RE: Christianity compatible with atheism
October 2, 2011 at 9:15 pm
(This post was last modified: October 2, 2011 at 10:12 pm by Anomalocaris.)
I don't mince words. When science has been developed to a certain level as it has now, procedures and frameworks are in place such that people who don't understand the fundamental principles can do useful work. But having done useful work, in some cases ground breaking work, they still really don't understand the basic principle that made the whole thing work. They still don't understand that their work in based on principles which would find christianity false.
At certain times in the past, when the framework of science is in its infancy, and the body of knowledge derived by science is small, it was not known how the earth evolved, it is not known how life evolved, It had seen enough of the world to know shabby malcontented and mentally disturbed prophets like Jesus is dime a dozen, it has not study enough of the world history to see mundane nature of the psychosis that allowed Christianity, and other cults grow to totalitarian religions, and it had not studied the real roots of human behavior, Therefore if could afford few opportunities to contradict the bullshit of christianity, it seemed acceptable to consult christianity for guidance. So it is to be expected that even at the fore front of 17th century science, even those who are working on the fundamental principles, such as Newton with his concept of necessary and sufficient condition, can imagine that somehow christianity is fundamentally reconcilable to the firmer discoveries being made, and that it's revelations are not mostly manifestly false. 4 centuries later, it is clear that all of christianity's defining value are so unlikely to be true as to be natural to deem it false based on accumulated discoveries. To believe Jesus and science require cognitive dissonance, or self deceptive mental contortions, on the same caliber as knowing the nature of wood and believing the story of Pinocchure.
At certain times in the past, when the framework of science is in its infancy, and the body of knowledge derived by science is small, it was not known how the earth evolved, it is not known how life evolved, It had seen enough of the world to know shabby malcontented and mentally disturbed prophets like Jesus is dime a dozen, it has not study enough of the world history to see mundane nature of the psychosis that allowed Christianity, and other cults grow to totalitarian religions, and it had not studied the real roots of human behavior, Therefore if could afford few opportunities to contradict the bullshit of christianity, it seemed acceptable to consult christianity for guidance. So it is to be expected that even at the fore front of 17th century science, even those who are working on the fundamental principles, such as Newton with his concept of necessary and sufficient condition, can imagine that somehow christianity is fundamentally reconcilable to the firmer discoveries being made, and that it's revelations are not mostly manifestly false. 4 centuries later, it is clear that all of christianity's defining value are so unlikely to be true as to be natural to deem it false based on accumulated discoveries. To believe Jesus and science require cognitive dissonance, or self deceptive mental contortions, on the same caliber as knowing the nature of wood and believing the story of Pinocchure.
