Is Christianity Anti-Science?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 вер 2021
- Is there a war between Christianity and science? Many think religion, in general, is opposed to scientific progress, but what does the research suggest?
Don't forget to help us create more videos! We need your support:
/ inspiringphilosophy
/ @inspiringphilosophy
Source:
Jerry Coyne - Yes, there is a war between science and religion
theconversation.com/yes-there...
Elaine Howard Ecklund, Christopher P. Scheitle - Religion Vs. Science
What Religious People Really Think
Elaine Howard Ecklund - Secularity and Science: What Scientists Around the World Really Think About Religion
Women in Science Statistic:
www.nsf.gov/statistics/2017/n...
Are scientists biased against Christians? Exploring real and perceived bias against Christians in academic biology:
journals.plos.org/plosone/art...
Hearing the Call: A Phenomenological Study of Religion in Career Choice:
journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1...
Recommending a Child Enter a STEM Career The Role of Religion: journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/...
Negative Stereotypes Cause Christians to Underperform in and Disidentify With
Science: journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/...
Scientists Negotiate Boundaries Between Religion and Science: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/a...
Perceptions of Religious Discrimination Among U.S. Scientists: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/a...
Religiosity and identity interference among graduate students in the sciences:
reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd...
Are atheists unprejudiced? Forms of nonbelief and prejudice toward antiliberal and mainstream religious groups:
psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-0...
Religion and the five factors of personality: a meta-analytic review: www.sciencedirect.com/science...
Ronald L. Numbers - Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion
Ronald L. Numbers - The Creationists: Expanded Edition
Edward O. Wilson - Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge
G. Tanzella-Nitti - The Two Books Prior to the Scientific Revolution
#Religion #War #History - Розваги
When I was in college I became very anti-religious, but when I left college I went back to faith. I’ve heard very similar stories across the Internet and I can confirm that the anti-Christian bias is real and is based a lot on generalizations and stereotypes
how could you step backwards like that Jarett?
@@edsiebert5986 in what way? Please elaborate
You know why stereotypes are so offensive to a lot of people? Because they are at least partially true.
@@missouritravelers fact*
@@missouritravelers A myth for which we have archaeological, historical, scientific, moral and philosophical evidences for?
Considering figures like Isaac Newton were Christian i would say no.
What does this sentence mean? Considering figures like IN ( is I N a figure?) were ( plurals? Are you still referring to IN or to the figures? )Christian ( whose Christianity are you referring to? In the singular!? - what is being asserted here? But it is interesting to know that you feel you have to say No to it............
@@kbeetles He is saying that, knowing that there have been many scientists who were Christians like Isaac Newton, the answer to the question “is religion against science?” is no.
@@missouritravelers facts are subjective and science is human. it’s not that simple
@@missouritravelers No, science also requires faith in the research of others
@@missouritravelers ok then prove that there is cosmic background radiation
" In china we can criticize Darwin but not the government, in America we can criticize the government but not darwin," -Philip E. Jhonson
WOW, that is a scary thought!
I'm not Christian, but I hate the whole "religion vs science" BS
"It has often been said, and certainly not without justification, that the man of science is a poor philosopher." - Albert Einstein
Of course they are, science is based on observational information and predictions made using that informstion. Philosophy is based on ideas that cannot be answered. Like whether or not a God exists
@@righty-o3585 You are definitely a man of science.
@@MonisticIdealism lol Ya think?
@@MonisticIdealism Haha! Stealth insult! I'm gonna have to try that one sometime. XD
@@jonathandoe1367 Lol I'm glad someone else got it.
Well… Kepler, Pascal, Mendel, Newton, Faraday, Kelvin, Galileu, Leeuwenhoek, Lavoisier, Dalton, Gödel and most of the most brilliant minds who walked on earth disagree with that statement. They were all Christians!
Exactly 💯
Not to mention their have been no scientific breakthroughs for atheism yet all scientific breakthroughs can be traced on the Bible when you read closely.
FACTS!!!.. ALSO GEORGE WASHINGTON CARVER....AND EINSTEIN CAME TO THE CONCLUSION LATER THAT THERE HAD TO BE A HIGHER POWER
Specifically, Godel, who is the most important individual for science in the last centuries, by the foundation of logic at maths. It is outstandingly stupid to posit a contradiction between them.
😂🤣😆😂😆🤣😆😆🤣😂😆🙄
I’m pursuing an education in genetics and biology to learn more about the Lord’s world. I’ve yet to find any conflict between God and what he is capable of creating.
You should find a teacher like James Tour.
@@calummacritchie7840 Funny you should mention that. A researcher friend of mine got me to start watching him.
@@alanball6691 what about your brain? How do you explain how complex your brain is from random chemical slush? How can you account for your capacities for thinking if the brain is merely pre-determined by chance?
@@alanball6691 There's no naturalist explanation for consciousness. This is a fact. Consciousness is one of the biggest mysteries in science. On top of the abysmal fine-tuning of the universe on top of the fact that the universe had a beginning, proves that whatever the uncaused first cause of reality is was space-less, timeless and immaterial. Philosophers all agree that in order for there to be anything at all there had to be something that just existed innately without cause, the problem with proposing that its the universe or laws of physics or whatever is that all these concepts have limits to them. God doesn't. He's the only proposition that can justify his innate existence by definition of what he is. You are wasting your time... IT does exist.
@@alanball6691 Prove it doesn't exist. Two can play that silly game. In the end there is no contradiction between believing in a deity and using the scientific method to research the natural universe.
I don't remember who said it or the exact quote, but it went something like: Science does not disprove God. It explains how God did it.
Or something to that effect.
