Why did science emerge from Christian culture?
One compelling answer to that thorny question comes in a new book by Trinity Western University professor Paul Chamberlain. It’s titled Why People Don’t Believe: Confronting Seven Challenges to Christian Faith (Baker Books).
In a section titled “Christianity’s Surprising Contribution to Science,” Chamberlain tries to answer a question once posed by atheist mathematician-philosopher Bertrand Russell.
“Russell expected that the growth of Chinese science would have far surpassed Western science. What went wrong? It appears he failed to notice what {his colleague, Alfred North} Whitehead saw, that the concept of a conscious Creator, which gave birth to science in the West, was virtually absent from Chinese culture, and that for this reason science didn’t grow as it did in the West.”
Continue reading at blogs.vancouversun.com
It is very simple. The Bible offers the only rational explanation of origins, and understands that God operates His universe according to basic scientific laws. It's no wonder, then, that Bible-believing scientists would be the first to discover those laws, such as Boyle's Law (Robert Boyle), Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion (Johannes Kepler), and Newton's 3 Laws of Motion (Isaac Newton), just to name a few. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencef…
-keyboardsharkYet, according to the bible, god made the sun stand still, which violates those basic scientific principles.
-Jeff DixonLast time I checked Jeff, God can do whatever He wants–by definition.
-Joe AnzilottiThat may be the definition, but according to the bible, god is not all powerful.
"And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."
-Jeff Dixon—Judges 1:19
Here is a robot again no matter all the arguments and explanation he received… You are a spamming spasmodic ignoranus with agenda Dixon.
-DespevilleThe Koran has 114 chapters. Surahs, I think the Mohammedans call them. Now, if your god did indeed exist, would it be able to arrange in serial order those 114 chapters in an infinite number of ways?
Well, no. It could do so in only 114*113*112…3*2*1 ways. There are other ways, too, to demonstrate the necessary limitations to omnipotence, if even any such power is possible. For example, can your god make 1=3? Well, no. BY DEFINITION of the words 'one' and 'three', one does not equal three as would have to be the case if your god exists. Thus, your god, allegedly a trinity, is imaginary.
Also, your imaginary god is supposed to be a necessarily extant being. So it would be unable to commit suicide even if it did exist. Furthermore, the imaginary god, if it existed, would be unable to cite the highest number, there always being a number larger than any which is stated. And if the god were necessarily good, then it wouldn't be able to do evil deeds. This would be a severe, and ironic, limitation upon its will given the fact that humans most certainly do have such freedom of the will and the capacity to exercise such freedom.
-Paul TrombleyAnd if you would be sane you would not tromp this rubbish Paul Trombley.
-DespevilleHumpty, there is a difference between offering an actual, rational explanation and offering your mindless ramblings. Your delusion will not permit you to grasp the difference.
-Jeff DixonTwo lines and zero of substance. Specialty of the 13th imam of atheism Dixon
-DespevilleSaith the liar, Despeville.
-Jeff DixonJeff. No need for constant strife.
-DespevilleThis life is a vanishing blur. Get real focus this year.
May God extend His mercy to you and open your eyes to His truth through Jesus Christ the Lord
in this New Year 2012.
Amen.
I prefer not to embrace delusion. However, I hold nothing against you. May you have a good year too. Hopefully, you will be able to break free of this mind-set at some point in your life.
-Jeff Dixon"And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain…" The "he" refers to Judah, not God. No chariot nor any weapon, including a hydrogen bomb, is any match for God. It was simply not His plan to let Judah drive out the inhabitants of the valley.
-keyboardsharkMy friend KBS, Jeff there has a problem grasping God's abilities. Nothing new though.
-Joe AnzilottiYou're correct, Joe, but from a spiritual perspective it's understandable:
-keyboardshark"And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father." ( John 6:65)
No, rather you have a problem grasping that his supposed attributes cannot exist together.
For example, god cannot be all knowing and all powerful.
-Jeff DixonJeff sez: "For example, god cannot be all knowing and all powerful. "
I fail to see why they are mutually exclusive.
