The Four Silver Bullets (I): Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clause one

» atheist101 - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clause one

In response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clause one posted by Craig93:

Are you saying that there are no Christian Scientists in the world whatso ever.
If you are, then you are clearly wrong.

It is no secret that there are many Christians who are working as scientists. Statistics prove it. But it is also no secret that many of these scientists are Christians because they were born into Christian families and since then most of them have not bothered to verify their beliefs and they are just continuing the tradition (without taking any interesting to find out the truthfulness of them). We have to admit that the culture plays a big role here. The scientists may call themselves Christians but how many of them believe in bible as a hundred percent correct book written by people inspired by an almighty omniscient all-loving god (i.e in the same way that a devoted Christian think of the bible) is undoubtedly questionable.

Even though my above paragraph is sufficient, I would like to comment about the related sociology for the sake of interesting readers. Scientists do experiments but not in all fields. A rocket scientist will do experiments in rocket science but not with cooking. A non-scientist may experiment with cooking. There are lot of scientists who do cooking without bothering to verify what they have been told to do. If they are told to add two eggs, they will do so. I do not think a scientist, who is not interested cooking, will ever bother to find out what type of results they would get with one egg or three eggs. The same goes for religion.

Not all Christian scientists will ever bother to critically analyse religious teachings simply because they are not interested in religion. You and I may like to spend time like this to talk about religion among our busy schedules but I do not think at least one percent of the scientist will find these discussions interesting. Most of them believe that religions are wrong and science is correct but again not because they have been bothered about these things and able to find out what it is exactly, but because during their education in schools and colleges they have been exposed to such modernist ideas that science is superior to religion. Again this is something that prevents scientist taking some interest in religion other than their cultural habits. Only a scientist who is deeply interested in Christianity will spend time to check whether science is actually superior to religion. They may call themselves scientists but it does not mean that scientists are a set of people who are interested in verifying every idea that they come across in life. In normal life simply it does not happen and basically there is no enough time for it.

Again there are many scientists who believe that science is superior to religion but they go to church as well. More often than not, they are cultural habits. Even there are scientists who do not go to church regularly but will pray when they are in trouble. This may look like a contradiction (or hypocrisy) to a devoted Christian, but not in the eyes of those scientists. Anybody who is familiar with the concept of personal god, which was a result of the modernity, can understand these types of behaviours and related pragmatism. For them god is not the almighty, all-loving, omniscient holy person that devoted Christians believe in but some sort of a person (or thing), which you can turn to when you are in trouble. A religious Christian may criticise this type of behaviours as using a holy concept for worldly and mundane purposes. But in this modernist world, the concept of almighty, all-loving, omniscient god has been reduced to a tool, which can be used when you want. But for this humans cannot be blamed. Only “god” should be blamed. When not all-prayers are being answered, and when even a deserving prayer is ignored it is natural in this age of reason, people convert the Christian concept of god (or the theist concept of god for that matter) into something which they can rationally explain (read my comments towards the end of this posting for more details). Even the people who pray (not only scientists) do not really bother whether the god is actually almighty, omniscient, all-loving in the strictest Christian sense. Their approach to god is not a holy one a devoted Christian is having but rather a very pragmatic one. If the god can help them, even if he (god) is not almighty then it is sufficient for them. Whether the bible is true, whether there is a heaven for you to go after death, etc. is not their concern. All they want is whether they can receive some help when they need (from somebody). If culturally they are told that such a person, who can help you, exists, then it is natural that they will try that too (especially when they are trouble).

The scientists are a set of people who struggle with knowledge and almost always looking for new-knowledge. But whether they admit or not, at least at one point of their life time, they have turned to god praying him to guide them towards the solution they look for because culturally they have been told that god is omniscient – someone who knows all. But when those prayers are not answered it is not reasonable to expect those scientists (who are highly trained in rationalist thinking, unlike other people) to believe in the Christian concept of god (or the theist concept of god for that matter) anymore. They may still be praying when they are in trouble – this is a psychological thing; you cannot expect people to act rationally always, under all circumstances; not just god, even if you take a human who have refused to help you once, there are instances that you ask for help from the same person again especially when you are in real trouble – but it does not mean what they have in mind is the Christian concept of god (or the theist concept of god for that matter), which is inevitably connected with the ideas of almighty, all-loving, omniscient, etc. Especially Christian ideas like ‘god created world’, ‘god created man’, followed by many other bible stories are least important of them. (Just look at the recent statistics about how little people know about Noah, etc these days) Because of the culture some of the people (not only scientists) may be still going to Christian churches, or even the ones who do not attend churches may be holding a bible when they are in trouble but it does not mean that what they have in mind is the Christian concept of god. Their pragmatic attitudes do not require them to do it. And just thinking that all people who pray (not only scientists) believe in the Christian concept of god (or the theist concept of god, for that matter) is wrong.

