tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post8693198187340978448..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: The Essence of ChristianityLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-76498212825789890972010-05-19T21:57:43.501-04:002010-05-19T21:57:43.501-04:00Third, Jesus Christ came to earth and suffered bec...<i>Third, Jesus Christ came to earth and suffered <b>because we humans are special</b></i><br /><br />This is really the worst part, because while the others are mostly harmless (although not always), the belief in human specialness is not only unscientific but is directly and extremely threatening our own survival. If there is a really serious practical argument why we should be actively fighting religion, this is it, but unfortunately it is rarely raised even by the "New Atheists"Georgi Marinovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12226357993389417752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-79603382300346597922010-05-19T18:37:43.582-04:002010-05-19T18:37:43.582-04:00John Farrell asks,
You mean Ken, right?
Actually...John Farrell asks,<br /><br /><i>You mean Ken, right?</i><br /><br />Actually I meant Keith Ward and Ken Miller. I've been reading Keith Ward's book "The Big Questions in Science and Religion." Ward is the Regius Professor Emeritus at Oxford and an ordained priest of the Church of England.<br /><br>Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-58766887142260166772010-05-19T16:01:08.571-04:002010-05-19T16:01:08.571-04:00People are not rational; we make almost all our de...People are not rational; we make almost all our decisions emotionally even if we rationalise them later. This applies in science too; I am convinced most scientists choose their position on contentious issues in their domain on the basis of what "feels" right even if their formal arguments are rational; it is <i>post hoc</i> rationalisation.<br /><br />So the question for the Christians is not "does science tolerate a Christian worldview?" as "does Christianity tolerate a scientific worldview?". And that's an uncomfortable decision for those who have accepted any form of Christianity wholeheartedly but know intellectually that the scientists <b>must</b> be right... or rather, in their minds, must be right <i>too</i>.<br /><br />They have a difficult journey to make; accepting the correctness of the scientific approach and worldview is one huge step, even if it does not lead them to the sensible conclusion that the Christian stories were of and for a long disappeared world.Sam Cnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-47166772944028116912010-05-19T15:08:42.391-04:002010-05-19T15:08:42.391-04:00To my estimation, the great problem that modern sc...To my estimation, the great problem that modern science poses for Christian thought is the meaning of Original Sin/Redemption in the light of natural history-- it was largely this issue that motivated Fundamentalist rejection of Darwin at the start of the 20th century. <br /><br />Unlike Judaism, which can largely get away with viewing Genesis as a parable about Man's place in the universe, in Christianity even the most figurative interpretations of Genesis would seem to be badly undermined by the reality of common descent. I've never seen this satisfactorily answered by mainline apologists, all of whom seem compelled to fall back on on one sort or another of human exceptionalism, which usually look rather shaky in the light of current knowledge of animal behaviour. <br /><br />This seems to me a possibly fatal problem, as it cuts right at the heart of most Christian doctrine as formulated since the time of Augustine.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90533852111633123142010-05-19T14:27:38.184-04:002010-05-19T14:27:38.184-04:00Nobody I know believes in such a God, including Ke...<i>Nobody I know believes in such a God, including Keith Miller and Francis Collins.</i><br /><br />You mean Ken, right?<br /><br />:)John Farrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18280296574996987228noreply@blogger.com