-keyboardsharkThe Christian god is considered to be all powerful and all knowing. That is not possible. If god is all powerful, then he can make any change that he wants. However, if he is all knowing, then he already knows how everything will turn out. If he makes a change, then something new occurred that he was not previously aware of. He, therefore, would not be all knowing. However, if he does not know everything, then he can’t be all powerful, as there is something he does not have complete control over. The two concepts are mutually exclusive. Just as a cubic circle cannot exist, the biblical god cannot exist either.
-Jeff Dixon"If god is all powerful, then he can make any change that he wants. However, if he is all knowing, then he already knows how everything will turn out." True, he can make a change if He wants and He would already know the outcome.
"If he makes a change, then something new occurred that he was not previously aware of. He, therefore, would not be all knowing. " What do you mean by a "change"? A change from what? If He makes what WE perceive to be a change, it would be nothing new to Him because as the all-knowing God, He already knows what the effect would be. You are basing your reasoning on the assumption that something "new" could occur that He was not aware of. That is begging the question.
You also said IF. God already has a predeterminate plan for the universe, so He has no need to change anything, even though WE might perceive it as a change. If we start with the second concept, that He is all knowing, then there could not possibly be a "new" occurrence that He was not previously aware of, nor would He need to make any change to accomodate this non-existent event.
-keyboardsharkHe cannot make a change if he wants. That implies the original course of action needed to be corrected. That means he was mistaken about how he was proceeding. You are not thinking through the ramifications of your comments.
-Jeff DixonAgain Jeff, who are you to impose your "rules" on what the Almighty God can or cannot do?
-Joe AnzilottiJoe, I am not imposing my rules on anything. I am merely pointing out the absurdity of the Christian belief system.
-Jeff DixonJeff, we have established already that you have a patent for absurdity so why do you want to share it now?
-DespevilleComments from his His Most Inane Poster, Defender of the Delusion, Protector of the Rabbit Hole, Sovereign of the Most Ancient and Most Ignoble Order of the Big Lie, Sovereign of the Order of the Companions of Deceit, Sovereign of the Most Venerable Order of the Windbag.
-Jeff DixonDepends on how you define a "change". Is it a change from our perspective, or a change God has to make because something unforseen to Him occurred? If it is a change from our perspective, then yes, He could make a "change" if He wanted.
It was you who postulated "if He makes a change", so maybe the better response on my part should have been, "He cannot make a change because it would indicate something unforseen occurred that caused Him to change His plan, and since He is all-knowing, nothing unforseen COULD occur" . So anything WE perceive as a change is really not a change at all, but part of His predetermined plan already in place.
-keyboardsharkThere is no change from our perspective, for we do not know what the outcome was supposed to be. It can only change from his perspective, and that is impossible, as you have just agreed with.
-Jeff DixonThat depends. What if the moon suddenly shifted its orbit. Wouldn't we consider that a change? We know the orbit the moon is supposed to take because it has always done so, and if it shifted, it would certainly be perceived as a change to us.
-keyboardsharkI was discussing the actions of people, not the path of celestial objects.
-Jeff DixonJeff, you need an intermission. Click on my nick if you have not before…
-DespevilleOK, if we are talking about people, then you are correct. We would not know ahead of time what someone might do because we cannot read their mind, nor do we even know for certainty what we might do, because circumstances can change, causing us to veer off our planned path. But as God is all-knowing, He can know what a person will do in the future, so we would have to say that God would not make a change based on an unforseen act of man, because it would not be unforseen. I hope you are thoroughly confused by now, LOL.
-keyboardsharkHowever, he is supposedly all powerful as well. Therefore, he COULD make a change. However, as you just pointed out he would not be making any changes based on an unforeseen act of man, because it would not be unforeseen by an all knowing deity. However, that places a limit on him, and he is no longer all powerful.
The two powers are mutually exclusive, they cannot co-exist together.
