Do you believe in God?

[homeforsummer]

Quite. Atheists don't tend to discover religion because generally they're atheists for a reason.

Agnostics on the other hand are much more likely to make a swing from one to the other because generally they're agnostic because they don't know much about either path, so if they learn more about one than another then they're more likely to move toward it.

Incidentally, I've heard stories of people becoming atheist for the same reason - they'd always half-heartedly believed in God because they'd never taken the time to learn about the more complicated science of many things in every day life, but once these things were explained to them it made a lot more sense.

 

[Jay.]

You do realise that Joseph was aware that he wasn't Jesus' biological father?

and God was his biological father?

That's sick. Just proves that Mary was a cheating slapper.

Come to think of it, that would also explain why Jesus turned to drugs and alcohol.
He couldn't live with the shame his mother brought on the family.

 

[MoLiEG]

Used to... but not anymore...

 

[PeterJB]

and God was his biological father?

That's sick. Just proves that Mary was a cheating slapper.

Come to think of it, that would also explain why Jesus turned to drugs and alcohol.
He couldn't live with the shame his mother brought on the family.

The Bible says that Jesus was the incarnation of God the Son, part of the Trinity, not his biological offspring, and that Mary underwent immaculate conception.

 

[Skynyrd1977]

Actually, the reverse is occuring. People are abandoning the false beliefs of christianity in very large numbers. The more educated, civilized and affluent a country is, the more this will occur, and the more uneducated, impoverished and primitive a country is, the less this will occur.

Those "atheists" you claim who have signed up to the rediculous, were likely not the sort of atheists who really think & read much on the subject, rather they are likely just people who have never thought about it much, and joined a church for social, or other poor reasons; like: ...

Sounds like you're saying Christians are stupid morons. "false beliefs" implies that you have proven this when it is merely YOUR opinion. We have stated earlier in this thread that we can neither proove nor disproove the existance of God or the claims of Jesus.

Christianity started with only 12 people in AD33, and now it is estimated to be over 2.1 billion. It seems to me that the world has become more educated and high tech in the last 1,978 years.


You may disagree with our findings, but you cannot say we do not present intelligent analysis for our conclusions. I can only venture a guess, but I would say there are as many or more websites explaining Christianity than websites that try to shoot it down. This is but a small fraction of the information out there.

Answers in Genesis
http://www.answersingenesis.org
CARM
http://www.carm.org
Josh McDowell Ministries
http://www.josh.org
Evidence America
http://evidenceamerica.org
Stand to Reason
http://www.str.org
The Olive Tree
http://www.olivetree.com/resources/academic
Coral Ridge
http://www.coralridge.org/equip/l2d-new/default.aspx
True Origin
http://www.trueorigin.org

Other stupid rediculous Christian products:

... thousands of libraries at Christian universities throughout the world, filled with studies on the topic. Most universities began as Christian schools. Harvard University, established in 1636, and Yale University, both began as Congregational institutions. Princeton University started as a Presbyterian college. Oxford, Paris, Cambridge, Heidelberg and Basel were all founded by Christian ministers. (Christian Roots in Education)

Other stupid guys who believed in God:

1. Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
   Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.
2. Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
   Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)
3. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
   Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!
4. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
   Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.
5. Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
   Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.
6. Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
   In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."
7. Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
   One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.
8. Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
   Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.
9. Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
   Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.
10. William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
    Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).
11. Max Planck (1858-1947)
    Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"
12. Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
    Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

source: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

Oh, and one more, glad to see this discussion going on 10 years here at GTP:

...and found this old thread/post, ...

 

[Mr. CoolFiat]

and God was his biological father?

That's sick. Just proves that Mary was a cheating slapper.

Come to think of it, that would also explain why Jesus turned to drugs and alcohol.
He couldn't live with the shame his mother brought on the family.

That is sick!
Signature material ^ RIGHT THERE!

 

[PeterJB]

@Skynyrd1977

I too possess a deep interest in science, particularly Physics and Astronomy. It is easy to keep religion out of the matter until one starts contemplating how the universe began, or what causes it to operate the way it does. And until someone can find an answer to THAT, I stand by my belief that it was God.

 

[Touring Mars]

Oh, and one more, glad to see this discussion going on 10 years here at GTP:

...and found this old thread/post, ...