Great video as usual IP
Einstein said that he was not interested in this or that phenomena but that he wanted to know God's thoughts in creating the universe. Einstein was a pantheist, by the way, another religious person of science.
Here is another one for you "Science answers questions of where, what, and sometimes how. Philosophy and Religion answer questions of why and who" don't know who said this one either, but yours reminded me of it
@@droe2570 source?
Lol thats based on a Philosophical position
OR the onus of proof relies upon the ASSERTER - ie those that think god is real. Therefore it is up to you to prove that god is real to us atheists.
I thought so until I saw your debate with Aron Ra
I don't know! Bring it! - Angry Atheist Aaron Fart ay esti Rah 😂
Christian or not, it is a complete misconception that the Dark Ages held back humanity technologically.
1. Even under religious institutions many non-Christian philosophers were studied by religious institutions.
2. The Chinese were more technologically advanced because of their better living standards (a lot more arable land, massive population, diverse and extremely powerful economy, etc) not because of their beliefs.
3. Christianity was never anti technology, in fact many Western European nations allied with the Mongol Empire (the most technologically advanced empire at the time), heck they even bought many of their technologies from the Mongols.
4. Europe still had the best armor in the world (plate armor), and some very high quality weapons through advanced metallurgy and craftsmanship. (Just because it isn't a machine does not mean it Doesn't COUNT AS FUCKING TECHNOLOGY)
Sorry Im just pissed off
I acknowledge how late this is... but I know right??? Like European advancement in the "dark ages" in metallurgy, geometry and architecture led to the great monuments of the high middle qges
Also the Byzantine Empire mentioned from a source in the 8th century had mentioned that the emperor had a thrown made of hydraulic machinery and surrounded by two golden lines with mechanical tails... also atheism played absolutely no role in scientific advancement lol. so we should turn the argument on them considering the mountain of evidence...
Correction: Medieval Europe might have been able to produce the best steel in the Medieval world (although this may be hard to verify) and they had access to blast furnaces near the end of the Medieval Era.
b-but muh japanese anime katanas would slice through it like butter
You are correct on all of this except for the mongols being technologically advanced. They were a nomadic steppe empire without a high culture or dynamic institutions. They were assimilated into the cultures that they conquered and adopted their technologies.
I see this conflict almost as a false monergistic vs synergistic view. (To use terms as used by Maximus the Confessor and Pyrrhus)
Good point
@@InspiringPhilosophy The "Conflict" is a 19th claim that seems to come from some anti Catholic mentality ua-cam.com/video/ZLoZc5DIU9o/v-deo.html&ab_channel=wwwAAASorg This video is great summary of it.
@@NoOne-dt1bi Tsar Martyr Nicholas of Russia.
@@Autobotmatt428 Seems that many things we're unfortunate to have to deal with today (Christ Mythicism, New Age, Modern Anti-Trinitarianism, Christmas / Easter = Pagan, "Mystery Babylon") all stem from polemics made against Catholics.
While I'm not Catholic, It's still ironic that a Presbyterian Alexander Hislop (Augustinian Trinitarian) laid the foundations for modern Anti Trinitarian literature.
@@willtheperson7224 Well I am a Catholic. And it is sad.
Loving this. So many people think YEC are the only christians out there. They need to know there is a heck of a lot more!
and those who do know dont care www
@@DSW-im8cj Those are even worse, because they are the ones that show their camp's true colors.
@@missouritravelers What does agreeability within the church have to do with the fact you atheists don't seem to care whether or not there is more to Christianity than the particular types you fixate on?
@@missouritravelers
I mean dead people coming back wasn't "anti-science" because the bible makes it very clear that his resurrection was not part of the natural order (scientific laws) if it was then no one should have been surprised by the resurrection or treated it so miraculously. So it was clearly viewed as a miracle. Whether or not miracles can happen has nothing to do with science but with your metaphysics and your definition of natural laws. Example: if you thing natural laws are regularities then there is no real ground to say the resurrection cannot happen.
@@missouritravelers You realize theistic evolution is a thing, right? Were you even paying attention to IP's video explaining its compatibility with Genesis? If you can't even be bothered to acknowledge that much, we got nothing to talk about.
I always laugh when I hear that religion and science are enemies. You have to basically ignore all of reality to put forth this view. Religious people developed almost all we know or think we know in science today. Heck, the geneticist Francis Collins, who led the Human Genome Project, is a Christian. Algebra was created by a Muslim, the 0 was first used by the religious people in the Indus Valley. Newton, a devout Christian, made huge contributions to physics and developed Calculus. All throughout human history, it has been religious people almost exclusively who developed science and civilization.
Yet science doesn't coexist with such an idea as religion. How many facts have you seen being refuted by the Catholic Church? Evolution, the Big bang and even the shape of the earth on some circumstances. None of this is due to what people believe, but what the context of their beliefs are. You mention people of religion making scientific discoveries as if it actually says anything about whatever religion they believe. On the contrary, algebra never originated from anyone of an Islamic background, it came from Hindus.
@@sentinel_nightcrawler I love how you basically ignore all facts, even the ones presented in this very video, that contradict your comment. Your remark is just another point against you. The only person ignoring reality is you.
The first mention of the term algebra and its earliest concepts comes from the Muslim mathematician Mahommed ben Musa al-Khwarizmi.
@@droe2570 I ignore no facts and am fully aware of what I said (and my mistake) it is a fundamental of religion to indoctrinate and refute science to keep itself existing in the minds of humans where it had originated from.