-Jeff DixonGod also cannot sin. I guess if you want to call that a limit, then you could. God also cannot change His mind about saving a certain portion of the human race, so again, you could technically call that a limit as well.
But keep in mind, these are all self-imposed limits by God Himself. And He never changes. Same goes for your example. He could not make a change because He Himself has already predetermined and foreseen everything that anyone would ever do. He has imposed these limits upon Himself.
The better question to ask would be, "Is there any external (outside of God Himself) factors or events that would place a limit on God's power? The answer, of course, is no.
-keyboardsharkI think I remember trouncing Jeff Dixon on BSLSD's (aka MSNBC) bulletin-board about 13 years ago–to which I added the subtle comment of his celebrating 04/01 as a holiday.
-Devasahayam13 years ago, I did not even own a computer and was not posting comments online. Your memory is as pathetic as this idiotic comment.
-Jeff DixonToo bad you did not go to a real college with real program back then.
-DespevilleIt would spare are a large dose of your imbecility.
Despeville, His Most Inane Poster, Defender of the Delusion, Protector of the Rabbit Hole, Sovereign of the Most Ancient and Most Ignoble Order of the Big Lie, Sovereign of the Order of the Companions of Deceit, Sovereign of the Most Venerable Order of the Windbag.
-Jeff DixonAnd, btw, many translaters say you are wrong and the "he" does refer to god.
-Jeff DixonIt could be translated either way. But since we know that God is all-powerful, we would be justified in assuming the "he" refers to Judah.
-keyboardsharkIf it can go either way, then it can easily be taken that "he" refers to god, which means he cannot overcome iron.
-Jeff DixonNo, I said it could be translated either way. Since it is not clear from the way the passage is constructed, we have to look for other clues which would help us determine who it refers to. And since we already know that God is all-powerful, from other passages in the Bible…
"Touching the Almighty, we cannot find him out: he is excellent in power, and in judgment, and in plenty of justice: he will not afflict." (Job 37:23)
"He ruleth by his power for ever; his eyes behold the nations: let not the rebellious exalt themselves. Selah." (Psalm 66:7)
"Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite." (Psalm 147:5)
"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." (Rev. 1:8)
… we can then conclude that "he" refers to Judah who was not able to drive out the inhabitants.
-keyboardsharkActually, I should correct myself. It is translated as "he" in any case. The only thing that is not clear is whether the "he' refers to God or to Judah, but from the other information we have we can conclude it was Judah. The Hebrew word itself is still translated as "he".
-keyboardsharkActually He spun it around in the opposite direction. After all, He created the universe and set all its functions in place and He can do whatever He pleases with it. Many years ago I had a Universiy professor who mocked God with the samething; didn't make any difference back then either. In case you missed it on the last post…
-msjallenColossians 1:15-17 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things have been created through Him and for His purpose. He is before all things, and by Him all things hold together.
Jeff sez: "Yet, according to the bible, god made the sun stand still, which violates those basic scientific principles."
-keyboardsharkSince God created the basic scientific principles, He certainly has the ability, and the right, to override them if He chooses for a special purpose.
The sun is not moving around the earth. He would not be making it stand still. He would actually be making the earth stand still. Your grasp of science is dismal. But, the verse also shows that the men who wrote the bible did not understand cosmology either.
-Jeff DixonGosh, thanks for jolting me to the realization that the earth moves around the sun, Jeff. I had no clue.
But seriously, from earth's perspective, it appeared that the sun stood still. It was Joshua who spoke the words: "and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day." (Joshua 10:12-13) (my emphasis)
What was written is true. The sun stood still, as it always does, and did not set for about a whole day. No explanation of planetary motion is necessary for the facts to remain true as observed from earth. Obviously, it was the earth that stopped its rotation, but the statement is still true: the sun stood still and did not set over the horizon as it would have had the earth been rotating.
-keyboardsharkSince you said that your god could stop the sun, it does appear you were unaware of the correct information.