I respectfully disagree with the author of that post regarding the comment about evolution, but perhaps his views on the subject may have changed since that was posted 9 years ago... saying that, I find it quite amusing to find myself in disagreement with the Creator himself (well, creator of this forum anyway).

I too possess a deep interest in science, particularly Physics and Astronomy. It is easy to keep religion out of the matter until one starts contemplating how the universe began, or what causes it to operate the way it does. And until someone can find an answer to THAT, I stand by my belief that it was God.

I'll stand my belief that it needn't be 'God', and that Physics (being a scientific discipline) is infinitely better placed to provide a credible alternative explanation, however strange, incomprehensible, counter-intuitive, obscure and complicated it might turn out to be. Saying that "it was God" is, in my opinion anyway, a wholly inadequate answer, not least because it begs far more questions than it answers, e.g. what is God, how does God do what he does, and of course, the biggie - what evidence is there that God exists at all? Finding the answer to a great unknown in science (like the origin of the universe) is not helped much by postulating an even greater mystery in the process i.e. the origin of God.

 

[Hun200kmh]

I respectfully disagree with the author of that post regarding the comment about evolution, but perhaps his views on the subject may have changed since that was posted 9 years ago... saying that, I find it quite amusing to find myself in disagreement with the Creator himself (well, creator of this forum anyway).

I intended to stop posting here, but I couldn't resist to this. (disclaimer: this post is not meant to be serious, it's just comic-relief)


Ladies and Gentleman, especially TRON nerds, I present you

TOURING MARS

 

[Tic Tach]

Sounds like you're saying Christians are stupid morons.

No, not really. Some of the christians I know are indeed dumber than a sack of hammers, but the vast majority are people of reasonably normal intelligence. But the main thing that all christians have not yet done, is looked at their beliefs critically, in consort with intellectual honesty. For when one does that, one cannot come out the other end believing the patently rediculous claims of christianity.


Video.

We have stated earlier in this thread that we can neither proove nor disproove the existance of God or the claims of Jesus.

Yes, you have stated that, and I have tried to show you how your position is deeply flawed. I can't help it if you can't or won't grasp that.

Christianity started with only 12 people in AD33, and now it is estimated to be over 2.1 billion. It seems to me that the world has become more educated and high tech in the last 1,978 years.

Yes, in spite of religions' attempted muzzling of progress.

There was a time when religion ruled the world. It is known as the dark ages. (Ruth Hurmence Green)

You may disagree with our findings, but you cannot say we do not present intelligent analysis for our conclusions.

Yes, I can. If the wild claims of christianity were demonstrably true, then they would simply be a part of the body of scientific understanding of how the universe works. Instead, we find the opposite; a personal god has been painted into an ever-shrinking corner of our understanding of our place in the cosmos.

I have read many of the books by apologists, and find them nothing more than trips into the twilight zone of special pleading. They're painful to read. My conclusions, which are not presuppositions, follow my observations. The same cannot be said for the apologists.


Science seeks to draw a conclusion from the evidence at hand, while religion seeks to find evidence for a conclusion at hand. (Steven J. Hurlin)


Gods are the finish line that is drawn at the start.

I can only venture a guess, but I would say there are as many or more websites explaining Christianity than websites that try to shoot it down.

Unfortunately, truth isn't determined by the number of webites, or majority vote.

This is but a small fraction of the information out there.

Your first link (Answers in Genesis) makes your entire post utterly laughable. It is the most debunked site out there.

Other stupid guys who believed in God:

Notice the era of your list.

Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. (Richard Dawkins)



And I suggest that most of those people were not like your modern-day "christians", but rather "deists".




It was of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein)

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. (Albert Einstein)

For me the Jewish religion, like all others, is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity, have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them. (Albert Einstein)

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. (Albert Einstein)

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own — a God short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms. (Albert Einstein)

I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of his children for their numerous stupidities, for which only he himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only his nonexistence could excuse him. (Albert Einstein)

From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. (Albert Einstein)

I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. (Albert Einstein)

If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed. (Albert Einstein)

During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution, human fantasy created gods in man's own image who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate influence, the phenomenal world. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old conception of the gods. (Albert Einstein)

The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge. (Albert Einstein)

The minority, the ruling class at present, has the schools and press, usually the Church as well, under its thumb. This enables it to organize and sway the emotions of the masses, and make its tool of them. (Albert Einstein)

Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning. (Albert Einstein)

 

[Hun200kmh]

I think you placing this picture in your post is enlightening ... you have no clue on what you're talking about. Check with an historian. Find one chinese preferably, so he is neither influenced by the christians nor their haters.

