

quote:

---

A group who rejects anatomy, IMO, would not agree to xrays or major surgery.

---

They know anatomy exists, they reject the basic science behind it. They would trust God to guide the hand of the Doctor, so it is still God, the Doctor is his tool. Fundamentalists have a blind spot when it comes to medicine, for all their literal belief there is nothing in the Bible about healing of illness or injury by anyone but God, sometimes through fellow believers. When Jesus healed, he only used the Temple clergy for confirmation.

quote:

---

Flat-earthers, Geocentrists, and Creationists.

---

There are more Geocentrists than you might suspect. I use the same categories, but I use 'cult creationists' to separate them from what I call Rational Christians, who are also creationists, but by natural means.

quote:

---

The irrational Christian has problem with the evolution theory because it clashes with their idea of creation, but they do accept that the earth rotates around the sun, which does not clash with their beliefs.

---

Many of the Fundamentalist denominations were founded after this became widely accepted, they have always translated the language to be similar to the way we say the sun rises and sets.

quote:

---

The Rational Christian has no problem with evolution, but will balk when evidence is used to deny the resurrection as an event.

---

I've given examples of how they have worked that out, even those with the traditional perspective.
.

quote:

---

Even in the scientific world, scientists battle to hang on to their pet theories, trying to prove the other guy wrong. What's the difference?

---

A theory has to have practical application, it must make predictions, it must be falsifiable - it has to show how it could be demonstrated to not explain facts or evidence. It has to be cited or published to have much currency, peer review, then anyone that cares to test it. You'll usually have a resolution, sometimes the resolution is that there is more than one mechanism, that the original subject was more complex than suspected.

quote:

---

:Their 'scientists' say they only participate in the scientific method until a time when they can break away, when Irrational Christian 'science' will be recognized and replace the scientific method...

​

If they come up with a method that can provide cures for illnesses, or predict storms, etc.; is that method necessarily wrong?

---

So far, their 'scientists' have only written 'papers' outside of their field of expertice in the real world. They haven't contributed any new knowledge, these papers are almost always attacks on a scientific staple, charging that a demonstrated result was unreliable, misunderstood, or doesn't agree with scripture. Sometimes a replacement process is offered, but almost always the results - which agree with scripture - can't be falsified, have no predictions, and no real reason for assigning the result a value other than the value agrees with scripture - as they interpret it.

It sounds to me like you're saying that in order to be "human," or perhaps by the very fact that we are human, we have to have faith in some "aesthetic, subjective values." That sounds to me like saying, "Let's make up some beautiful values and believe in them."These values which we make up are subjective and so ultimately arbitrary. There's no way of choosing one value over another. Any old value is as good as another. My value might lie in collecting matchboxes, which I consider beautiful and moreover a symbol of the eternal. The more matchboxes I collect, the better person I am and the more in tune I am with the cosmos.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-26-2006 09:39 AMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-26-2006 09:44 AM

quote:

---

Most people of faith will have a problem with anything that threatens their belief system. Belief systems vary.

---

Absolutely correct, the greatest threat to faith was the way belief was applied. That's what I contend has driven the belief and faith of one branch of Christianity closer and closer to a purely internal existence - but like any aesthetic experience, generated real world emotions and actions - and caused theology to widen it's potential acceptable beliefs. They saw the real world results of unquestioned dogmatic faith, and dogma applied to science.To keep their faith in the face of a world of increasing secular knowledge and moral awareness, Rational Christianity had to break free from the belief that God sanctified and ordained what was the worst of human behavior - mass murder, slavery, human injustice - and that these were proper, even noble pursuits for a Christian to undertake or support. Science too, presented validation for facts that caused incredulity in Biblical claims to the contrary. Theology had to cope, or lose all credibilty.

quote:

---

...by the very fact that we are human, we have to have faith in some "aesthetic, subjective values."

---

Not have faith in them, but hold and experience the faith within the aesthetic.

quote:

---

These values which we make up are subjective and so ultimately arbitrary. There's no way of choosing one value over another.

---

That is where the Church comes in. They will guide you to - as best they understand - the beliefs, now a range of acceptable beliefs, and real world conduct.

That's all very well, but the church just made up these beliefs and values too. I might as well make them up myself.

In a way, you are correct. As long as the conduct you base your beliefs on is within basic morality, that is acceptable to God, and hence, the Church. They will tell you it's a lot harder without their guidance, but possible. This has to do with salvation, which also has a range of acceptable beliefs. Some theology teaches that salvation is to be found here on Earth, not in an afterlife.The Bible has specific images of salvation. Salvation is about light in the darkness, liberation from bondage, return from exile, or reconnection with God. It's about our hunger being satisfied, our thirst being quenched, and so forth. The identification of salvation with going to heaven in much of traditional Christianity only impoverishes the meaning of salvation.Jesus' life, ministry and teaching proclaimed a theology of salvation.
The root meaning - being delivered, brought to safety, set free, restored.
- includes sense of being healed, made whole, coming to fullness of life.
- Jesus said: "I have come that you may have life and have it to the full"
- through most of biblical history, there is no focus on salvation in an afterlife - salvation happens in this life.

quote:

---

They know anatomy exists, they reject the basic science behind it. They would trust God to guide the hand of the Doctor, so it is still God, the Doctor is his tool.

---

That sounds more like rationalizing, not rejecting. I haven't seen any evidence from discussions with fundamentalists that your statement is true or that the average fundamentalist rejects science unrelated to Bible scripture.

---

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