Christianity compatible with atheism

[kılıç_mehmet]

I went to a talk last Sunday by a pretty well known Christian author who was talking about atheism. Typically this kind of talk is a platform for Christians to say some pretty stupid stuff, but this talk in particular was about what Christianity and atheism have in common, and the guy giving the talk is pretty level-headed.

He said that atheism serves a vital function because it seeks to liberate people from superstition and destroy the oppression of religion. The highest pursuit of atheism when it is at its best, he said, is truth. He also said that no dogma should stand between a person and truth.

I like that, because more often than not I think about common ground. I hear people talk about why they left the church and became an atheist and I think, "I wouldn't believe in that god either." Then there are atheists who were just never sold on any religion, more or less by default, but they are still great people, and they certainly aren't amoral.

So my question is this: What middle ground do you find with Christianity? (Or what specific form of Christianity do you appreciate?)

Are there any things in the faith you admire? Religious people you respect?

Well, I generally have a good opinion on christians. They most certainly are not people who have bad intentions.
I never met one who did.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Well, I generally have a good opinion on christians. They most certainly are not people who have bad intentions.
I never met one who did.

You really need to get out more or travel to a non Muslim country..

[coffeeveritas]

I'm a Christian and I ran a research lab and did published scientific research (published in regular scientific journals, not Christian ones).

I did not mince words.

So . . . are you saying my research wasn't valid because I'm a Christian or I didn't understand what I was doing because I'm a Christian? Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "I did not mince words." If you were saying something along those lines I would have to say that is a little harsh considering you've never seen any of my research and you've never met me. Wouldn't you agree that the idea that anyone who is a Christian can't be a good scientist is a tad too simplistic? It's hard to think of anyone who contributed more to science in his lifetime than Isaac Newton, but he spent a great deal of time writing Biblical commentary and was undoubtedly a theist. It's hard to really tell what you mean by so short of a phrase so please excuse me if I have jumped to too many conclusions. It just seemed like you thought there was some sort of inseparable divide between theists and science.

[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.

[coffeeveritas]

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.

This post is a little too long for anyone to actually want to read, so I summarized and hid the full explanation of each point behind its summary.

1: Science is about measurable, testable, repeatable explanations. Someone who can expound their field's knowledge in this way is a good scientist, Christian or not, and there is no set of "principles" that they have to subscribe to beyond this.

---

Well, a good measure of any scientist's understanding of their field would be their publications and their contributions to that field in the form of new data, experiments, or discoveries. In this way the ability to do "ground breaking work" would seem like a good, objective measurement of whether or not someone understands their field. This measure is observable and repeatable, very good scientifically. What is not a good measure of judging someone as a scientist is their agreement with an unspecified set of "basic principles" which make everything work. These "principles which would find christianity false" sound more like a mystery religion than science. What empirical method does science have for studying the supernatural? How does one find scientific data that disproves philosophical claims?

---

2. What you are imply sounds like scientism + atheism. Extreme postivism has long been abandoned, science is not a system for explaining everything.

---

Perhaps these "principles" of yours refer to, "the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry," with the added belief that a few random discoveries (for example: evolution) and the lack of scientific evidence for philosophical and supernatural ideas means that there is no possibility of Christianity being true. That is, scientism + atheism. I could argue against extreme positivism at length, but suffice it to say that this view has largely been abandoned in light of the contributions of postmodernism.

---

3. Science is concerned with measurable results.

---

So even Christians who are able to make contributions to scientific knowledge, and even do ground breaking research somehow fail to grasp some "basic principles." Science as an objective field should be results driven, not concerned with a person's beliefs. What does it matter to science if the person who cures cancer is a Christian or an atheist? The results are what matter in an objective field.

---

4. Insisting that someone must believe some "principle" to be a true scientist is philosophy. There is no objective way to measure belief systems. Science has no way of proving or disproving religious beliefs, they are outside of science's purview. Therefore, a person's worldview, Christian or otherwise, is always subjective and has no bearing on their career as a scientist.

---

So if the "basic principles" are not about anything objective, like results, then the real concern is for the belief system of the person doing science. Whether or not someone believes in some "principles" is not measurable or repeatable. It is a philosophical matter, there is nothing objective about wanting someone to share your belief system. Of course one could make philosophical arguments about the matter, but these have no scientific validity. There is no empirical way to examine whether someone "grasps" the right principles to be a good scientist in his or her field other than examining their work in that field. Being a Christian has no bearing on this because religious belief is not a scientific field, science has no way to prove or disprove claims that it has no way of measuring. Any value judgements or worldview beliefs drawn from objective data are by nature subjective and therefore non-binding in any scientific sense. Ergo, a person's worldview is a matter of their bias and has nothing to do with their vocation as a scientist.

---

After this I do have a few questions.
1. What are these "principles" you speak of?
2. If science had a way of conclusively disproving all forms of Christianity then why hasn't the world completely de-Christianized by now? It's been a long time.
3. If you would claim that Christians have some sort of bias, wouldn't you also have to admit that atheists are biased as well? Psychology has shown that everyone interprets data towards their own bias.

---

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.

---

So Isaac Newton not only leaning on theism, but being downright obsessed with it was somehow excusable because there wasn't enough science yet? What has happened since then to not only overturn Descartes' idea of a separation of science from religion, but completely nullify religious belief?

It seems like you are saying someone cannot be a true scientist who believes something unlikely, because they are living with cognitive dissonance. However, cognitive dissonance is universal, everyone has some. A majority of nurses and doctors drink and smoke, does that mean they are not true medical personnel. Any given hospital's cardiologist or nutritionist can be overweight, does that make them hacks? They may have cognitive dissonance related to deeply knowing something to be bad and justifying doing it anyway, but they are still qualified medical personnel.

[The Grand Nudger]

When religious beliefs are codified by a text and almost entirely devoted to the subject of the interaction of the divine with the material, they have most certainly stepped into the realm of the explainable. No magic required. The only people, for example, who want to believe that archaeology and geology cannot make a comment on a global flood are those that have a vested interest in the narrative. It is at this point exactly that any principles or comprehension of scientific understanding fails for these people. Would that stop an engineer from being able to do his work? No. Would it be an irreconcilable notion for a geologist? Yes.

Strip religion of the demonstrably false and what do you have left? Just as the op is an if-by-whiskey argument, so is the position that science and religion are compatible. One must bend the principles of the other to breaking to make them remotely concordant. The trouble is that one of these things is not like the other. One can be demonstrated.

[Jaysyn]

They most certainly are not people who have bad intentions.

Our prisons are quite full of them. Many of them even considered themselves Christians before they were incarcerated.

[Minimalist]

A google search for the string "god told me to kill" got 98,000 hits in .22 seconds.

Xtianity is a malleable doctrine in the hands of believers.

[coffeeveritas]

When religious beliefs are codified by a text and almost entirely devoted to the subject of the interaction of the divine with the material, they have most certainly stepped into the realm of the explainable. No magic required.

Okay, so you're looking for material records of this interaction. With the exception of a few events there really isn't much to measure. Usually the narrative is more about the communication between God and humanity, and conversations don't leave any traces, except for written text (i.e. Bible). Nevertheless the Bible and whatever few archeological pieces you can find are a starting point for investigation, that's certainly fair. The problem is that you're dealing with something that is going to continue to be hard to measure. You can measure whether or not an author or scribe made a typo, but you can't measure whether there was a supernatural force present in human history. It might seem that way to you, but that's your interpretation and not a scientific conclusion. Science may be able to evaluate certain claims of religion, but it really is limited to that. There is no God-O-meter and no way to quantify things outside of the objective.

The only people, for example, who want to believe that archaeology and geology cannot make a comment on a global flood are those that have a vested interest in the narrative.

Oh, that's totally fair, I wouldn't argue against that. Of course there are those who argue that archeology and geology show precisely that there was a global flood, but you won't find me trying to argue that one. As far as I'm concerned this is a case where science is useful for evaluating how exactly things played out. However things happened is how they happened, I see no need to argue otherwise.

So science might be troubling for those who believe in young earth creationism or a literal flood, but not all Christians believe that. I myself am interested to see what science shows about the universe, because however the universe is, is how it was created. I of course deny science the authority to make any value judgements or comment on religious beliefs, but that is primarily because those roles are not what science is for.

It is at this point exactly that any principles or comprehension of scientific understanding fails for these people. Would that stop an engineer from being able to do his work? No. Would it be an irreconcilable notion for a geologist? Yes.

I can totally see this one. I would be a little worried too if my professor of geology was teaching that the earth was literally 6,000 years old. But like you said, this only applies to certain fields. It wouldn't really affect and engineer either way to be a YEC. When it comes to fields directly related to evolution I find that most Christians working in them believe in evolution. Keep in mind that among Christian leaders about half of them recognize evolution as being solid science (Pew Forum). This number is actually higher than the general population.

Strip religion of the demonstrably false and what do you have left? Just as the op is an if-by-whiskey argument, so is the position that science and religion are compatible. One must bend the principles of the other to breaking to make them remotely concordant. The trouble is that one of these things is not like the other. One can be demonstrated.

Science is good at evaluating certain claims, but if someone doesn't believe in young earth creationism, a literal flood, or total Biblical inerrancy, like the majority of Christians in the upcoming generation, than what exactly is incompatible? Why can't someone accept all scientific findings as they are but also believe there is something beyond science? Determining that we live in an atheistic universe is an interpretation of data, not something scientifically binding.

[The Grand Nudger]

The text is full of what I like to call "little miracles" as well. Sometimes something miraculous can seem mundane when placed next to the magical events of the OT/NT. What we have here is a case of fan fiction elevated to a religious system. It's fine to "believe that there's something beyond science". It's not fine to make claims to knowledge of whatever it is you believe when there is none to be had. Does what we know directly conflict with the narrative on irreconcilable levels? Yes, it does. End of.

What is it that you feel is accurate within the bible? Explain this to me please? How much of it can be "not true" before the "generally true" provision is revoked? Arguing on the one hand that there is a god, and allowing on the other that those easily evaluated claims of his actions are false leaves you with what god exactly? Certainly not yahweh. Not the creator in the garden, the master of the floodwaters, the deliverer from pharoah. Not the steward of the great and powerful kingdom of isreal and not the destroyer of cities. Who's son again?

(By the by, that some people would argue for a flood is exactly what I'm going on about here. Whatever principles they held that allowed them to engage in their field of choice, whatever understanding they had of the subject at hand, was thrown under the bus to make their myth fit.)