 

[Tic Tach]

Right, no clue whatsoever.

 

[Tic Tach]

The doctrine of the double motion of the earth about its axis and about the sun is false, and entirely contrary to Holy Scripture. (Congregation of the Index, 1616, under Pope Paul V)


The church at the time was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself, and also took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo’s doctrine. Its verdict against Galileo was rational and just. (Paul Feyerabend, quoted in 1990 by Cardinal Ratzinger, who would become pope in 2005)

 

[Sam48]

No, not really. Some of the christians I know are indeed dumber than a sack of hammers, but the vast majority are people of reasonably normal intelligence. But the main thing that all christians have not yet done, is looked at their beliefs critically, in consort with intellectual honesty. For when one does that, one cannot come out the other end believing the patently rediculous claims of christianity.

In the same way that we used to look at our beliefs critically when considering whether or not the earth was flat (As we did many thousands of years ago) . For when one did that, one could not come out the other end believing the earth was round.

Being that you are an all out atheist, do you leave even a sliver of a doubt about your statements? Or is it all said and done for you?

 

[Tic Tach]

In the same way that we used to look at our beliefs critically when considering whether or not the earth was flat (As we did many thousands of years ago) . For when one does that, one cannot come out the other end believing the earth is round.

I don't know what you mean by that.

Being that you are an all out atheist, do you leave even a sliver of a doubt about your statements? Or is it all said and done for you?

Again, I'm not quite sure what you mean, but as doubt is the mother of all knowledge, one must always apply skepticism and critical thinking to everything. I'm an "all out" atheist in the same way I'm an "all out a-unicornist". Actually you and I are both poly-atheists; there's lots of gods we don't believe in. I just go one god further.

Having spent half of my life as a christian, and half as a non-theist, I can say that it is not a closed mind that rejects religion (the supernatural) in general and christianity in particular, but rather it is simply the place one winds up at after looking at said beliefs critically. And I can emphatically say that my life as a person not holding & believing the claims and assertions of christianity has been a hundred times better. I can best describe it as a place of clarity and sobriety, whereas as a believer, there was a constant and ever-growing tension in my mind knowing deep down that it simply wasn't true. I remember the drunken stupor of "belief" very well. I don't recommend it.

I like how Guy P. Harrison said it:

Atheism is not a conscious act of turning away from all gods. It is simply the final destination for those who think. You will be pleased to discover that the sky does not fall down on your head. If you still want to pray, you can; the success rate of your prayers is unlikely to change.





Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt. (H. L. Mencken)


Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality. (Bertrand Russell)


I can live with doubt and uncertainty. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. (Richard Feynman)


Modest doubt is called the beacon of the wise. (William Shakespeare)


The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are ******re while the intelligent are full of doubt. (Bertrand Russell)


Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them. (Peter Ustinov)


The term 'skeptic' does not mean one who doubts, but one who investigates or researches, as opposed to one who asserts and thinks that he has found. (Miguel De Unamuno)


Too much doubt is better than too much credulity. (Robert G. Ingersoll)


The few have said, “think!” The many have said, “believe!” The first doubt was the womb and cradle of progress, and from the first doubt, man has continued to advance. (Robert G. Ingersoll)

 

[Sam48]

I don't know what you mean by that.

What I'm saying is, leave plenty of doubt regardless of current conclusions because you never know how much of what we currently know to be true today will be completely false many years from now.

Hence, you seem extremely set in stone regarding your statements.

 

[Tic Tach]

What I'm saying is, leave plenty of doubt regardless of current conclusions because you never know how much of what we currently know to be true today will be completely false many years from now.

Well, I think it's more likely that there will be a very few things that we know today will be shown to be "completely false". Much of what we know is pretty robustly supported and established, and the things that do get "changed" are really more accurately described as becoming more accurate and fine-tuned, rather than "the opposite" of what we thought.

But that's the beauty of science, it has a built-in self-correcting mechanism. Notice that the changes, corrections or advancements of our understandings and knowledge come from where? - Science itself, not the superstitious guesses of primitive desert men. It's the best tool we have of "knowing". As opposed to "faith".

Hence, you seem extremely set in stone regarding your statements.