In fact one of Australias leading nuclear phyiscists is a Christian, who works in our only nuclear plant, there are many Christian as well as non Christian scientists accross the states who have been working on many projects, such as the intelligent design theory,
Web link 1
Web link 2
Web link 3
Web link 4
I do however have clients and friends who are doctors, scientists, inventors, highly trained nuclear lab technicians, surgeons etc who are Christians and are considered to be some of best in their field and whose level of scientific training, knowledge and expertise would be more than your own.

These do not make much sense because what they follow is not the scientific method but the Christian method – accepting just because you are told or just because somebody else has accepted. I have already mentioned that I am not going to discuss what is in other websites. If somebody wants to discuss those matters (I other websites) then he or she should present them in their own words so that I can comment on them (if they are worthy of talking about and if I have time)

Now as to taking into account the experiement you have mentioned. Indeed I have done exactly that, not in your way though, but in the way those verses are meant to be interpreted………………..

For me, it does not sound like that what you have done is anything related to Mark 16:17-18 because it is not clear whether those “anaphylaxis reactions“ are due to any poisoning or not (though what you have done may be something else described in some other script by Paul or somebody as you have mentioned). So if I am wrong I apologies, please correct me.

Nobody can interpret a document the ways that he or she wants. Same goes for Bible. Bible does not say that if you drink (or happen to drink) poison you can have a near death experience but you will not die. It specifically says that you will not be hurt even if you drink deadly poison provided you are a believer. The bible writer (here Mark as supposed) is giving several signs that will be accompanied by the believers. Read Mark’s own words. And these signs will accompany those who believe And the sign that is pertaining to people who have drank deadly poison is “not hurt”. If somebody is hurt (no need to die – hurting in someway is sufficient – the word that Mark has used is not death but hurt) after drinking deadly poison then it can be concluded that either that person is not a believer or the bible is wrong (in the case that the person is a believer).

When you drink deadly poison many things can happen. At one end it is death. At the other end it is no change at all. In between these two extremes, we can have many other points like mild pain, severe pain, near death, etc. Out of all these points what Mark has specifically selected is one of the two extremes. Not hurt means “no change at all” point. So when interpreting bible, it is what we should pay attention to, why Mark specifically selected that end when he could have selected any of the above other points. (Drinking poison is not the only thing that Mark has talked about. Placing hands on sick people is another. Now how are we to interpret that one? place their hands on sick people, and they will get well If “not hurt” means “near death without dying” then “will get well” should be again something horrible.) Again going back to the previous point of interpreting, almighty god should not have any problem of ensuring “no change at all” instead of “near death without dying”, when he is all-loving. If god has planned this (when he was creating the universe) in such a manner that believers will get near death experiences (including sever pains & all) and only the non-believers die then this god cannot be all-loving. Even if understand the killing of non believers, how can we understand a god who is giving terrible near death experiences to his own believers? So your interpretation is wrong. I repeat, for me, it does not sound like that what you have done is anything related to Mark 16:17-18 because it is not clear whether those “anaphylaxis reactions“ are due to any poisoning or not (though what you have done may be something else described in some other script by Paul or somebody as you have mentioned). So all I can say is this: If you say that you were hurt (in whatever way near death or whatever) after taking poison (accidentally or purposefully) and if you are believer then all I can say is that Bible is not correct, which proves that you are wrong. If you have not done according to Mark16:17-18 then why not act soon?

Regarding those so called miracles, all I can say is that since they are unverifiable and unrepeatable (at least as far as I am concerned), I am unable to comment on them. If we are unable to build a complete consisting story to explain these miracles, then these claims of miracles are useless even if they are genuine. Prayers are being answered is one thing but why only a selected set of people are made to pray is completely another thing. For our story to be complete it should explain why such bad things happen to good people also (not only bad people) and only to a selected set of good people (not all good people either). However if all these miracle stories, which you start narrating with details whenever you have been asked questions which you cannot answer, are all true, I indeed consider yourself to be a very lucky guy.

Since that Craig has talked about miracles, I can say the following. Certain people (not me) are suggesting to devise a new concept of a god, who is not almighty (have only limited powers), not omniscient (knows little), not all-loving (loves only selected people or loves only when he/she/it wants) then it will be possible to explain those so called irregular (sporadic / intermittent) miracles. These people argue that many features associated with those so called miracles as claimed by the Christians themselves (not atheists) like not all prayers are answered (some are totally ignored), not all prayers are answered fully (some are only partially answered), if god listens today he is deaf tomorrow (lack of repeatability), etc. etc. can be explained with such a downscaled god. They further suggest that many other problems that the Christians have failed to explain will be solved with such a concept. Interested Christians can ponder even though I am not bothering about this. For me, all I can say is that I am not interested in spending time on that mainly because even if we accept such concept of a god, still we will not be able to verify it.

Christians …………………………….. whose level of scientific training, knowledge and expertise would be more than your own.

Only a person like you can have the audacity to comment about things, which you do not know.

-- posted by atheist101