And I remember now, it was actually the ancient babylonians who have first invented algebra, the Muslim you talk about had just named it that
@@sentinel_nightcrawler evidence-free assertions do not count as evidence. Sorry to disappoint you, but just saying religion opposes science. That is not any sort of evidence or argument statement. That's like me saying cars don't like to eat bananas. It's just a meaningless assertion without any evidence or argument. But this is what most people who think of themselves as rational, but are really a secular religious fundamentalist believe. Most atheist and secular people think they are non-religious, but really they have a faith-based fundamentalist intolerant religion. If you take away a person's religion they will turn something which was not supposed to be a religion into one. Sort of like what you did.
@@khaccanhle1930 I guess a belief can be classed as such then. But evidence free assertions is what I would expect from Christians, all fallacies and no proof. I can prove what I deem as a fact, not that me deeming something makes it become such a thing but the way I do it simply by gathering enough evidence to make something an objective fact. On the contrary, you don't have any proof that I base my establishments on what I want to believe. If there is proof that God exists then fine, let it be so. I'm not saying that one should be witnessed by us to be established by us, I just find the most rational information there is to date and take it as being the truth. What I deem to be true is within the boundaries of human knowledge and within this epistemology, I can assert that God does or doesn't exist based on the limited information we have.
IP, are you planning on also covering the atheist claim that Religious people/Christians are destroying civilization? It's just as obviously absurd as the Religion vs Science claim, but I'd love to see you make such a presentation.
Well, it should
Nietzsche actually described what would happen to civilization with the radical removal of religion in his "God is dead" passage. It wasn't pretty. The atrocities of the 20th century committed in the name of secular humanist utopianism is eerily similar to what he described.
Critical and blackpilled towards Christianity as he was, Nietzsche said a lot of things that Christians should listen to and address.
@@kaj4life1 Which books of his do you recommend for a start, from a Christian perspective?
@@zayobayo2175 You should probably start with La Gaya Scienza (The Gay Science: and no it's not about homosexuality, it's sometimes translated The Joyful Science).
Nietzsche can be very difficult to understand because a lot of his writing is impish, to use his own term. He likes to poke and use hyperbole, some of his writings are tongue in cheek.
@@missouritravelers Yep, he went mad in 1890, then died in 1900. The story is that he went outside and saw a carriage driver beating his horse. He went suddenly mad, hugging the horse round its neck sobbing and trying to soothe it.
Nietzsche was very ill, had been for years. He was on various medications, he was an insomniac.
I don't see how any of that is relevant to his ideas, however, which must be judged on their own merits.
Thank you Dr. Michael Jones!
A reach from The Philippines
Great video as always Michael. Your reseach into these topics really have benefitted a lot of people
I didn't know the origins for much of what led to today's Young Earth Creationism! Thank you for sharing!
@@missouritravelers
Then the movement wouldn't have been so recent. Don't get me wrong, they're have been historic Christians who have their interpretations (or something similar) of genesis, but also those who don't. There is a reason why YEC is mostly a regional thing belonging to the 20th century. By in large those who are not American baptists don't hold YEC theology.
@@JP-rf8rr you got no chance against someone like that guy with standards that would also make things such as the observer effect in physics invalid.
People who don't respect & acknowledge linguistics and hermeneutics are doomed to be ignorant until they evolve.
Watch "Answers in Genesis" and "Is Genesis History?" youtube channels. They are very helpful. God Bless.
@@JesusisLOVEJohn- lol good joke
It's because they use the time line back to Adam and Eve, believing that they were the first humans on earth.....
They came after the seven day creation when everything was good...
Each day is a period of time expanding over millions of years.... then comes the evolved man from the kingdom before, made into the same image already created, the visible image we are born into.
Fantastic video, IP!
Fantastic comment Daniel! You must have posted this before the video was released.
@@calummacritchie7840 Look at that pretty green sign I have next to my name ;)
As a scientific Christian, this video is swaggy
Great video indeed Mr Jones, may God Yahweh bless you and your ministry 🙏🙏
@IP, Started watching your channel like 5k subs, even told few doctors myself few years back about your channel on certain of your videos. God Bless.
Can’t wait to see this!
Not really a shocker.
One has to just open their eyes to see what is going on. Some religions are nurtured and applauded, while Christians are, well, not.
Christians built the modern world just so people can shit on us using the very things we created/discovered
Thank you so much for this video!! Ot really was educating. And it really is surprising to discover that, despite what AiG like to claim, YEC wasn’t the Church’s historical view...
Excellent. Miss the epic music but love the extra info.
So many people told me that music was annoying and didn’t fit right.
@@InspiringPhilosophy hahaha, you just got to do it right! ;) timing and sound is everything.
@@InspiringPhilosophy I think you need to find a middle ground. Epic music is distracting and out of place, but some softer ambient music or sounds would help the video material feel more complete.
Well done, great video!
Thank you very much!
I'm a Christian and I love science. I live by faith and not by sight with critical thinking.
This is one of your best vids! The takeaway I sense is that certain scientists, particularly the ones who wield the levers of control of the practical scientific community (who control who gets what grants and who gets preference for publishing in preferred journals) are biased against certain religious perspectives. And I think you've done a very good job of providing supporting evidence for that perspective. But your leading question is whether Christianity is anti-science. And you provided abundant supporting evidence to support the idea that Christianity has historically supported science as an endeavor. I would suggest the only group of Christians who could be characterized as 'anti-science' is a small but disproportionately influential group of hyper-literalists. Well done.
Very insightful sir!
Thank you
Brilliant video! I love the variety of studies you examine in your videos.
This is absolutely brilliant... Especially the closing few mins!
Send this to tomy & RC 😅
Thanks IP, really enjoyed this. I cannot wait for this to be made public because I have been having a back and forth with a friend who is YEC and a SDA. Maybe this will help open his eyes.