I hope that what I've said has now clarified that misconception.

 

[Skynyrd1977]

... the main thing that all christians have not yet done, is looked at their beliefs critically, in consort with intellectual honesty. For when one does that, one cannot come out the other end believing the patently rediculous claims of christianity.

Wrong. Just one example of many too numerous it is impossible to count:
Lee Strobel, atheist/lawyer/investigative reporter (Harvard Law School, Chicago Tribune).
http://youtu.be/2AT_bMuFBfs

He's a pretty smart guy. He did exactly what you say no Christian does. That YouTube video is only 2 minutes, go watch both 1+ hour documentaries he has on Netflix.

Video.

I like how he asks 10 questions (with his spin) and then makes up the answers and puts words in our mouths. There are answers to all these questions out there if you look. I'll just list the first one.
1. http://birdsoftheair.blogspot.com/2007/12/atheists-and-amputees.html

Is this a scientific chart? Where is the vertical scale, what is it measuring? I read the full article at this website, notice you didn't post the disclaimer under the chart. It seems to me that everything is based on quotes by other aethiests, and that its always the 1 or 2 bad apples that are focused on, ignoring the 1.9 billion good apples.

There was a time when religion ruled the world. It is known as the dark ages. (Ruth Hurmence Green)

Science seeks to draw a conclusion from the evidence at hand, while religion seeks to find evidence for a conclusion at hand. (Steven J. Hurlin)

Witty quotes by aetheists only reflect their opinion without respect to accuracy.

Notice the era of your list.

And I suggest that most of those people were not like your modern-day "christians", but rather "deists".

As for Einstein, again you pick one out of twelve extremely famous examples I listed. I am curious to the dates of all his quotes.

OK, here's a list of modern day Christian scientists, in no way exhaustive.

1901–2000 (20th century)


George Stokes (1819–1903)A minister's son, he wrote a book on Natural Theology. He was also one of the Presidents of the Royal Society and made contributions to Fluid dynamics.[96]


George Salmon (1819–1904)He won the Copley Medal for his mathematical works. In theology his book An Historical Introduction to the Study of the Books of the New Testament was widely read and he wrote rebuttals to John Henry Newman tracts.[97]


Henry Baker Tristram (1822–1906)A founding member of the British Ornithologists' Union. His publications included The Natural History of the Bible (1867) and The Fauna and Flora of Palestine (1884).[98]

Lord Kelvin (1824–1907)He gave a famous address to the Christian Evidence Society. In science he won the Copley Medal, the Royal Medal, and was important in Thermodynamics.[99]

Pierre Duhem (1861–1916)He worked on Thermodynamic potentials and wrote histories advocating that the Roman Catholic Church helped advance science.[100]

Georg Cantor (1845–1918)Lutheran who wrote on religious topics and had an interest in Medieval theology. Revolutionized the mathematical notion of infinity by the introduction of set theory.[101]

Henrietta Swan Leavitt (1868–1921)A minister's daughter and noted astronomer who was the head of Photometry (astronomy) at Harvard. A practicing Congregationalist, Leavitt was the descendant of early Massachusetts Bay Colony Puritan settlers.[102]

Dmitri Egorov (1869–1931)Russian mathematician who made significant contributions to the broader areas of differential geometry. He was an Imiaslavie who defended religion during the Soviet era. In 1930 the Soviets arrested and imprisoned him as a "religious sectarian." He died of a hunger strike in protest.[103]

Mihajlo Idvorski Pupin (1858–1935)Serbian-American physicist, chemist, and inventor. He won the Pulitzer Prize for Biography or Autobiography in 1924. His The New Reformation: From Physical to Spiritual Realities concerns religion and spirituality. He also wrote the forward to Science & Religion: A Symposium.[104]

Pavel Florensky (1882–1937)Russian Orthodox priest who wrote a book on Dielectrics and wrote of imaginary numbers having a relationship to the Kingdom of God.[105]

Agnes Giberne (1845–1939)She wrote for the Religious Tract Society and was a founding member of the British Astronomical Association. The picture comes from her book Sun, Moon and Stars, which references the Bible while discussing science.[106]

John Ambrose Fleming (1849–1945)In science he is noted for the Right-hand rule and work on vacuum tubes, hence the picture of a Fleming valve. He also won the Hughes Medal. In religious activities he was President of the Victoria Institute, involved in the Creation Science Movement, and preached at St Martin-in-the-Fields.[107]

Max Planck (1858–1947)He won the 1918 Nobel Prize in Physics and is considered the founder of Quantum mechanics. He had been raised an observant Lutheran and was an elder in his church from 1920 to his death. In 1937 he delivered the lecture, "Religion and Natural Science", stating that both religion and science require a belief in God.[note 7][108]

Edward Arthur Milne (1896–1950)British astrophysicist and mathematicians who proposed the Milne model and had a Moon crater named for him. In addition he won several awards one of which, the Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society, is pictured. His last book was Modern Cosmology and the Christian Idea of God.[109]

Robert Millikan (1868–1953)The second son of Reverend Silas Franklin Millikan, he wrote about the reconciliation of science and religion in books like Evolution in Science and Religion. He won the 1923 Nobel Prize in Physics.[110]

Charles Stine (1882–1954)The son of a minister who was VP of DuPont. In religion he wrote A Chemist and His Bible and as a chemist he won the Perkin Medal.[111]

E. T. Whittaker (1873–1956)Converted to Catholicism in 1930 and member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. His 1946 Donnellan Lecture was entitled on Space and Spirit. Theories of the Universe and the Arguments for the Existence of God. He also received the Copley Medal and had written on Mathematical physics before conversion.[112]

Arthur Compton (1892–1962)He won a Nobel Prize in Physics. He also was a deacon in the Baptist Church and wrote an article in Christianity Takes a Stand that supported the controversial idea of the United States maintaining the peace through a nuclear-armed air force.[113]

Georges Lemaître (1894–1966)Roman Catholic priest who first proposed the Big Bang theory.[114]

David Lack (1910–1973)Director of the Edward Grey Institute of Field Ornithology and convert who wrote Evolutionary Theory and Christian Belief in 1957. As he is in part known for his study of the genus Euplectes a Black-winged Red Bishop is pictured.[115]

Charles Coulson (1910–1974)Methodist who wrote Science and Christian Belief in 1955. In 1970 he won the Davy Medal.[116]

Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900–1975)Russian Orthodox geneticist who criticized young Earth creationism in an essay, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution," and argued that science and faith did not conflict.[117]

Michael Polanyi (1891–1976)He was born Jewish, but became a Tolstoyan and was also married in a Roman Catholic church. In 1946 he wrote Science, Faith, and Society ISBN 0-226-67290-5 A chair for him was created at the University of Manchester, hence an old portrait of part of the University is pictured.[118]

Henry Eyring (1901–1981)American chemist known for developing the Eyring equation. Also a Latter-Day Saint whose interactions with LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith on science and faith are a part of LDS history.[119]

William G. Pollard (1911–1989)Anglican priest who wrote Physicist and Christian. In addition he worked on the Manhattan Project and for years served as the executive director of Oak Ridge Institute of Nuclear Studies.[120]

Aldert van der Ziel (1910–1991)He researched Flicker noise and has the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers named an award for him. The IEEE corporate office is pictured. He also was a conservative Lutheran who wrote The Natural Sciences and the Christian Message.[121]

Carlos Chagas Filho (1910–2000)Neuroscientist who headed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences for 16 years. He studied the Shroud of Turin and his "the Origin of the Universe", "the Origin of Life", and "the Origin of Man" involved an understanding between Catholicism and Science. He was from Rio de Janeiro, hence the well known Christ the Redeemer statue is pictured.[122]

2001–today (21st century)


Sir Robert Boyd (1922–2004)A pioneer in British space science who was Vice President of the Royal Astronomical Society. He lectured on faith being a founder of the "Research Scientists' Christian Fellowship" and an important member of its predecessor Christians in Science. He was connected to the University College London which is shown here in an old drawing.[123]

Richard Smalley (1943–2005)A Nobel Laureate in Chemistry known for buckyballs. In his last years he renewed an interest in Christianity and supported Intelligent design. He taught at Rice University, part of which is pictured.[124]

Arthur Peacocke (1924–2006)Anglican priest and biochemist, his ideas may have influenced Anglican and Lutheran views of evolution. Winner of the 2001 Templeton Prize. He was a Dean at Clare College, Cambridge, which is pictured.[125]

