Christianity, Knowledge and Science

Suppose:

quote:

---

Scientists state that, through further study of the properties of [Jews], certain diseases and injuries might become curable or treatable.

---

The "scientists" who made statements similar to that did not base their ideas on religion.You are making a false dichotomy of religion versus science. There is a continuum - scientists who don't believe in God, scientists who do believe in God, believers who accept science, believers who don't accept science... and every nuance in between.Your conclusion about "the channels through which they recieve knowledge" is quite wrong. The same person can receive one kind of knowledge through one channel and another kind of knowledge through a different channel.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

It's the same argument to some people because experimenting on live humans is the same as experimenting on stem cells to some people.Who those people are is not necessarily based on religion. But B also aims for X. Neither does B, necessarily. You're creating a strawman to go with your false dilemna. False dilemna: A and B.Strawman: B disregards evidence.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I don't think that's right either.

quote:

---

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said: 'Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.'

---

Knowledge is not stigmatized. It makes us more like God.You can't separate out the knowledge of evil as "terrible". The knowledge of good and evil is what makes us more like God.But that knowledge doesn't consist of simple answers to hard questions. Knowledge is a heavy responsibility.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Choice has nothing to do with it. "How much" we are like God has nothiing to do with it.The topic is about knowledge and I was pointing out that knowledge is not stigmatized in the first part of Genesis. Far from it. Knowledge makes us "more like God".That's a good thing. That's all. No need to measure it. Rocks didn't eat the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. They are irrelevant to the topic. As I said, the answers are not simple.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

What?The knowledge I'm talking about is the knowledge of good and evil. That is morality.There is no question of "balance" or "power". It's about knowledge - and knowing what is good or evil in a specific situation is the hard part.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Irrelevant.I have the responsibility to act on the knowledge that I do have.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Are we convinced that anything was "stigmatized" (even in the broader sense of that word)? I think "knowledge" is a misnomer in a way. The story seems to be more about explaining why we have the responsibility to use our factual knowledge and our wisdom, instead of blindly "following orders". The "knowledge" is more like an ability to learn. A lot of times, the knowledge of good and evil entails choosing between less-than-perfect options. Take the stem cell issue: Which is worse? Killing a potential life? Or doing less than we can to preserve an existing life?The knowledge of good and evil is not always cut and dried.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

What you're describing sounds more like a political problem than a religious one. "Those in power" can derive their convictions from a lot of sources besides religious ones.In Canada, our politicians make all kinds of irrational decisions based on untestable convictions - but not necessarily religious convictions.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Of course not. I'm saying it is not the only factor and probably not the most important factor.Contrary to your claim, I would say that politics is more likely to stifle scientific inquiry - precisely because politics is more concerned with the "real world" than religion is.I would also suggest that religion can only stifle scientific inquiry through political means. The church can foster individual ignorance but the legislature can make it a national policy.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Paid whom?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

That's pretty silly. Pay Himself by killing Himself?Is it any wonder that people scoff at the "knowledge" that some Christians claim to have?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Hi, bujitsu. Welcome to EvC. As I see it, "making room for faith" is the problem. The attitude that faith is a good thing prompts people to put faith ahead of other things.

quote:

---

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

---

Faith is for things that are not seen. It is not intended to trump things that are seen.If religions saw faith as a backup plan instead of The Plan™, the world would be a better place.

You're misunderstanding the terminology. Evolution is both a theory and a fact.Evolution is observed - there are lots of threads on that here if you choose to seek them out. Evolution is a fact.The "Theory of Evolution" is an explanation of that fact - it explains how evolution works. But faith in science is not valid science. Science has to be objective - different people have to be able to draw the same conclusions from the same observations. AKA "blind faith". I agree. That is why faith in science is not valid.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

As I said, you're not understanding what a theory is. They don't. If you think they do, please give examples. Of course not. Only faith claims to be 100% correct. Your assumption is wrong. I don't "believe" evolution at all. And I'm saying you're wrong. Faith is not allowed in science, precisely because it produces the misconceptions that you have.I repeat, faith is for what is not seen. Science deals only with what we do see. No overlap. You've been duped. There are almost no scientists - Christian or not - who don't accept the fact of evolution.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

That is false, as I have already told you.A Muslim scientist and an atheist scientist and a Buddhist scientist and a Satanist scientist must all set aside their biases to look at the evidence objectively. If they can't see their own biases, somebody else will point them out. The only biases that can survive peer review are ones that nobody can see. (And if nobody can see it, how do you know it's there?)

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC