Can a person be a scientist and believe in science yet be religious? - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

Can a person be a scientist and believe in science yet be religious?

ei8hty5ive Avatar
6y, 11m agoPosted 6 years, 11 months ago
Can a devout Christian research science such as evolution effectively or would that be going against the grain of either parties?!? Ummm...
ei8hty5ive Avatar
6y, 11m agoPosted 6 years, 11 months ago
Options

All Comments

(48) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
#1
yes. i am a christian and believe in evolution.

you dont have to take the 7days of creation literally. it was just a simple way that god could tell them at the time to explain everything. if you line everything that the bible said happened, with what science says happened they match anyway.
#2
We have a guy worked weekends at asda while doing medicine at university-he is a devout baptist.

Despite now being a qualified doctor he actually believes that:

Women have less ribs than men
Dinosaurs never existed
Being gay is a lifestyle choice
Anyone who masturbates is mentally ill

we had some heated arguments,but in the end he is a brainwashed nutcase imho

I dont think its christians that dont believe in evolution,its some baptist sects and nutty evangelists
#3
Christians have sex after marriage, biology is a science :-D
#4
barky
We have a guy worked weekends at asda while doing medicine at university-he is a devout baptist.

Despite now being a qualified doctor he actually believes that:

Women have less ribs than men
Dinosaurs never existed
Being gay is a lifestyle choice
Anyone who masturbates is mentally ill

we had some heated arguments,but in the end he is a brainwashed nutcase imho


looooooooooooooooooool

that is ridculous
#5
emhaslam
yes. i am a christian and believe in evolution.


+1
#6
emhaslam
yes. i am a christian and believe in evolution.


Interesting...How? Do you also believe in Adam and Eve?
#7
Well for one thing it would depend on the motivation behind your research and what you were trying to achieve with it.

Also, surely just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean you can't research it? You may not agree with something but that doesn't necessarily mean it is of no intellectual interest to you.
#8
barky
We have a guy worked weekends at asda while doing medicine at university-he is a devout baptist.

Despite now being a qualified doctor he actually believes that:

Women have less ribs than men
Dinosaurs never existed
Being gay is a lifestyle choice
Anyone who masturbates is mentally ill

we had some heated arguments,but in the end he is a brainwashed nutcase imho

I dont think its christians that dont believe in evolution,its some baptist sects and nutty evangelists


I know a few people like that!!
#9
Also, I suppose it depends on how you interpret the Bible, and whether you see certain stories, such as the Creation, as literal or metaphorical accounts.
#10
ei8hty5ive
Interesting...How? Do you also believe in Adam and Eve?


just a metaphor of people ignoring God, how none of us are perfect, how god still loves us even though we went against him etc
#11
uhoh, religion threads never end happy.
#12
studentessa
Also, I suppose it depends on how you interpret the Bible, and whether you see certain stories, such as the Creation, as literal or metaphorical accounts.


emhaslam
just a metaphor of people ignoring God, how none of us are perfect, how god still loves us even though we went against him etc


exactly

the bible imo isnt an exact account of history, it contains guidlines on how to live life as a christian, there are many literal and metaphorical meaning in it, depends entirely on how one interprets them
#13
Of course you can be both, some very renowned scientists are christians. I think only people who don't know enough about what christians actually believe think that you can't.
#14
of course they can - and lots do.

Interesting discussion - thanks for making everyone think.

I am a Christian - and believe God made the world but not in the 7 days we would class as 7 days - and not necessarily in the way we understand it to be - hope that makes sense !
#15
t0mm
uhoh, religion threads never end happy.


dont see why they should. i dont think anyone should try to convert anyone, and people should be able to take criticism of their belief, especially if its just people asking questions. i often dont see why people are so uptight about religion and their beliefs...
#16
I'm not trying to dispel the bible or be disrepectful but are the events in the bible not to be taken literally now and merely act as metaphors?
#17
studentessa;7677470
Also, I suppose it depends on how you interpret the Bible, and whether you see certain stories, such as the Creation, as literal or metaphorical accounts.


+1
#18
ei8hty5ive
I'm not trying to dispel the bible or be disrepectful but are the events in the bible not to be taken literally now and merely act as metaphors?


up to you. personally i think so are metaphors - creation, adam and eve, but i know many at my church who take them all literally.
#19
To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.
banned#20
yes...
#21
Im a Christian too,and wouldnt see a problem researching evolution. :thinking:
#22
emhaslam
up to you. personally i think so are metaphors - creation, adam and eve, but i know many at my church who take them all literally.


Suppose it (the bible) would make more sense to me if it was not to be taken literally but what was suggested by my school master was that the events (and the bible as a whole) is there to test your faith to see if you truly believe...
#23
ei8hty5ive
I'm not trying to dispel the bible or be disrepectful but are the events in the bible not to be taken literally now and merely act as metaphors?

The Bible, or for that matter more or less every religious text, leaves the door open for different levels of interpretation. It is up to individual believers how they interpret the Bible, and on the most fundamental level this translates into how literally you take the Bible. Those who believe that the Bible is to be taken entirely literally cannot believe in Evolution, as it directly contradicts the literal wording of the book of Genesis. But such people are in a minority; the majority choose to interpret the Bible in a more liberal fashion, taking the morals and themes from the stories as opposed to the literal wording. This approach is taken by the majority nowadays, and there is no issue with a Christian taking such an approach and also believing in Evolution. The two can be entirely consistent.
#24
ei8hty5ive
what was suggested by my school master was that the events (and the bible as a whole) is there to test your faith to see if you truly believe...

A logical stance for a fundamentalist Christian, but the whole point is that the opening assumption (i.e. whether or not the Bible is to be taken literally) is a matter for individuals. Belief is personal and subjective, and attaching objective classifications to religious belief (i.e. 'you aren't a real believer if you don't think the Bible is literally true') is always going to encounter difficulties for that reason.
#25
Crazy Jamie;7677786
The Bible, or for that matter more or less every religious text, leaves the door open for different levels of interpretation. It is up to individual believers how they interpret the Bible, and on the most fundamental level this translates into how literally you take the Bible. Those who believe that the Bible is to be taken entirely literally cannot believe in Evolution, as it directly contradicts the literal wording of the book of Genesis. But such people are in a minority; the majority choose to interpret the Bible in a more liberal fashion, taking the morals and themes from the stories as opposed to the literal wording. This approach is taken by the majority nowadays, and there is no issue with a Christian taking such an approach and also believing in Evolution. The two can be entirely consistent.

^^^ that :)

I would prefer the comfort of believing there is God than not :)
#26
PhilthyPhil
Im a Christian too,and wouldnt see a problem researching evolution. :thinking:


I can understand the research, but what would you believe if you found something that would dispel the notion of God? Science questions everything and the whole point is to find the answers, which you cannot be done with religion which doesn't question but asks for faith and belief...
#27
Crazy Jamie
The Bible, or for that matter more or less every religious text, leaves the door open for different levels of interpretation. It is up to individual believers how they interpret the Bible, and on the most fundamental level this translates into how literally you take the Bible. Those who believe that the Bible is to be taken entirely literally cannot believe in Evolution, as it directly contradicts the literal wording of the book of Genesis. But such people are in a minority; the majority choose to interpret the Bible in a more liberal fashion, taking the morals and themes from the stories as opposed to the literal wording. This approach is taken by the majority nowadays, and there is no issue with a Christian taking such an approach and also believing in Evolution. The two can be entirely consistent.


Good answer.
1 Like #28
ei8hty5ive
I can understand the research, but what would you believe if you found something that would dispel the notion of God? Science questions everything and the whole point is to find the answers, which you cannot be done with religion which doesn't question but asks for faith and belief...
A common approach from the more liberal Christian viewpoint is that science answers 'how?', and religion answers 'why?'. From that perspective the two are mutually exclusive. However, perhaps a more fundamental reason why the above scenario is unlikely is that more or less all Christians are unified in believing that humans cannot truly understand the nature of God. It is difficult to prove that something doesn't exist when you cannot define it to begin with. Belief in God is also a matter of faith and his existence cannot be proven, so on the flip side how can it actually be disproven? I'm not saying that such a thing is impossible, of course, as who knows what technology will throw up in the future. But currently I think that there is a gap in understanding there that science just realistically cannot bridge.
#29
It would be fine if all of these religious people actually practised what they spout.:x
1 Like #30
Inactive
It would be fine if all of these religious people actually practised what they spout.:x


I'm sorry you never hear about the people who do :)

Yes people can believe in science and be religious of course, even scientists can only explain so far, and they go to err I don't know. If you get my thoughts on that.

I attend church every week and do believe in science but even science (phyics for example) can be broken, and I don't preach to people my beliefs if they ask and geniunly want to know I explain. Who am I to judge anyone.

I know that god exists so that's alright for me.

At the end of the day were all just trying to find our way.;-)
#31
Adam2050
I'm sorry you never hear about the people who do :)

;-)


Me to, I only hear about those that want to blow each other off of the face of the Earth, sadly.

However they are in huge numbers it would seem, some of them quite happily burning others alive, simply because they don't share the same religion.

Nice kind of people... :roll:
#32
Sadly you get extremists in all religions, some athiests aint too nice either!!
Well said Adam 2050.
#33
Yes religious people can be scientists. But I can see why their could be a conflict between the two. As the scientific method is based on evidence while religion is not based on any evidence at all. But a lot of religious scientists believe they are trying to unravel god's mysteries of the universe. So they are able to do very good research and increase ore knowledge on subjects such as evolution and the creation of the universe.

Also the OP states believe in science. You do not need believe in science as it is based on evidence.
banned#34
It'd be a strange combination to be a scientist but also to believe in something there's no proof of.

I suppose it would make scientific papers easier to write if you didn't have to back up anything you said though:-D
#35
FilthAndFurry;7681284
It'd be a strange combination to be a scientist but also to believe in something there's no proof of.

I suppose it would make scientific papers easier to write if you didn't have to back up anything you said though:-D


I am no match to your cleverness :-D....I'd say it anyway....
Science is just trying to understand the universe, copy the principles and simulate it where needed. Belief is beyond understanding and proof.........if that makes sense:thinking:
#36
PhilthyPhil
Sadly you get extremists in all religions, some athiests aint too nice either!!
Well said Adam 2050.



Indeed you do, however the religious seem to be in the majority when it comes to inflicting misery upon others.:roll::roll:
banned#37
Marina
I am no match to your cleverness :-D....I'd say it anyway....
Science is just trying to understand the universe, copy the principles and simulate it where needed. Belief is beyond understanding and proof.........if that makes sense:thinking:


Thus making it impossible to question.

It's a shame that people who use the defence 'God told me to' in court are often found insane.

Clearly the judge doesn't understand such things are beyond 'understanding and proof'.
#38
FilthAndFurry;7681373
Thus making it impossible to question.

It's a shame that people who use the defence 'God told me to' in court are often found insane.

Clearly the judge doesn't understand such things are beyond 'understanding and proof'.


Cos it can be abused :giggle:

Well, I'm not the type to say "God told me to..." "God has said this....here in the bible" etc..:thumbsup:
1 Like #39
ei8hty5ive
Suppose it (the bible) would make more sense to me if it was not to be taken literally but what was suggested by my school master was that the events (and the bible as a whole) is there to test your faith to see if you truly believe...


The Bible should be taken literally, it is the word of God. If we don't understand it, then we should pray for the understanding & do the research. Sites like [url]www.answersingenesis.org[/url] might be a good start. Mark 9:24 Immediately the father of the child cried out and said with tears, “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!”

Take The Cross free online course, an excellent place for study. http://www.settingcaptivesfree.com/courses/the-cross/

Crazy Jamie
The Bible, or for that matter more or less every religious text, leaves the door open for different levels of interpretation. It is up to individual believers how they interpret the Bible, and on the most fundamental level this translates into how literally you take the Bible. Those who believe that the Bible is to be taken entirely literally cannot believe in Evolution, as it directly contradicts the literal wording of the book of Genesis. But such people are in a minority; the majority choose to interpret the Bible in a more liberal fashion, taking the morals and themes from the stories as opposed to the literal wording. This approach is taken by the majority nowadays, and there is no issue with a Christian taking such an approach and also believing in Evolution. The two can be entirely consistent.


