Article: I am an astrophysicist. I am also a Christian.

[Audie]

I'm a Christian. I don't believe in magic.
My husband is Christian and a geneticist. He doesn't believe in magic.

Define magic in this connection, svp?

 

[Heyo]

I'm a Christian. I don't believe in magic.
My husband is Christian and a geneticist. He doesn't believe in magic.

Which denomination do you adhere to? Is your naturalism common in that denomination or is that a personal thing?

 

[samtonga43]

Which denomination do you adhere to? Is your naturalism common in that denomination or is that a personal thing?

You seem to be assuming that I am a naturalist because I don’t believe in magic. Or have I misunderstood?

 

[Heyo]

You seem to be assuming that I am a naturalist because I don’t believe in magic. Or have I misunderstood?

No, you haven't. They are pretty much synonyms. Though my guess is that you aren't a philosophical naturalist, you at least must be a methodological naturalist. Or we have a serious misunderstanding of the definition of naturalism or magic.
Do we agree on the axioms of science that the universe is real, orderly and knowable?

 

[samtonga43]

No, you haven't. They are pretty much synonyms. Though my guess is that you aren't a philosophical naturalist, you at least must be a methodological naturalist. Or we have a serious misunderstanding of the definition of naturalism or magic.
Do we agree on the axioms of science that the universe is real, orderly and knowable?

I thought that axioms were applicable only to Math and Logic...?

 

[Heyo]

I thought that axioms were applicable only to Math and Logic...?

Axioms appear in all formal systems. Not all call them axioms. Religions tend to call them "creed". The Nicene creed, for example, states axiomatically that magic does exist. That's an obvious contradiction to science.
I've yet to meet the believers who is able to reconcile his belief with science.

 

[samtonga43]

Axioms appear in all formal systems. Not all call them axioms. Religions tend to call them "creed". The Nicene creed, for example, states axiomatically that magic does exist. That's an obvious contradiction to science.
I've yet to meet the believers who is able to reconcile his belief with science.

Nicene Creed
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father; God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God; begotten not made, one in being with the Father. Through Him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation He came down from heaven. By the power of the Holy Spirit He was born of the Virgin Mary and became man. For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate. He suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day He rose again, in fulfillment of the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and His kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son He is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

I would say there are too many 'believes' up there for this creed to be axiomatic.
I'm afraid I don't understand why you have not come across any believers who are able to reconcile their belief with science. Are you a hermit?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Do those who follow Nicene creed have any proof for what they say?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am an astrophysicist. I am also a Christian.
...You may well be surprised to hear “science” and “Christian” together. In today’s world, people who value science are concerned about the views of Christians, and Christians are increasingly skeptical of scientists. Aren’t White evangelical Christians the group with the lowest vaccination rates? The people most opposed to climate change? The ones who built a whole museum opposed to evolutionary biology? Sadly, this is all true. Even worse, anti-science views on COVID and climate are more than a difference of opinion; opposition is leading directly to increased illness, suffering, death, and harm to the planet. Yet I believe that the historical teachings of Christianity actually support science.
...
The polarization seems much more driven by social media, as explained recently by Jonathan Haidt in The Atlantic. In our highly polarized world, “science” and “Christian” have landed on opposite sides.
...
Even in today’s America, most Christians are not anti-science. A majority of White evangelicals did get the COVID vaccine, ... Some of the top scientific leaders in the development of the vaccine are devout Christians, including Francis Collins (then Director of NIH) and Kizzmekia Corbett (developer of Moderna’s COVID vaccine). Climate change leaders also include Christians, such as Rick Lindroth and Katharine Hayhoe.
...
Humility. Science is not an armchair activity where one can simply think up ideas about the natural world and assume they are true. Instead, science requires the humility to continually correct one’s ideas through experiment and observation. This approach also fits with Christianity. God creates in ways that humans cannot predict or fully understand (Job 38), so we must continually check our ideas against what we observe in the natural world. Moreover, Christianity teaches that everyone is broken and has moral failings, and that the path to healing requires humble admission of one’s errors...

No surprise there. Most Hindu scientists also are theists. It is not easy to break out of childhood indoctrination.
First underline: That surely is a surprise.
Second underline: They are hypocrites. They do not believe enough in the love or might of God.
Third underline: Now that is bad and a presumption. How would anyone know before searching for answers.
Fourth underline: Is it only Christianity that teaches so, or the other religions also teach that?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Not sure what needs to be reconciled; if everything in the universe, including the laws which govern the material world, are an expression of the will of the creator, where is the contradiction which would imply a need for reconciliation?

 

[samtonga43]

Do those who follow Nicene creed have any proof for what they say?

Of course not. If there were proof, everybody in the world would believe what those who believe the Nicene creed believe.

