I suspect most scientists of such stature believe in God. Only that it is not a God anything even close to what we often imagine.
Religion and experimental science will never mix. Whereas in science we accept that our findings are not conclusive nor exhaustive, religion has literally “closed shop”. The Bible is the only permitted source of truth but in science we can entertain new perspectives. A scientists can be wrong but the Bible can never be wrong. How do you reconcile faith with empirical evidence? Are both not mutually exclusive? How can a scientist claim to do research but on another hand accept a book whose claims cannot be tested empirically?
In that case, which do you choose? Is not rationale to adopt an evidence-based view?
your argument is plainly not true. People do not believe in books, they believe in the teachings of the books. If you are a keen observer and a person who is open to all forms and sources of knowledge you shouldn’t be unaware of various ways of a certaining the truth. Philosophy, history, psychology, metaphysics etc are valid and accepted Fields of study yet they have their own methods accepted as tools for the their study. From your arguments such fields are irrelevant and don’t give any reasonable basis for their findings since anything not empirical should be tossed to the flames. I am an avid supporter of being open to the exploration of all that one ought to know. People always rubishes Christian thinking as dogmatic when That is far from the truth. Your prejudices against something always affects your perception about it.that can explain why people avoid objective discussions by mere dismisal.
Seems you didnt get my point. These are other fields you are quoting accept that knowledge is progressive. Such fields would be willing to accommodate new knowledge or perspextuves; qualitative or quantitiatuve. However, the Bible views itself as the alpha and Omega. It contains all that will ever be. It is the only reference point. So, with such a “closed view”, how is it compatible with science? Why do we want to force religion on science? Is religion losing it’s position such that we are trying to sanitise it?
“Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), who discovered the laws of planetary motion, wrote” this is not correct. Kepler just presented more accurate results. Understand him as an innovator. Have u forgotten about Ptolemys geography?
I am not forcing it. My argument is basically That both field of views can be viewed and accepted by the same person that is you can be a scientist and still embrace the concept of God without any problem. Because if you really mean That they should be treated independently how comes the scientists want use his methods on religion? And going by the argument of new knowledge and perhaps change you may realise alot has changed in the church since the early church and the same applies to other religions. And the even the key area of interest which I can surely say has been abused before is basically a dynamic issue where the church has immensely contributed in our modern society.
Sure I have no problem with that.
the Most High is the perfect scientist, the evidence is right in front of our eyes yet people wanakubali to be mislead;
Science definition is - the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.