Are religious descriptions of science deliberately deceiving?

Seattle said:
It would seem to me that most articles published in religious oriented publications describing science are deliberately deceiving. I've read quite a few articles and they are mostly deceptive and seemingly deliberately so.
Click to expand...

You might need to read more widely. Here's Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, a Christian journal devoted to science and religion whose scientific articles are often very good.

https://network.asa3.org/page/PSCF?

Here's one of the articles from this journal, by a committed Christian in a Christian publication, that serves as a pretty good survey article on human evolution. It should be a valuable read, even for most atheists:

https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2014/PSCF9-14Wilcox.pdf

Here's Religion and Science - Historical and Contemporary Issues, a book by Ian Barbour, a Christian with a physics PhD who subsequently veered off into philosophy, that constitutes a very valuable introduction to the history and philosophy of science. (Far more sophisticated than anything that the "new atheists" have ever put out.) I read this book years ago and it influenced me.

https://www.amazon.com/Religion-Science-Gifford-Lectures-Barbour/dp/0060609389

There are many other places that seem to me to try to approach the science/religion interface in an informed manner.

Here's an explicitly religious (and very research-productive place) where the science is impeccable:

http://www.vaticanobservatory.va/content/specolavaticana/en.html

These are interesting too:

https://www.issr.org.uk/

https://biologos.org/

To describe the Big Bang or stellar formation or Evolution or whatever it takes a certain familiarity with the subject so when you see misstatements it appears to me to be deliberately done.
Click to expand...

To discuss anything, it helps to know something about it. That goes for atheists as much as for religious people (not all of whom are theists).

I'm often appalled by how crude atheists' knowledge is of the breadth and scope of human religiosity. Far too often, "religion" turns into a caricature, where "religion" = "Christianity" = the most extreme examples of "Protestant fundamentalism". Too often we see atheists pronouncing confidently on theology, religious doctrine and philosophy of religion, to say nothing of logic, metaphysics and epistemology, without having ever studied any those subjects and in almost complete ignorance of them. Given that some of these atheists have advanced degrees in their own subjects (whether theoretical physics or evolutionary biology) and are respected university professors, I can only conclude that it's "deliberately done".
 
Last edited:
Yazata said:
Far too often, "religion" turns into a caricature, where "religion" = "Christianity" = the most extreme examples of "Protestant fundamentalism".
Click to expand...
That's more common among theists arounds here. It's often the frame of the discussion as set by the dominant Christian evangelists in the US. And calling it "caricature" seems a bit odd - caricatures are not ordinarily self-generated.
As for "extreme": read "dominant, mainstream". Calling the predominant beliefs and behaviors of the common run "extreme" misleads.
Yazata said:
Too often we see atheists pronouncing confidently on theology, religious doctrine and philosophy of religion, to say nothing of logic, metaphysics and epistemology, without having ever studied any those subjects and in almost complete ignorance of them.
Click to expand...
And somehow getting it right, pronouncing accurately - which must be a bit disconcerting to the properly studious.
Yazata said:
Given that some of these atheists have advanced degrees in their own subjects (whether theoretical physics or evolutionary biology) and are respected university professors, I can only conclude that it's "deliberately done".
Click to expand...
It is difficult to get things right by accident - assuming deliberation and purpose seems reasonable.
Yazata said:
Here's Religion and Science - Historical and Contemporary Issues, a book by Ian Barbour, a Christian with a physics PhD who subsequently veered off into philosophy, that constitutes a very valuable introduction to the history and philosophy of science. (Far more sophisticated than anything that the "new atheists" have ever put out.)
Click to expand...
Less sophisticated about the current situation of religion and science than Daniel Dennett's writings.
Scholarship and learned exposition are valuable and worthy endeavors, but this, say - https://serc.carleton.edu/sp/library/sac/examples/barbour.html - has little bearing on the current Western conflict between "religion" (actually: Christianity and Islam's politically dominant sects) and science. Its sophistication is largely irrelevant in that particular matter.
Yazata said:
I'm often appalled by how crude atheists' knowledge is of the breadth and scope of human religiosity.
Click to expand...
The breadth and scope of ivory tower philosophizing has no necessary claim on the attention of people with other concerns.
On this forum it's the theists, not the atheists, who have been the more difficult to shake loose from insular assumptions about human religiosity - such as all religions have gods, say, or that these gods are all variations and manifestations of one true God, or that all humans have a natural tendency to believe in God which atheists have rebelled against.
 