I’ll have another video coming out in January you will also like.
What does SDA mean ?
@@triherh9373 Seventh Day Adventist.
Whats YEC
@@joywebster2678 Young Earth Creationist
First few minutes of the video and I have a question to you Michael, and to Coyne: does he mean contradiction between Christianity only and science, or all religions and science?
The question is important for me as I see most atheists are attacking Christianity in particular while omit talking about other religions at all in their publications.
He means all religions.
@@missouritravelers Demonstrate this please.
@@missouritravelers that's some Christians not all
@@missouritravelers at that has nothing to do with the religion
@@missouritravelers of that , the number of witches killed i can't say outside of the English speaking world, but in England witches were not killed, they were either imprisoned, given corporal punishments (whipped, put to hard labor)or fined. In English history the only people to be burned were other Christians.
now in total we could say a few thousand in the rest of Europe. If you lay that charge to Christians then I must lay several million deaths to the Atheist account, The 600 million to the Nazis, 30 million to Russia communists, 100 million to Communist China, Half of the people of Cambodia That is four million. Seems like Unbelievers killed a lot more.
Christianity hates Sin and that is what LBQT movement is, Have you not read what Paul wrote in 1st Corinthians 6 the list of sin that will keep you out of the kingdom of God, and ended with and some of you were some of this things before you were washed clean. And as someone who was a crossdresser for most of my 70 years, I can tell you that God can and will save even you, as he has me, I thank God that i am not the man I was.
Bless you, brother. I'll be a doctor of endocrinology soon
God bless you! Medicine is very closely bound to Christ because our lord worked miracle by healing the sick!
It’s a whole other experience when I watch your videos on the big screen 👌🏼
Excellent work as usual!
Perhaps some Christians are anti science but Christianity itself is okay with science and the want to understand god’s creation. There is no conflict between the two .
Atheists be gangsta until Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz... Advocate for the creation of the binary system of computers, Newton's "Rival" and an advocate for the creation of some fields in Calculus had his own theology on God and the entropy fits in with the notion that there is a beginning of all entropies.
Newton, had his own theologies
Kepler, Euler, etc
I think Wernher von Braun can fit in there, rocket scientist. Francis Bacon, father of the scientific method. Matthew Fontaine Maury, father of Oceanography. All Christians.
@@midknight3350 Dr Collins, Clark Maxwell. Werner Heisenberg, Gregor Mendel, and Kurt Godel, Asa Gray all Theists. The list goes on.
@@Autobotmatt428 And still not one shred of evidence that points to the existence of a god(s). Smart doesn't mean immune from delusion and most of those people went along to get along for fear of ostracization from society. Also, Jesus is Mohamad's gay lover. It's in the bible and quran.
@@rogerbee697 lol you're incredibly cringe bro 😂 yikes
@@rogerbee697 wait what? your gay? Raise your rainbow flag let's see...
Secular Science: "Noooooo we're just meat bags floating through space with no purpose we're only here to reproduce even tho my loser self will never have the chance!"
Christian Science: "Wow look at this vast beautiful universe God has made. And to think in all this intricate expanse, lil ol me matters to Him."
Yes, but be careful with the term "Christian Science" as there is a cult by that name. Yes, it is annoying that they call themselves that, when they are neither Christian nor scientists.
@@droe2570 aw cringe
@@missouritravelers what does mexican food taste like?
Have you tried mexican food?
@@missouritravelers Average subjectivist "we create our own paths in life"
omegalul quit that cringe, the arbitrary whimsical purpose you give yourself ain't shit
@@missouritravelers whoosh.
Oh well,
Some people are simply not ready.
Funniest thing is that some of the most influential mathematicians and scientists like Pascal were hardcore theologians.
What about the current ones?
Great video! We need people to bust this myth. Truth won't contradict truth. If science shows us that something seems to contradict scriptures, either the research was wrong or our interpretation of the scriptures need to change.
Thank you sir 🙏, this will be useful for me see especially when talking with young earthers and skeptics. And will you ever make a video about hermeneutics of the Bible and evolution? Like how we explain the fall or passages that seam to support a literal reading?
He actually already has a playlist about Genesis 1-11!!
@@user-zs3vd5np2s it is quite helpful. I highly recommend it, especially if you are running up against young earthers. I've studied biblical and ancient texts and cultures since I was a child and no once in my reading did I ever assume a literalist interpretation, but I had the advantage of also having read contemporary texts so better understood the perspective.
while the biblical texts do discuss the formation of matter, it is not a story told in genesis. the story in genesis is about God creating a place in which he and his children could dwell together, so the formation of the universe is irrelevant to the story. The writers simply assume that all the necessary parts are there already, which is extremely common in all of those contemporary texts.
@@azurephoenix9546 My biggest question about it is if an evolutionary standpoint where there is other people around along with Adam, would there be sin before Adam? If there was how could sin come through Adam? Did humanity just not sin until Adam did? It’s a very confusing thing. I’m not a YEC. And I’m not sure about evolution yet since I haven’t studied it deeply (though I’d lean towards it’s truth since that’s where modern scientific consensus seems to be going). It’s just hard for me to recognize other people around when Adam and Eve are there. The whole theology of a fallen world and an inherited sin nature are like the only questions I have with IP’s reading of the text. However I still find his series very convincing, and have at least a 75-80% confidence his reading is correct. (I also wonder about a local flood, since when in the NT it’s talked about how the world will be destroyed don fire like the flood, and that means a global fire and is universal. So if one is global and universal, would it imply the other is? This one is probably an easier one to answer, like it’s just comparing the destructive nature of events and contrasting the nature of how destruction will occur. It’s just one more convincing argument from the other side of the issue. These two issues are probably were the other side has the most weight, while their other arguments seem rather weak)
@@gospelfreak5828
I'm not sure that a regional flood several thousand years ago being called a global flood after the fact would necessitate an actual global flood.