C. F. von Weizsäcker (1912–2007)German nuclear physicist who is the co-discoverer of the Bethe-Weizsäcker formula. His The Relevance of Science: Creation and Cosmogony concerned Christian and moral impacts of science. He headed the Max Planck Society from 1970 to 1980. After that he retired to be a Christian pacifist.[126]

Stanley Jaki (1924–2009)Benedictine priest and Distinguished Professor of Physics at Seton Hall University, New Jersey, who won a Templeton Prize and advocates the idea modern science could only have arisen in a Christian society.[127]

Allan Sandage (1926–2010)An astronomer who did not really study Christianity until after age forty. He wrote the article A Scientist Reflects on Religious Belief and made discoveries concerning the Cigar Galaxy which is pictured.[128]


Living

Charles Hard Townes (born 1915)In 1964 he won the Nobel Prize in Physics and in 1966 he wrote The Convergence of Science and Religion. The picture is of Townes with Dr. Roderic Pettigrew, Townes is on the right.[129]

Ian Barbour (born 1923)Physicist who wrote Christianity and the Scientists in 1960, and When Science Meets Religion ISBN 0-06-060381-X in 2000. For years he taught at Carleton College, hence their observatory is pictured.[130]

Freeman Dyson (born 1923)He has won the Lorentz Medal, the Max Planck Medal, and the Lewis Thomas Prize. He also ranked 25th in The 2005 Global Intellectuals Poll. He has won the Templeton Prize and delivered one of the Gifford Lectures.[131]

Antonino Zichichi (born 1929)Italian nuclear physicist and former President of the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare. He has worked with the Vatican on relations between the Church and Science.[132]

John Polkinghorne (born 1930)British particle physicist and Anglican priest who wrote Science and the Trinity (2004) ISBN 0-300-10445-6. Winner of the 2002 Templeton Prize.[133]

Owen Gingerich (born 1930)Mennonite astronomer who went to Goshen College and Harvard. An old picture of Goshen is shown. Mr. Gingerich has written about people of faith in science history.[134]

John T. Houghton (born 1931)He is the co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and won a gold medal from the Royal Astronomical Society. He's also former Vice President of Christians in Science.[135]

R. J. Berry (born 1934)He is a former president of both the Linnean Society of London and the Christians in Science group. He also wrote God and the Biologist: Personal Exploration of Science and Faith (Apollos 1996) ISBN 0-85111-446-6 As he taught at University College London for over 20 years its main building is pictured.[136]

Michał Heller (born 1936)He is a Catholic priest, a member of the Pontifical Academy of Theology, a founding member of the International Society for Science and Religion. He also is a mathematical physicist who has written articles on relativistic physics and Noncommutative geometry. His cross-disciplinary book Creative Tension: Essays on Science and Religion came out in 2003. For this work he won a Templeton Prize. [note 8][137]

Ghillean Prance (born 1937)Noted botanist involved in the Eden Project, which is pictured. He is also the current President of Christians in Science.[138]

Donald Knuth (born 1938)(Lutheran) The Art of Computer Programming and 3:16 Bible Texts Illuminated (1991), ISBN 0-89579-252-4.[139]

Eric Priest (born 1943)An authority on Solar Magnetohydrodynamics who won the George Ellery Hale Prize among others. He has spoken on Christianity and Science at the University of St Andrews and is a member of the Faraday Institute. An image from St. Andrews is shown. He is also interested in prayer, meditation, and Christian psychology.[140]

Christopher Isham (born 1944)Theoretical physicist who developed HPO formalism. He teaches at Imperial College London, part of which is pictured to the side. In addition to being a physicist, he is a philosopher and theologian.[141]

Henry F. Schaefer, III (born 1944)He wrote Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence? ISBN 0-9742975-0-X and is a signatory of A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. He was awarded the American Chemical Society Award in Pure Chemistry in 1979.[142]

Robert T. Bakker (born 1945)Paleontologist who was a figure in the "dinosaur Renaissance" and known for the theory some dinosaurs were Warm-blooded. He is also a Pentecostal preacher who advocates theistic evolution and has written on religion.[143]

Kenneth R. Miller (born 1948)Biology professor at Brown University who wrote Finding Darwin's God ISBN 0-06-093049-7, The picture is of Brown's Science Library.[144]

Francis Collins (born 1950)He is the current director of the National Institutes of Health and former director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute. He has also written on religious matters in articles and in Faith and the Human Genome he states the importance to him of "the literal and historical Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, which is the cornerstone of what I believe." He wrote the book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.[145]

Simon C. Morris (born 1951)British paleontologist who made his reputation through study of the Burgess Shale fossils, one of which is pictured. He was the co-winner of a Charles Doolittle Walcott Medal and also won a Lyell Medal. He is active in the Faraday Institute for study of science and religion and is also noted on discussions concerning the idea of theistic evolution.[146]

John D. Barrow (born 1952)English cosmologist who did notable writing on the implications of the Anthropic principle. He is a United Reformed Church member and Christian deist. He won the Templeton Prize in 2006. He once held the position of Gresham Professor of Astronomy, so their crest is pictured.[147]
Denis Alexander (born ????)Director of the Faraday Institute and author of Rebuilding the Matrix – Science and Faith in the 21st Century. He also supervises a research group in cancer and immunology at the Babraham Institute, hence Babraham hall is pictured.[148]

Stephen Barr (born ????)Physicist who worked at Brookhaven National Laboratory and contributed papers to Physical Review as well as Physics Today. He also is a Catholic who writes for First Things and wrote Modern Physics and Ancient Faith. He teaches at the University of Delaware, whose Wolf Hall is pictured.[149]

Martin Nowak (born 1965)Evolutionary biologist and mathematician best known for evolutionary dynamics. He teaches at Harvard University, which is pictured in an old drawing.[150]

John Lennox Mathematician and Pastoral adviser. His works include the mathematical The Theory of Infinite Soluble Groups and the religion-oriented God's Undertaker – Has Science buried God? He has also debated religion with Richard Dawkins. He teaches at Oxford, so an old map of it is pictured.[151]

Jennifer Wiseman She is Chief of the Laboratory for Exoplanets and Stellar Astrophysics at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. An aerial of the Center is shown. In addition she is a co-discoverer of 114P/Wiseman-Skiff. In religion is a Fellow of the American Scientific Affiliation and on June 16, 2010 became the new director for the American Association for the Advancement of Science's Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion.[152]

​

source with footnotes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

 

[Sam48]

Well, I think it's more likely that there will be a very few things that we know today will be shown to be "completely false".

And that is what we have always thought. We only realize it once we're there.

Much of what we know is pretty robustly supported and established, and the things that do get "changed" are really more accurately described as becoming more accurate and fine-tuned, rather than "the opposite" of what we thought.

I never said anything about them being opposite, I said false. Opposite is not nearly as likely.

But that's the beauty of science, it has a built-in self-correcting mechanism.

For when one does that, one cannot come out the other end believing the patently rediculous claims of christianity

Which you do not seem to recognize. It may go anywhere from here.

 

[Tic Tach]

Wrong. Just one example of many too numerous it is impossible to count:
Lee Strobel, atheist/lawyer/investigative reporter (Harvard Law School, Chicago Tribune).
http://youtu.be/2AT_bMuFBfs

He's a pretty smart guy. He did exactly what you say no Christian does.

Yes, I'm familiar with Strobel. Unfortunately, you fail to look at him critically too. Simply Google "Lee Strobel Debunked" or "Lee Strobel Exposed" and see if you find any flaws in his assertions. You might find that his entire position is based not upon evidence, reason and honest investigation, but presuppositionalism.

Here is a start.

And here is another.

As for Einstein, again you pick one out of twelve extremely famous examples I listed. I am curious to the dates of all his quotes.

Hey, my time is limited. But I suggested that the men of that time, while smart for their time, were ignorant of many many things that a person in high school now knows. But you fully ignore how I showed you wrong on Einstein. Why?

OK, here's a list of modern day Christian scientists, in no way exhaustive.

Well, I hope you don't expect me to research all of those individuals and try to pry out what they really, actually believe. Besides, all you've done is display how incredibly partitioned and compartmentalized the human mind can be. I'm reminded of the story of a Texas oil tycoon who is a young-earth creationist, yet uses modern geology (based on a 4.5 billion year old earth) to find oil. Strange that.

Interesting too that you included Francis Collins in your list. Here's his (ahem) "reasoning" for his "belief" when reading his book "The Language of God", it's that one day while walking in the mountains, he came across a frozen waterfall in three teirs. He felt that it was a sign of the trinity, fell to his knees and "accepted Christ".

Yikes.

