[Akoue]

I am not sure what you mean by a Bible literalists. I have seen a number of people, including some on this board who have tried to apply that label and them claim that I said things that I don't believe and have never said. I have also never used that label myself.

This I cannot answer the second question because I am not sure as to what you mean by literalists.

Here's how I characterized it at post #39:

The way you read it. E.g. the earth is six thousand years old. The creation story is a literal descriptions of the events of the creation of the universe. Noah had a boat with two of every creature aboard. That sort of thing.

You've already claimed to believe that the earth is about six thousand years old. You've also claimed that the creation story in Genesis is an accurate account of the creation of the universe. How about Noah and the flood? Did Noah have two of every creature on board a boat while the was flooded?

[Tj3]

I mean, basically, someone who thinks the Earth is 6000 years old instead of 4.54 billion years old.

Oh, you mean someone who believes the Bible.

[Tj3]

you've already claimed to believe that the earth is about six thousand years old. You've also claimed that the creation story in Genesis is an accurate account of the creation of the universe. How about Noah and the flood? Did Noah have two of every creature on board a boat while the was flooded?

You have also claimed that I believe things that I don't and there is much much more in the Bible than these couple of points - you might have noticed how big the Bible is.

[Akoue]

hmmm .... false accusations.



If you do not understand what Christianity is, it would take much more than just posting a few lines on a post on a discussion forum. If you truly want to understand what the Bible teaches about Christianity, send me contact information, and I will see if I can get someone to contact you where you live who can spend the time to guide you through the essentials of the Christian faith as taught in scripture.

I see. So you don't want to explain what you mean.

I just have one last question about this. Is there such thing as "unBiblical Christianity"? In other words, is "Biblical Christianity" (whatever you take that to be) exhaustive of what counts as Christianity, or is there an "unBiblical Christianity" which is nevertheless still Christianity?

[Akoue]

You have also claimed that I believe things that I don't and there is much much more in the Bible than these couple of points - you might have noticed how big the Bible is.

Right now I'm asking about Noah and what he had on the boat. Do you believe that Noah had two of every creature on the boat with him? Seems like a perfectly straightforward question. Do you read the story of the flood literally?

[asking]

Well, to get back to my point, there are scientists who cannot accommodate religion and literalists who cannot accommodate large tracts of science.

In between are tens of millions of people who find ways to accommodate science and religion. But I do think it's telling that the best scientists don't have much use for religious belief. It suggests to me a degree of incompatibility between the two kinds of thinking.

[Tj3]

I see. So you don't want to explain what you mean.

I see. So you don't want to understand. I made an offer to you, and you chose to reject it.

I just have one last question about this. Is there such thing as "unBiblical Christianity"?

There is no such thing as unBiblical Christainity in reality, but there are many people who profess to be Christian but deny parts of the Bible or add to it. Jesus spoke about some such people in Matthew 7.

[Tj3]

Well, to get back to my point, there are scientists who cannot accommodate religion and literalists who cannot accommodate large tracts of science.

To single out scientists is not appropriate. There are people from all walks of life who reject God, but that does not mean that accountants and Christianity are not compatible, it does not mean that mechanics and Christianity are not compatible, it does not mean that bus drives and Christianity are not compatible. That is simple not logical.

I don't know who these un-named so-called literalists are who you claim reject science. I don't know any, but I suppose that it always possible that there are some somewhere.

[NeedKarma]

To be honest I don't care what scientists do in their personal life as long as they do good reproducible science that advances humanity's understanding of their world. A scientist could be a devil worshipper or a bigamist, it matters not in his data.

[Tj3]

To be honest I don't care what scientists do in their personal life as long as they do good reproducible science that advances humanity's understanding of their world. A scientist could be a devil worshipper or a bigamist, it matters not in his data.

I agree. As long as the scientist does not allow his other beliefs or activities to influence the quality of the data, then it should not matter with respect to the work that he is doing.

[asking]

To single out scientists is not appropriate. There are people from all walks of life who reject God, but that does not mean that accountants and Christianity are not compatible, it does not mean that mechanics and Christianity are not compatible, it does not mean that bus drives and Christianity are not compatible. That is simple not logical.

We are not discussing whether religion is compatible with accounting. We are discussing whether religion is compatible with science.

I don't know who these un-named so-called literalists are who you claim reject science. i don't know any, but i suppose that it always possible that there are some somewhere.

I mean you.

[NeedKarma]

Hey Tom, this is a momentous occasion. :)

[Tj3]

We are not discussing whether religion is compatible with accounting. We are discussing whether religion is compatible with science.

Agreed, and the reasoning that you are using is not logical.

I mean you.

Then you are mis-representing and falsely accusing me. I have a strong background in science.

[Tj3]

hey tom, this is a momentous occasion. :)

:) :)

[asking]

A scientist could be a devil worshipper or a bigamist, it matters not in his data.

I take your point about how you feel, but in terms of the science, I don't agree. Good scientists are not interested in things like devil worship. A few of them might accept bigamy, but basically they are too wrapped up in their work to deal with the complexities of multiple spouses. Your typical scientist would regard devil worship and bigamy as annoying distractions.

[Tj3]

I take your point about how you feel, but in terms of the science, I don't agree. Good scientists are not interested in things like devil worship. A few of them might accept bigamy, but basically they are too wrapped up in their work to deal with the complexities of multiple spouses. Your typical scientist would regard devil worship and bigamy is annoying distractions.

You claim to speak on behalf of me (and mis-represent me), and now you claim to speak on behalf of scientist around the world. To put it kindly, that is pretty presumptuous.

[asking]

Let me amend that. I'm speaking for good scientists. I think I've known enough of them to be sure they are NOT interested in devil worship. They are interested in getting tenure, getting their paper out before another researcher, being on the committee that assigns lab space in the new building... They are all wrapped up in their own worlds.

As for your technical qualifications, you are quick but if you are well read in any area of science, we haven't touched on it yet.

[Tj3]

Let me amend that. I'm speaking for good scientists. I think I've known enough of them to be sure they are interested in devil worship. They are interested in getting tenure, getting their paper out before another researcher, being on the committee that assigns lab space in the new building... They are all wrapped up in their own worlds.

And could not, in your understanding, ever have outside interests that you don't know about :p

Again, sounds pretty presumptuous to me.

As for your technical qualifications, you are quick but if you are well read in any area of science, we haven't touched on it yet.

Well, from what I have seen, I am not too terribly concerned about your judgment on my qualifications.

[asking]

I once knew a zoologist who spent his vacations square dancing with his wife. I've known several with an interest in motorcycles. But I've never known a good biologist whose main interest wasn't the science itself. If it's just a job, they are not going to be good scientists.

I don't think that a literal interpretation of the Bible is compatible with a scientific understanding of the world, at least not in the big picture sense. A person may pick the results that are useful to him personally or at least less repugnant. But that's like someone reading the Bible as literature, basically for fun.

[Akoue]

I once knew a zoologist who spent his vacations square dancing with his wife. I've known several with an interest in motorcycles. But I've never known a good biologist whose main interest wasn't the science itself. If it's just a job, they are not going to be good scientists.

I don't think that a literal interpretation of the Bible is compatible with a scientific understanding of the world, at least not in the big picture sense. A person may pick and choose the results that are useful to him personally or at least less repugnant. But that's like someone reading the Bible as literature, basically for fun.

Quite right.

And the academic scientists I've known have also been in it for the science. Otherwise they could make lots more money elsewhere.