Here is a tit bit for thought

Group on TV talking about how Christianity was the most persecuted religion, far more so than others

OK so what are the persecuting people saying about Christians?

For me probably 3 main messages

We don't want you here, go away and/or

We are happy with the religion we have and/or

Your teachings are crap

So is the drive to get converts the turn off?

:)
 
I think most people are content to live and let live. Unfortunately, it's the more extreme of all sides of an issue that are usually the most vocal. In other words, you seldom hear from the more moderate and rational people. The mundane average Joe doesn't make the news.
 
Michael 345 said:
We don't want you here, go away and/or

We are happy with the religion we have and/or

Your teachings are crap
Click to expand...
Only Christians would consider that persecution.
OTH, what they have done to Jews, Muslims, Native Americans N&S, Native Australians, Africans, Hindu's and assorted pagans - well, that's not persecution; that's just setting people straight, bringing them the Good News.
 
gmilam said:
I think most people are content to live and let live. Unfortunately, it's the more extreme of all sides of an issue that are usually the most vocal. In other words, you seldom hear from the more moderate and rational people. The mundane average Joe doesn't make the news.
Click to expand...
Bothsides is bullshit.

When the average and mundane Joe votes and cheers for W's invasion of Iraq, they make the news. When 63 million of them vote for a fascist demagogue because they like what he says and stands for, they make the news.

But not for their live and let live preferences.
 
Bowser said:
Science explores reality on purely mechanical terms--they are more concerned with the external Universe.
Spirituality explores reality on purely spiritual terms--they are more concerned with the internal Universe.

As it stands now, neither can proclaim authority over the other.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, they often try to do just that.
 
wegs said:
So, did he hear a calling from God to bilk people out of money to support him reconstructing this ark, in order to make even more money by turning it into a cheap theme park? Cringe.
Click to expand...
Hey, Ken Hamm can use his money however he wants! I don't even have an issue of him getting donations for it, as long as it is very clear that the donations are for building his Ark thing.
 
billvon said:
Hey, Ken Hamm can use his money however he wants! I don't even have an issue of him getting donations for it, as long as it is very clear that the donations are for building his Ark thing.
Click to expand...
That’s fine, I’ll still cringe.
 
wegs said:
That’s fine, I’ll still cringe.
Click to expand...
I sort of want to go to see it; just to see his silly rationalizations trying to explain how Noah and his sons built something that cost Hamm over $150 million and required dozens of cranes, bulldozers and backhoes. Although I might need a few drinks before going in.
 
billvon said:
Unfortunately, they often try to do just that.
Click to expand...
I give science credit for the benefits it brings to the table--modern medicine, technology, and space exploration. I give religion (spirituality) credit for the benefits it brings to the table--meaning, hope, and aspiration to do better.

Now, some will be quick to point out the terrors religion has brought to the world, but I would argue that science has done just as much if not worse. We are capable, despite the best possible use, to turn anything into a tool for destruction--whether that be science or religion.
 
Bowser said:
I give religion (spirituality) credit for the benefits it brings to the table--meaning, hope, and aspiration to do better.
Click to expand...
I see just the opposite in religion - the hopelessness of the ones with the wrong religion and the aspiration to do worse things to the ones with the wrong religion.
... I would argue that science has done just as much if not worse.
Click to expand...
Science may provide the tools but it's politics that uses them - and the politics is often motivated by religion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top