-Jeff DixonThe motion of any object is only valid when compared to something else. Even though the Sun orbits the center of the Milky Way Galaxy at about 225 Km/sec, and our Galaxy itself has a motion in its Local Group of galaxies of about 100 Km/sec. we don't notice this motion because earth is held in orbit around the sun. http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae42…
Therefore, disregarding the earth's rotation and discounting the slight motion from earth's revolving around the sun, the sun is already stationary from our vantage point, so God did not need to stop it, nor did I say He did. I said, "Obviously, it was the earth that stopped its rotation". Of course, as God, He could do whatever He wanted to the sun. He could suddenly make it accelerate out of our galaxy if He wanted, or whatever, but in this case, all He needed do was pause earth's rotation and probably its orbit around the sun for a day.
-keyboardsharkAn underlying assumption of science is that the universe is rational and can be understood — otherwise why undertake a systematic study of it?
-KenNotice conspicuous absence of our resident Atheist–Professor Dixon. We all know why.
-Joe AnzilottiYes, the article is silly and not worth bothering with. Rather like you most of the time.
-Jeff DixonThere is nothing they (atheists) can say–of course.
-Joe AnzilottiNo lunacy now Jeff.
-Joe AnzilottiWhat is really interesting is that your first thought is to post something about me. You have an odd fixation. Luckily, I do not have meet you face to face.
-Jeff DixonNo lunacy Jeff. The world does not revolve around you.
-Joe AnzilottiHe thinks it does and what Jeff thinks is the only reality… The epitome of schizophrenia….
-DespevilleHumpty, there is only one reality. It is too bad you will never experience it.
-Jeff DixonI see that your lack of objectivity Jeff is yet optimal on this new year.
-Joe AnzilottiYet your first thought is of me on this site. Scary.
-Jeff DixonYikes, harrassment! Hello, Homeland Security!?
-keyboardsharkIn fact nearly all useful science and truel "science" has come from Christian "cultures"–Objective truth Jeff. The truth can hurt. Sorry.
-Joe AnzilottiIt might if you ever spoke the truth.
-Jeff DixonNote the word "Objective" Professor Jeff. It means it has nothing to do with my surmises… or yours even.
-Joe Anzilotti"All uselful science and truel (sic) 'science' has come from Christian 'cultures.'" Except of course for the zero, algebra, the science of the pagan Greeks, Egyptians, Babylonians, etc.
-SteveThe reason the Chinese and Arabs — who once were far ahead of the Christian west — didn't keep up is that both societies turned inward (the Chinese to Confucism and the Arabs to the Quran) and stopped being open to the ideas and insights of other cultures.
What's worrisome is that many Americans are making exactly the same turn — away from free inquiry and back to an obscurantist reading of our holy Scriptures — that the Chinese and Arabs made centuries ago.
Ah–yes the "zero" and Algebra–right. I did say "nearly all" useful and true science. You are really with it Steve.
-Joe AnzilottiJoe, you have made the zero your personal symbol.
-Jeff DixonThe Pagans have stumbled into some "useful developments" –like gunpowder I suppose.
-Joe AnzilottiAs an aside, after further review, emphasis is on the word "stumbled."
-Joe AnzilottiYes Steve, go google some of the other wonderful inventions by the Pagans. Thanks.
-Joe AnzilottiI believe Google is another useful Pagan development Steve. Your insight is astounding–kind of like the development of the zero.
-Joe AnzilottiYes our culture is really turning "inward"–like into our i-phones! Certainly a joke.
-Joe AnzilottiI don't think Steve was talking about technology, Joe, the fact that so many are turning away from the teaching of God's Word for their lives. This will cause our Nation to go down; not technology but it will follow.
-msjallenYou've got that much right, Steve. Confucism and Islam blinded the minds of those in China and the Middle East, respectively. Christianity, on the other hand, has freed the minds of Westerners to all the scientific achievements thay have been able to accomplish when they kept in mind that the God of the Bible was in control of the universe. "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
Not sure what your definition of "obscurantist reading" of our Holy Scriptures is, but I've got a feeling it is synonymous with "literal".