If we assume that "the world" is whatever the writers knew it to be, then if the world is to be destroyed by fire now or in the future, that would be absolutely possible with the weapons we have available to us today and still not negate the texts. If the world to them was 100 square miles, then that's what it was to them and that's what they wrote down. The concept of a global flood is contained in several texts in this region, so my assumption is that that was what "the world" was to everyone in the region when it happened and a flood covered that world, it was simply part of their commonly held history. Between and in the context of all the contemporary texts, this fact is absolute: The whole world was flooded. It could still have been a regional flood, and many think it was most likely a tsunami that flooded out the area, so it is completely possible that it did happen, that it was absolutely catastrophic, and as far as they were concerned, absolutely did cover the entire world.
Moving on to Adam and Eve, I think they are probably archetypal figures used to illustrate the sin as opposed to being the only ones who sinned, though they very well may have been the first ones. In the story, the serpent and they have committed the same sin, which is to believe that they are wiser than they are and seek to become head over their own heads, to make themselves their own authority and ultimately their own Gods. The serpent seeks to usurp God's authority over man, and man seeks to illegally obtain the knowledge of God.
Heiser posits that the knowledge would have been given to mankind at some future point, but I'm not sure that it would, or that it would matter much to the story.
So Adam and Eve, as Heiser posits, were somehow in some position of preference to God, perhaps priest and priestess. This leads me to think that if they were, then it is likely that they had a following who were cast out along with them. I admit that my rationale for this is based on Seth and Cain both being married and having children without mentioning that their wives were also their sisters, but then the texts going on to establish that Abraham and Sarah were either half siblings or step siblings. If that wasn't anomalous and important, it is very unlikely it would have been mentioned, so the fact that none of the children of Adam and Eve seem to have any trouble finding non-relative mates and producing viable offspring with multiple generations, and that the text specifies "these are the generations of Adam" would indicate that those are the people who matter in the story and not the others who might also be present in that place and time.
This is just my personal theory and I'm certainly happy to be corrected or disagreed with.
Another good one IP!!!
I just came back to Christianity and I forgot what I use to know about the bible so thank u for helping me regain my strength in Christ
I’m glad you came back and I’m glad to help!
@@InspiringPhilosophy amen
@@marithompson8548 read the writings of the apostolic fathers
I am Seventh Day Adventist, but I mainly consider myself as non-denominational.
I do not know that the first creationist was from SDA. It's no more of a surprise because SDA's belief firmly holds the idea that God did create the world for six days.
This what made a non-denominational philosopher academe.
It was very uncomfortable to see my loving denominational faith held some dictums that are innerantly false.
Regardless of how my denominational faith hold these, I rejected them. But I still live under the core principles of Christianity that SDA teaches. What made me love Christ is through the core principles and teaching of Christianity.
Ellen White said (paraphrased) "If what I say and what the Bible say contradict, then choose the Bible over me."
So you are being a very good SDA in actuality.
Read the writings of the Apostolic Fathers
Same here....same here.
Funny, music was treated the same way. Decades ago the word on the street was the best guitar players played the Devils music or worldly music. And Christians played simple and less crafty or less talented music. However many decades to now if you dig deeper you'll see a very high proportion of those so-called talented guitar players were in fact Christian themselves in spite of not playing Christian music back in the day. Stereo typing has caused lots of false presumptions and beliefs about science and the arts. Anyway great video as always. Thank you IP👍
Omg you are so deceived.
Fantastic as always
14:40 lol I love how you put “No relations to Kent Hovind” under his name. Considering not just what they believe, but that they look similar too haha
Yeah, I thought so too.
@@InspiringPhilosophy Thank for all the work and research you do. It was people like Kent Hovind and Ken Ham that turned me into an agnostic. Meanwhile, your content brought me back to the faith!
@@InspiringPhilosophy Kent hovind is a joke I unfortunately used to also followed his little cult Ministry 🙄
@@javieredward777 ah well, not anymore... that charlatan is long gone...
Lol, tell that to Dr. Francis Collins and the entire BioLogos organization that is full of Christian scientists around the globe. If my memory is correct, aren’t 40% of scientists religious? I’m sure that # is skewed a bit too. So tired of the constant “war” between the two, it’s a false dichotomy. God created the natural world and its laws in a natural way for all of creation to evolve and progress. That’s where I stand. God bless.
Science is so advanced but it still can’t find G-d.
I think this is the frustration most science followers have and they are starting to blame this on G-d followers.
Your GOD is gay.
@@rogerbee697
See? This is the frustration I was talking about. You manifested it very well brother.
@@maxyi2672 So you're indirectly admitting your god is gay. Cool. How very tolerant and open minded of you. BTW, How is your god's homosexuality relevant to science?
Roger Bee
My point is quite clear. Given how advanced our science has become and given how smart modern day people have become and how well informed they are, we still can’t find G-d. This is not G-d’s problem, nor G-d’s followers’ problem. This is humains’ problem. On the other hand, it truly shows how great G-d is. We are this advanced already, we still can’t find HIM. HE must be MAGNIFICENT!!!
@@rogerbee697 you are so sad.
Great video!
Thank you for your work sir!
Every religions hold us back, not necessary because of the teaching though but because the puritan fanaticsm that always appear
Myths of a war twixt Christians and science,
Lies used to vilify the Faithful whom they fear,
They want your silence, shout in in defiance,
Fight, fight, my comrades for victory is near.
Onward ye Faithful, freedom awaits you,
All o’er the world, o’er the land and the sea,
On with the fight for the cause of Christianity,
March, march my brothers and our Faith will be free.
What rubbish!
The fact that the man who proposed the Big Bang Theory was a Catholic Friar who never compromised on his faith speaks volumes to me
I mean yes, I grant the broad point. That there are some in the sciences who are hostile to faith and a subset of believers who are hostile to science isn't in doubt, but I don't think one can seriously state there is a direct conflict. The approaches diverge and there are ways in which finding natural explanations for phenomena makes believers work a bit more on their reasons, but this is all to the good.
My one main concern with your video is it takes the Big Five personality traits to be things that are good (or in the case of neuroticism bad) in their own right. The literature doesn't tend to make that kind of value judgment. Extraversion can be either good or bad depending on the context, for instance. Too much agreeableness or conscientiousness can make one, for lack of a better term, a pushover and easily dominated. Too much openness to experience could mean experimentation that is dangerous or the inability to form strong beliefs. A complete lack of neuroticism also can be unhelpful, as stress and anxiety serve core biological and social functions in moderation. Your framing of four of the big five traits as desirable in their own right and the fifth as not so is thus a bit of an overgeneralization.
Thanks IP.
I've listened to many who advocate "young earth" creation and note many are scientifically astute, articulate and demonstrate that Christians, of all stripes, do understand science. At the very least it's terminology.
I don't believe deciding on, or agreeing with, what's the age of the earth and what, if any, evolutionary mechanism is valid has any bearing on my salvation, but bolsters the arguments against atheism.
More intriguing, in my view, are the "hard consciousness problem", the information paradigm and origin of life.
These problems, for the atheist, are the modern versions of the conclusion for Einstein's "relativity" which sent the scientific community into a tailspin, landing them squarely in fantasy lands of multiverses and changing the definition of "nothing".
I love your work IP. You have purpose.
But, I believe there's bigger fish to fry with than arguing against our brethren creationist.
Dragonflies. No evolutionary precursors, as with bats.
Monarch butterflies. Their unique migratory pattern.
Mammalian reproduction, especially human beings.
Just to name a few.
Darwinian evolution, natural selection, has no explanatory power, in view of the unexplained. It sucks! And a lackatheism pipedream.
As always God Bless, and keep up the good fight.
Then you are stuck in your own ignorance of the harsh truth that existence truly is. You're not only using an "I don't understand it so therefor it shouldn't exist" fallacy but also an "I don't like the idea of this so I'll pretend as if it's never real" due to the fact that most religious people are too afraid of the thought of leaving life never to see its glories again even though it is the most scientifically accurate representation of the beginning and end of life. Of course, you do not decide upon the age of earth, you don't have the power to. It is the earth upon itself that has an unconscious knowledge of that, and that, we can find through its aged remains and what we know of rocks. And evolution to put it simply isn't necessarily the teller of its beginning but rather its purpose, we have chemistry to figure that one out. What I mean by this is that we do have the knowledge that life shifts based on chemical changes, so it is those chemicals controlling the structure of life as we know it, so it is fairly reasonable to state that the origin of life goes back to those very necessary chemicals. Upon your 'salvation' do not regret bearing this thought after your dead, because you won't be alive to think about anything then. All those once thriving are now nothing more than hollow shells of their former selves. I understand that most of you theists hate this idea of the inevitable so you turn away from reality to something that you would like to listen to and just like that your problems are gone. Such ignorance. Henceforth why you mention this salvation of yours.
@@sentinel_nightcrawler ,
Yea, No!
Typical atheist ad hom attack unable to address any of my points likely having no idea, as you've demonstrated, what they entail.
Considering your ramblings it's likely you're new to this game and there by a waste of time.
Christians, and Christianity has contributed more to the advancement of science than any other ideological group.
Nearly 65% of Nobel Laureates are Christian.
It matters not a wit to me how old the earth or universe is. God, in His Wisdom, could have done everything in as long as it takes for your neural synapses to understand these words, or as long as it takes for a scientific consensus that the universe actually has a beginning, and beyond.
There is a growing number of secular scientist calling for a "Third Way" evolutionary mechanism noting that natural selection simply does not have explanatory power to answer current paradigms as I indicated.
So find yourself a fifth grader for help with your reading comprehension difficulties before you can figure out what to respond with, or go play with rocks.
Thanks for playing with projection.
@@utopiabuster it does seem that you most likely follow this fallacy I have mentioned proving my point, not that I'm surprised though. So most people that came up with scientific explanations, so what? A Christian could've come up with evolution, wouldn't at all mean that evolution gets along with the beliefs of the Christian. As a matter of fact, I have ransacked many theists before on this platform and unsurprisingly find that only 1 or 2 of them have some intellectual arguments. Neither does the age of the earth or the universe matter to me much neither, its just that us as humans strive to understand things.
So you use the appeal to authority fallacy like most theists, I'll tell you now that none of this surprises me knowing full well how you try hard 'knowers of the truth' do anything to make yourselves seem educated. Its just fallacies with you all the time, no real argument. I don't tell of the saying of another to win an argument, I'd have to actually verify the scientific proof to refute ones argument which is pretty easy considering the lack of evidence there is of the existence of God. Natural selection is by far the most proven example of evolution there is, simply because we know of animals with the most adaptations living around animals that are lesser to them.
@@sentinel_nightcrawler ,
You've "ransacked" theist?
What, their pockets for lint?
You're playing "Captain Fallacy".
Is it the cape?
Or, do you have a spandex fetish?
Facts are not fallacious!
As stated, a growing number of secular scientist, including Sir Roger Penrose, are calling for a "Third Way" evolutionary mechanism noting that natural selection alone simply does not have the explanatory power to answer current paradigms as I indicated with "hard consciousness problem", information paradigm and origin of life.
The "hard consciousness problem" is such a defeater for the atheist that Daniel Dennett argues that consciousness is an illusion.
The atheist, desperate for some kind of validation, sticks with the dogma of an over 150 year old theory with fanatical fervor, unwilling, and unable, to accept it's numerous failings and inconsistencies. Evident with Elliot and Goulds long term study resulting in their "punctuated equilibrium". Which was roundly panned when initially introduced and is now gaining rapid acceptance out of necessity due to persistent observatory validation.
In this respect, the creationist, thinks outside the box, offering much needed new perspectives to an out of date historical persepctive.
And no, you have in no way addressed the issues I presented. Instead opting for typical atheist "blah-blah".
Origin of life offers innumerable challenges to the materialist. Leaving the materialist desperately clinging to a long past 1950's experiment which couldn't even scratch the surface of validity, to this day.
Mammalian reproduction alone with its close to 17,000 enzymes needed from the production of sperm and egg to birth. Any of which, dysfunctional, can have a deleterious effect on the process. Not to mention the clockwork precision of egg release.
No, considering your comment, you are decidedly out of your league here.
Thanks for playing with so few functional neurons.
@@sentinel_nightcrawler ,
Furthermore, that you've convinced yourself that there is no evidence for God's existence says a lot about your dismissing your own mind.
Why don't we start with you're defining that "evidence" thing you know nothing about.
Thanks for playing like a forth grader.
Almost every invention is invented by Christians n Jews. N they share same god. Yahweh..
God's creation has been revealed by his worshipers.
"God's creation has been revealed by his worshipers" sounds like a non sequitur.
IP your videos are really great and also insightful.love from Ethiopian Orthodox church brother. And we are trying to Respond to your video about the book of enoch, b/c we believe its scripture and love you.
Thanks for the video. Just a note, the OCEAN model is outdated (although much research reference it). Better to use the HEXACO model, which splits up neuroticism.
There are people who believe in God who do still love science. I just can’t help but think about the inverse when people think this. You know the whole science requires sacrifice and doing things just because they can not thinking about whether they should Jurassic park kind of thing, mad scientist stuff. It has happened before. Two extremes, I honestly like to be somewhere near the middle.
Once again Micheal, you've proven once again that Christians do their research and ironically atheists jump to conclusions. At least with Agnostics like David Berlinski, they admit intelligent design is credible.
Thank you IP
Good topic sir
"No relation to kent hovind" 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Glad you noticed the resemblance
Science and religion are two face of the same coin. Neither can live without the other.
Religion tells you to believe, science teach you to make sure of it although for some occasions, science has limitations to reach something to learn for
This video is gonna be a banger
I cannot tell you how many flat earthers insist that THEY are truly supporters of science and that academics who disagree with them are just biased. Legions of creationists likewise insist that they are completely supportive of science. The data you cite does not in any way suggest that these groups are actually supportive of science and scientific research; only that they prefer to think of themselves that way.
Do you have a single piece of evidence that christians are anti science? How do you deal with the fact that Christianity and christians built science in the first place?
Christianity says the earth is flat
Isaiah 40:22Job 26:10
Except that the book of Isaiah is not meant to be a book of science.
Hey IP! I don’t know if you will answer this but what are you thoughts on Christian idealism “coming out” as Catholic?
Hey InspiringPhilosophy, great video the only problem is that at 11:58 when you show the pro christian and science research, you put Gods Philosophers and Genesis science, technically speaking those are the same book, but i do have one you could recommend
"How the Catholic Church built western civilization" by Thomas Woods
Well, I noticed that when I say I am a Christian, it is followed by a cornucopia of assumptions about what I personally think about science by bigoted so and sos.
Me that’s wrong of people. Just like if I say I’m an atheist I too get it followed by assumptions and insults and people will tell me this or that without bothering to even ask me anything. Both sides need to stop that and just talk. But conversation had become a lost art it seems.
@@guyjosephs5654 Yeah, that's the thing, all of the assumptions can immediately be remedied by asking questions, so it makes it that much more difficult forgiving those kinds of errors because they're completely preventable and easily at that. More over, it is embarrassing, coming to the realization that you just made up a bunch of information about someone you weren't fully cognizant of.
@@radmcbad1576 exactly! And when you call someone on it, because you should, I’ll even try to be polite about them dig in even deeper and then say ridiculous things.
There's a troll called Lucas Lombardo who's stuck on the notion of biblical "genocide" (I think you've probably heard this canard before) you should do a video like this on that subject.
Wonder what video editing software this guy uses.
Science and Religion fundamentally are aiming to answer two very different questions.
Although christian ‘young earther’s’ unfortunately tend to yell the loudest- some try to push there ideologies into public systems, therefore creating quite a visible tension between academic science and religious fundamentalism.
I once did an essay for college about this very topic. Just wish it was better communicated honestly.
My issue with only citing scientist who are university instructors is that many universities are extremely left leaning period ( some are actually Marxist) and much of their faculty period would be atheist or agnostic. Invariably hiring practices at these universities would sort against theists period.
Let's say hypothetically police tended to be far more religious than the general population. This is probably true to a degree as police officers tend to be politically conservative. Would it make sense to conclude based on this that atheism is in conflict with law enforcement in society? Based on Coyne's "logic" one should conclude in fact that atheism and law enforcement are mutually exclusive.