Good understanding of peoples views. But the Bible if not taken literally is then just mans interpretation, picking and choosing what suits him, breaking the first commandment Thou shalt have no other gods before Him. Creating a god to suit yourself is not being a christian because you are not following Christ, you can call yourself any name you like but it doesn't mean He'll know you. You can sleep in a garage it doesn't make you a car, you can attend church it doesn't make you a Christian.

Who are we to question God, the Creator of us? A true follower of Christ can not believe in evolution it would mean there was death before sin. The Bible clearly states that death only came because of sin and there is only victory over death by the blood of the lamb the sinless Jesus Christ who is God in the flesh.

If you read the old testament through the eyes of the new, you will see that Jesus Christ fulfilled the law and we are no longer under the law but under grace. The old testament foretells all about Him, He is woven throughout it, Abraham taking Isaac to be sacrificed, but God provided a ram. Is a foreshadow of God providing the Lamb, His only son Jesus Christ .

Crazy Jamie
A common approach from the more liberal Christian viewpoint is that science answers 'how?', and religion answers 'why?'. From that perspective the two are mutually exclusive. However, perhaps a more fundamental reason why the above scenario is unlikely is that more or less all Christians are unified in believing that humans cannot truly understand the nature of God. It is difficult to prove that something doesn't exist when you cannot define it to begin with. Belief in God is also a matter of faith and his existence cannot be proven, so on the flip side how can it actually be disproven? I'm not saying that such a thing is impossible, of course, as who knows what technology will throw up in the future. But currently I think that there is a gap in understanding there that science just realistically cannot bridge.


You don't have to see a house being built to know that there was a builder, you have the building as proof. You didn't see Da Vinci paint the Mona Lisa but you might have seen the painting, so you know that there was a painter. Your eyes alone are more brilliantly designed & more complicated than any camera in existance, there must have been a Designer. Look out the window see the birds, the trees, Creation speaks of a Creator. That Creator is God, the proof is His Creation. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
Psalm 19:1-3

Inactive
It would be fine if all of these religious people actually practised what they spout.:x


Ghandi replied, "Oh, I don't reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ."

I thought I was a Christian because I said a prayer but although I believe in Christ, I am not yet a Christian, even the demons believe and tremble. I have yet to be broken over my sins and born again, so from one rebellious sinner take the time to see if you are truly a Christian not just a follower of a god made to suit yourself, some Grand Pappy in the sky.

[url]www.needgod.com[/url]
Go to http://www.livingwaters.com/ and listen to hell's best kept secret & true and false conversion.
#40
But Berni888 how can you say that the Bible, as we have it today, is the word of God? The Bible has undergone many, many translations, there are many versions, interpretations, etc. Even taking the NT, which in comparison to the OT is easily accessible if you can read NT Greek, a language such as that does not have a vocablulary nearly so large as we have today. Therefore unless reading the original text one is completely at the mercy of the translator, which is more than just a small issue. Translation is extremely subjective, especially in a "dead" language like ancient Greek where many terms have multiple meanings, indicating that it is up to the translator to choose what he thinks is most appropriate, and moreover in particular when one is talking about a text in which each and every word carries so much meaning. For OT texts I would imagine this is even more of an issue bearing in mind the language in which it was originally written and its age; if one considers the manner in which texts were transmitted, copied, and reproduced before the invention of the printing press then without doubt the relevant texts would have been subject to alteration over time. The manuscript tradition is known for the way in which it can foster errors which become part of the text, especially in cases where the copyists are simply that, and not capable of actually reading the text. Therefore I question the notion of the Bible being the "word of god" today as we are reading versions of texts which have come down to us over thousands of years. I do not know much about the history of translating the Bible, but I cannot see how someone could consider that the Bible as a word for word guide on how one should live their life when it is the product of millenia of scholarly interpretation.
On the other hand, interpreting events in the Bible as metaphorical rather than literal gives the reader the chance to assimilate the information into their own frame of reference which is surely more akin to the original intention. How can we understand the text in terms that a 2nd Century AD Roman might do? We can't, we live in a completely different world, and as such I believe that if a text like the Bible is read metaphorically it has the ability to adapt to modern contexts and maintain the messages which it is intended to deliver. I think to take it in a literal sense is anachronistic and doing so actually detracts from its meaning.

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!