Christian Grans

John Hapgood - Religion and science

My experience is very similar to Lilygran's in the sense that I left the church at about 17 and came back in my late 20s after experiencing the work of the church in the third world and the ideas of liberation theology.

Yes, some information was 'false' or rather a limited understanding, as I pointed out elsewhere. But then so was a lot of the science I was taught. Einstein's steady state universe for example. It was the way people made sense of the world in the best way they could. But science and theology are not opposed. They are different ways of describing the world. If you want the view of an eminent scientist as to why he believes in God take a look at the former Archbishop of York's book. I can't recall the title at the moment but doubtless you could find it on the Internet.

And When, I am not 'given' answers, I read, think, pray, experience, and then make my own mind up.

Why don't you pop over to The Ship of Fools and take a look at some of the discussions on there which will begin to address some of the questions you pose.

I like your question, lily. This one: "Do scientific 'facts' become lies when new discoveries are made and contradict them?"

The answer to it is pretty much YES, that's exactly what happens in science. If something that was believed to be the truth (or a truth) is shown to be incorrect, then that 'belief' is discarded in favour of whatever has been shown to have more evidence in favour of it. So, for instance, when Copernicus proved that the solar system is heliocentric, Ptolemy's geocentric system, whcih scientists of the day had hitherto believed was correct, was overthrown. I'm not sure most people would call Ptolemy's ideas lies, just mistakes based on insufficient knowledge. Anyway, the same principle applies now to the scientific method. Science is never static and never will be because we will never know everything there is to know. We just keep searching and revising. The 'truth' of anything scientific depends on its verifiability, so something that can be repeatedly verified by experiment and real life observations can be said to be true. Extra details can be and are added as more knowledge is obtained, so the truth is enhanced. If a theory cannot be verified in the real world then it isn,t held as truth or fact until it can be.

Blethered on a bit, didn't I? But it was a good question, and the answer, essentially, is Yes.

They go on asking.

No, I certainly don't think Christians stay in the church because they're scared to come out, nor do I regard impossible stories of events as lies. Like science, insufficient information can lead to a level of understanding that has to be revised in the light of further evidence. I just don't get how Christians can be satisfied with the answers they are given when it boils down to that leap of faith, simply because I am curious and every query I have raised has not been answered to my satisfaction. Therefore, I am interested to know how curious, intelligent Christians' queries have been answered to their satisfaction.

The one but last post of greatnan had an interesting sentence:" Either you believe or you dont. " ( what ever it is you believe, I suppose )

That sort of sums it up for me.

And for elsiejoy, please don't be disheartened . Gransnet seem to have a theme.
It can go from a bunfight to a hug fest and back again.

absent thanks for your courtesy.

I "left" the church in my late teens and came back in my late 20s. I left for many of the kinds of reasons atheists and non-believers have given, except I never encountered the kind of people some of you have mentioned. Part of the reason was an intensive study of medieval and early modern history. I came back in and stayed for a variety of reasons, including a very impressive local vicar, more reading and, I suppose, realising that just because the church wasn't perfect and I wasn't perfect wasn't a reason to stay outside. Christianity offers the best philosophy for living that I've come across. Suits me. when I don't think every word in the Bible is to be taken literally. Do scientific 'facts' become lies when new discoveries are made and contradict them? And you anti-Christians shouldn't make the mistake of thinking we stay in the church because we are scared to come out.

Ceesnan By implication but not in so many words. But that's no reason why other people can't comment.

That was my assumption as the first sentence mentioned committed Christians.

Absent I understood the original question to be whether any other Christians wanted to stand up and be counted, was I wrong?

A metaphor is one kind of figurative language. There are lots of other kinds – synecdoche, hyperbole, zeugma, syllepsis, oxymoron, etc. etc. I don't think washed in the blood of the lamb is a simple metaphor, that's all.

Lilygran please be assured it is not you I take exception to

Yes, Mishap as it appears so many christians have been born into their religion and stayed with it (I know there are a few who have come to it later in life) whereas atheists tend to have left religion they were born into. How have the Christians had their questions answered, without rejecting the religion when they learned that so much could not have been possible?

absent a metaphor is figurative language. What do you mean?

Mishap I did try to say what I believed in the thread about the Bible. when took exception to the churchy language I used, even though I had explained in non-churchy language and only put in the churchy language (in brackets even!) because that is the language in which it is normally discussed.

MiceElf - yes it is interesting. I suppose though I was thinking that many people on here have said what has shaped their non-religious views (childhood experiences, science etc.) and it would be interesting to know what has shaped the views of the christians onsite.

Ceesnan The Sites for Atheists thread is about exactly that – websites that atheists might find interesting – not about atheism per se. That is rather different from someone making a loud proclamation of her beliefs and asking if anyone else wants to stand up and be counted. Quite a lot of us stood up to be counted as atheists. I don't think there is an equivalent about websites for atheists, unless Christians want to cite Christian websites. That's fine and could be quite interesting.

B - Re. your post 15.28 - I couldn't agree more. From my perspective, you have simplified an attitude to life wonderfully.

Thank you - now I am going to watch TV.

Some people's jokey remark is another's sarcasm. I hope Mishap has gone to look.

Did you read my post? I said that one outcome would be to reject religion. This you have done. I respect that. I'm not trying to convert you. Heaven help me if I tried! But my post was in response to Mishap's enquiry.

I think your belief is totally mistaken, but I respect it. That is, I hold your right to believe whatever you want.

Micelf - it the nuns I had met had been the most sweet and loving women in the world I would still be an atheist. Either you believe or you don't and ultimately I would have come to the conclusion that there is no god.
I am not sure how you are supposed to respect a belief that you think is totally mistaken. Do you respect the beliefs of every religion in the world even when you can see they are totally irrational and possibly dangerous? And if you do not respect those beliefs (Moonies, perhaps?) does that mean that you do not respect the people who hold them?

As for a brief jokey remark - introducing a bit of humour seems no bad thing.

Having a little spare time I decided to do a quick comparison between this thread and the 'Sites for Atheists' thread and found that in the first 24 hour period of each of them this thread had attracted over 100 posts, and the other only 15. I might add that none of the 15 seemed to be scornful, critical or sarcastic - could it be that people to whom it has no relevance have simply left it alone?

That, Greatnan is an example of the sarcastic tone of many of the posts. In fact I have stated perfectly clearly what my beliefs are, on the Roman Catholicism thread and on the the thread I started called The Way Forward. I genuinely can't see the point of stating it again. If you want a debate with very learned people you can go the Ship of Fools where you will find debate / contention to your hearts content. But this isn't the place for three thousand word posts.

I don't recognise your unfortunate experiences with poor Irish nuns, but they clearly had a damaging effect on you as you have reminded us many times. I'm sorry about that and I would not seek to defend those ideas which are clearly mistaken. But I would have thought that those who had heard them would have either come to a mature understanding of the faith or would have rejected religion entirely without continually harking back to it.

There are many atheists who are respectful of those with a religious belief (I am married to one) without feeling the need to continually challenge and sneer. I am mindful of the OP, as I again say, merely stating what she believed and asking if there were any more Christians on this site. I'm sure she didn't expect the response she got.

Good luck with that, Mishap!