My dad once had a fellow math professor at RIT seriously ask him if Christians believed dinosaurs were a trick from the devil.
It shows how the internet can easily deprive the critical thinking abilities of athiests... truly saddening...
Epic video. God Bless.
Christian principles are to be thanked for the scientific method and the foundation of institutions of higher learning in the west so …. No
Why only 2.3k views ?🤔🤔 I think this channel is more underrated lol...!
I recommend to anyone to read The Return of the God Hypothesis for a different analysis of the relationship between Science and Christianity based on history and contemporary science.
A lot of people think Genesis says earth was made in seven days and didn't read the part where it says that the 7 days are the generations of which the world was made.
Atheists: Science vs Christianity
Plantinga: Where the Conflict really lies
Hermano muchas gracias bendiciones!!
GOOD VIDEO
13:56
The 74th Book of Scripture...
Good video
It's just like saying why women are in lower pay jobs when statistically they have options to be home makers while men may be looked down for being home makers and pressure by society expectations.
Two different effects I saw and experienced: 1. These days, being in academia assaults one’s faith so one may change. 2. Advancement for Christians is harder.
There's a similar underrepresentation of Evangelicals in other elite institutions, especially film and journalism. Jewish culture (whether religious or secular) is fiercely anti-Evangelical, and that would explain some of the underrepresentation in these fields.
More like anti-Christian overall.
Why's there no music
Lol I just noticed. What a strange feeling.
1 day = 1,000yrs God created and rested a total of 7 days = 7,000yrs since then man has ruled about 6,000 = 13,000yrs age of the universe = 13,000yrs and if the speed of light was a million times faster at the beginning a 13,000 year old universe would look like a 13 billion year old universe.
Please make a supposed contradiction video on Death-Resurrection days of Jesus.
I really feel like the failure on the test part is because of all the persecution like cuz there's doubt and questioning going on, I don't know do I really know this since everybody's saying that I don't.
it is a scientific impossibility that everything came from nothing 🌊 = thankU science 🕊️ - glory to God ✝️
I’m conflicted with what the church fathers believed. I’ve often heard that they were what we call “old earth creationists” but I’m unsure of this because I’ve also read from them that they had young earth views and that the world was less than 10,000 years old.
that was the work of Vatican mathematician who added up the length of the reins of all the kings, patriarchs to get the age, mistakes were made but the range of 6000-10000 years is what they got.
@@Delgen1951 I once remember a video with quotations from St.Augustine where he said that the world was created in the 4000sBC and that the Egyptian chronology of the world was wrong. Wouldn’t he count as a young earther?
@@randomango2789 Today maybe so, but I do not know what method he used to calculate the age of the world, as some kings reains and patriarchs overlap.
Old or young Earth does not matter for me as much as the earth and universe had a begin and this is proven, by the wholly improbable advent of creation. Up until 1963 science had two different theroys on on the age of and how the universe was created. Constance creaction and enteral universe both were thrown out when the Big Ear radio telescope at bell labs heard a humm that eventually was proved to be the microwave echo of the big bang, the universe had a begin in time and space, and Cosmology has been trying to get back to the enteral universe ever since.
Ok what does Jesus say on this, nothing, what does Paul say nothing. This is a question of human thought, not unimportant, but don't get bent out of shape over it. it is an area of dispute. if you want a differnt view of it read the Unseen relam by Dr. Micheal Hosuer.
The reason why I think it's so lopsided like that is because they agnostics in the atheist are trying to find answers that Christians aren't worried about finding answers too because the answer has been given by God and his word.
Excellent point, sir
if I'm an agnostic, there might be a propensity to enter the scientific field to disprove the claims of religion
@@arsaraza too bad Jesus Christ is already disproved religion. Jesus Christ said he is the way, don't forget how he preached against the Sadducees and the Pharisees.
@@jeremycrofutt7322 if you mean fake religiosity, I agree with you
@@arsaraza religion has to be man-made I never heard Jesus Christ who is God say about religion. Think about how it says in the book of Genesis chapter 6 the sons of God saw the daughters of men and took any of them as they wanted as wives. And then the church is depicted as the bride of Christ. The nation Israel is the Bride of God. That plays the harlot. Read the book of Ruth? Ruth was a moabite Boaz was a Jew their son obed is the father of Jesse who is the father of David sounds like you and Gentile blood mixed together Jesus would carry both bloodline decent. Just like his word says He would rather not one perish.
@@jeremycrofutt7322 james mentioned something about pure religion
Meaning the word is not purely negative
good points made
As without the eye there is no rainbow, so without the mind there is no phenomena to study.
It depends on what you mean by science.
Christianity is not against the scientific method. It is useful to make models of the patterns we observe.
But we should not let the results undermine faith in love, hope, joy, life as the more fundamental realities which are more powerful than fear and death, just because such things are excluded from the axioms we use in science. Oddly enough only faith in love, hope, joy seems to be undermined by scientism, while fear increases. Well, not so weird, since in the world of matter, all things do decay, so there is no hope, thus no function for love or joy except at best as a distraction people feel a bit guilty for indulging in.
In my view, Christianity must be against taking the axioms of science as dogma.
We should not take it on faith that:
1. Anything we can observe has independent existence
2. The "laws" of nature are not changing over time
3. There is no purpose to what goes on
Absolutely everything screams that these three are false, even though they let us approach natural science with a less biased method. Within local situations they are true enough to be useful. We should absolutely continue doing that type of science that uses these axioms. We should just be more concerned about the other things we do, way more concerned. Society is falling apart, because people are taking these axioms as some sort of (ironically) God given absolute, and then running about doing the best of it, their own lives being some sort of outlier that really should be ignored, but they just can't seem to.