-keyboardsharkWell? Strangely quiet on this article. Hmmmm.
-Joe AnzilottiYou are probably correct. Atheists in general do not want to hear anything that minimizes their ability to have Bacchanalian "fun"! I have noticed that over the years.
-Joe AnzilottiYes, for all atheists are drinking and whoring it up. Wait, that is the Catholics.
-Jeff DixonYes, the article is crore-percent on the nail.
A factoid of note: God asks Job "where wast thou when I laid the channels of the deep?" (to which Job has no answer); until the 20th century, many ignored this point and thought that the ocean-bottom was relatively flat–but the reality was found that there are indeed canyons undersea which make the Grand Canyon look like an irrigation-ditch.
-DevasahayamMost science is total theory.
-blackhawkIf man can do what God did ;Then maybe I'll believe them.
God created EVERYTHING out of absolute NOTHING. Can science do that.
Maybe if they looked for God science then God might open their minds so instead of theory ;They could present FACTS.
Instead they present this tribble for government money for their theory studies.Follow the money>>>>
And your proof that God created everythingout of absolute nothing is . . . ? That's not what teh Hebrew text of Genesis 1:1-2 says. Three translation are possible:
-Steve“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void"
“When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was without form and void"
“In the beginning of God’s creating of the heavens and the earth—the earth was without form and void"
To combat dualist heresies and to make the story match Aristotelian (i.e. pagan Greek) conceptions of God as the uncaused cause, the church interpreted the story as creation ex hihilo (from nothing) and opted for translation #1. But creation from nothing is a man-made theory, not a literal reading of the God-breathed text.
FACT IS SCIENCE IS A THEORY TO FINE A FACT OR ANSWER TO A PROBLEM.
-BobCan you revise this into a coherent sentence?
-Jeff DixonActually, a better question is why the Christian West lagged so far behind the Chinese, Indians, and Arabs from the 1st to the 15th centuries in discovering scientific facts and apply them to solve practical human problems. Among the many things the West learned from the East were gunpowder, the printing press, the magnetic compass, zero and Arabic numerals, algebra, Aristotelian logic, paper, the rotary winnowing machine, the crank, piston bellows, the seed drill, the horse collar, the crossbow, the chain pump for deep wells, canal locks, segmented arch and suspension bridges, silk, porcelain, the stern post rudder, transverse bulkheads, and watertight compartments for ships, the stirrup, the wheelbarrow, cast iron, the seismograph, the odometer, the procession of the equinoxes, the rotation of the earth, magnetic declination, the true nature of fossils, the cause of lunar eclipses, and more accurate values of pi and the solar year. (continued)
-SteveWhen the Chinese Admiral Zheng He’s treasure fleets reached the Arabian Peninsula between 1405 and 1433, they went no farther, as neither Europe nor the Arabs had much of value to offer the Ming Emperor. By 1600 or so, however, the West had leapfrogged ahead inboth science — both pure and applied — and technology.
-SteveChristianity as such cannot be the answer to the question of what made that leap possible. It was a constant throughout both periods. While the rise of the West coincides (more or less) with the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Portugese, Spaniards, and French were every bit as dominant and successful vis-avis the rest of the world as the Protestant English and Dutch. So the Protestant work ethic isn't the answer, either.
There is no one with out sin we are all sinners and fall far short from the kingdom of God. Jesus is the answer to many of our problems.
-Bill 1776One of the very first 'scientist', was actually created by Jesus. That may sound strange, but the fact is a scientist is one who looks to explain with facts. Part of the role of scientist is to prove doubt wrong, by evidence. Many scientists have become Christians, by that very action. Every time something, stated by scientist false in the Bible, are proven true, some relent…but many harden their hearts even more. One such doubter was even labeled that way. Doubting Thomas. Standing before Jesus, after stating openly he would not believe Jesus was raised from the dead, until he took his own fingers and pushed them through the holes, created by a spear, nails and a whip tearing flesh. Jesus even welcomed it.
-RAM