But my main point in our "hey look at my list of smart people" pissing match, is what evidence does your list of people actually have to offer? Are they keeping it from the entire scientific community? Or are you suggesting that the entire scientific community just won't listen?

 

[Jay.]

The last ten posts or so have had an unusual effect on my brain.
Did I say I don't believe in God? Yes I think I did.

I was expecting a thread with simple yes or no replies in it's posts, instead I find I'm likely to be brainwashed if I continue reading.
(Brainwashed or braindead, I'm not too sure, but I know it seems to have been running slower through the last ten posts.)

I might go and stick my finger in the light socket, just to see if science is still what I thought it was.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The last ten posts or so have had an unusual effect on my brain.
Did I say I don't believe in God? Yes I think I did.

I was expecting a thread with simple yes or no replies in it's posts, instead I find I'm likely to be brainwashed if I continue reading.
(Brainwashed or braindead, I'm not too sure, but I know it seems to have been running slower through the last ten posts.)

I might go and stick my finger in the light socket, just to see if science is still what I thought it was.

Yeah well most people like to convince the opposite to see it their way, hence why we aren't seeing just yes and no. Oh well...and seeing as the last 10 post are from the most prolific posters from this thread (some of the most). This to me shows that these guys have made this a downhill type thing from the get go. On a side not nothing to do with the quote or anything...but why does it seem that some of the people posting here didn't join GTP because it has anything to do with GT but more so because this one thread or threads like it was a reason for joining. It makes me wonder how many atheist or theist Google religion vs. non religion and got this in their search results and joined GTP due to it. However, trolls gonna troll.

 

[rocko100]

Somebody that regularly posts in this thread only posted in this thread since last year

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Somebody that regularly posts in this thread only posted in this thread since last year

LOL I think we both know who that is...and it sad when a person from one side or the other feels that they need to convice the whole of a group to see it their way. Leave people alone and let them believe what they want, unless the situation shows it may harm you in some way.

 

[Villain]

I was expecting a thread with simple yes or no replies in it's posts, instead I find I'm likely to be brainwashed if I continue reading.
(Brainwashed or braindead, I'm not too sure, but I know it seems to have been running slower through the last ten posts.)

I might go and stick my finger in the light socket, just to see if science is still what I thought it was.

Just take it all with a grain of salt and you'll be fine.

 

[Tic Tach]

Leave people alone and let them believe what they want, unless the situation shows it may harm you in some way.

Sometimes it's too late.

No, I maintain that it does matter what people believe.


And for the other assertion that I joined this forum for the reason of discussing this issue; 100% not true. I joined for the sole reason of GT, and later found this thread.

 

[Sam48]

@Tic Tach- You don't have an issue with my last post? Or do you not care? I thought you'd be all over me as always.

No, I maintain that it does matter what people believe.

What do you think would be worse, taking away people's right to believe what they want, or letting them smash airplanes into buildings? (Which, might I add is much harder to do now)

 

[Tic Tach]

@Tic Tach- You don't have an issue with my last post? Or do you not care? I thought you'd be all over me as always.

I guess I find it hard to understand what you're saying.

Example: "Which you do not seem to recognize. It may go anywhere from here."

What am I to make of that?

What do you think would be worse, taking away people's right to believe what they want....

As I said once before, I would fight for people's right to believe whatever they want. Nobody's suggesting making laws against holding false or crazy beliefs, but it is a very strange, and I suggest foolish and dangerous fallacy to suggest that there are or should be things that are free from inquiry.

 

[Sam48]

You stated this:

But that's the beauty of science, it has a built-in self-correcting mechanism.

But then you claim this:

For when one does that, one cannot come out the other end believing the patently rediculous claims of christianity

If one "cannot", after critically thinking this through, come out religious, then the scientific method has failed. In the same way that when one thought critically about whether or not the earth was round (As they did thousands of years ago), one would come out believing the earth was indeed flat.

 

[Tic Tach]

If one "cannot", after critically thinking this through, come out religious, then the scientific method has failed.

I'm still not following you friend. Perhaps if I change one word I'll make my point clearer:


When one places their belief that unicorns exist under critical inquiry, one cannot come out the other end believing that they do.

In the same way that when one thought critically about whether or not the earth was round (as they did thousands of years ago), one would come out believing the earth was indeed flat.

Again, I'm just not getting your point.