 

[Heyo]

Nicene Creed
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father; God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God; begotten not made, one in being with the Father. Through Him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation He came down from heaven. By the power of the Holy Spirit He was born of the Virgin Mary and became man. For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate. He suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day He rose again, in fulfillment of the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and His kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son He is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

I would say there are too many 'believes' up there for this creed to be axiomatic.
I'm afraid I don't understand why you have not come across any believers who are able to reconcile their belief with science. Are you a hermit?

A belief is an axiom. A statement considered to be true but not provable within the system.
A scientist can't prove that the universe is real, orderly and knowable, s/he believes it to be true.
A theist believes that the universe is chaotic (i.e. things happen without a natural cause).
A scientist believes that the earth was formed by accretion of particles from a proto-planetary disc according to the laws of nature. (Well, we know that it happened that way if the axioms are true.)
A christian believes the earth was formed through magic by an assumed being.
A scientist knows how babies are made through the combination of an egg and a sperm cell.
A christian believes a woman can get impregnated by magic.
A scientist knows that dead people tend to stay dead.
A christian believes a body can magically be turned into a zombie which leaves its grave.

Where are you on this comparison? Magic or natural causes?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Of course not. If there were proof, everybody in the world would believe what those who believe the Nicene creed believe.

OK, It belongs to the genre of "Speculative History". "Your guess is as good as mine".

 

[Audie]

Not sure what needs to be reconciled; if everything in the universe, including the laws which govern the material world, are an expression of the will of the creator, where is the contradiction which would imply a need for reconciliation?

What makes you think that?

 

[samtonga43]

A belief is an axiom. A statement considered to be true but not provable within the system.

A statement considered to be true… by whom?
Is the statement “A belief is an axiom” an axiom?
Where are these Christians who believe that:
1. The universe is chaotic.
2. The earth was formed through magic by an assumed being.
3. A woman can get impregnated by magic.
4. A body can magically be turned into a zombie which leaves its grave.
You haven’t invented them, have you?

Where are you on this comparison? Magic or natural causes?

False dichotomy.
I am with God as the First Cause

 

[samtonga43]

OK, It belongs to the genre of "Speculative History". "Your guess is as good as mine".

No, I don't think it is 'either/or'. There is some middle ground here.

 

[Heyo]

A statement considered to be true… by whom?
Is the statement “A belief is an axiom” an axiom?

You may find this site useful:
Course in Logic 101

Where are these Christians who believe that:
1. The universe is chaotic.
2. The earth was formed through magic by an assumed being.
3. A woman can get impregnated by magic.
4. A body can magically be turned into a zombie which leaves its grave.
You haven’t invented them, have you?

Read your post about the Nicene Creed again.
It says exactly the above. So, if a Christian takes his creed serious, he believes
in a created earth, a virgin birth and zombie Jesus.

False dichotomy.
I am with God as the First Cause

So, you are a deist? God caused the Big Bang and then left to create other universes?
No magic, no virgin birth, no zombie Jesus?

 

[samtonga43]

You may find this site useful: Course in Logic 101

Are you unable to answer my questions?

Read your post about the Nicene Creed again. It says exactly the above.

Exactly? I would advise you to re-read.

So, you are a deist?

No. I am a Christian.

God caused the Big Bang and then left to create other universes?

Another false assumption. No, I don’t believe this.

No magic, no virgin birth, no zombie Jesus?

No magic no zombie Jesus, virgin birth possible (God is all the Omnis).

 

[Heyo]

Are you unable to answer my questions?

No, but i don't want to derail the thread by giving an introductory class to logic. Those already exist and it is simpler to link to them. That has also the benefit that a host of other questions you invariably will have, are answered there.

Another false assumption. No, I don’t believe this.

That was not an assumption, it was a question.

No magic no zombie Jesus, virgin birth possible (God is all the Omnis).

You are contradicting yourself in just one sentence.
If we agree on the axioms of science, we agree that every phenomenon has a natural and knowable cause (except, maybe, the Big Bang).
If you introduce unnatural causes, you leave science, i.e. you believe in magic (non natural causes).

You haven't convinced me that you have reconciled Christianity with science.

 

[samtonga43]

No, but i don't want to derail the thread by giving an introductory class to logic. Those already exist and it is simpler to link to them. That has also the benefit that a host of other questions you invariably will have, are answered there.

From your link
"Never argue about something about which you are fundamentally ignorant. Adherence to this rule alone would reduce the number of arguments in the world dramatically".

I’m afraid that your ignorance about Christianity is encapsulated in your use of language, Heyo. For example, you say that the Nicene Creed says exactly the following:--
1. The universe is chaotic.
2. The earth was formed through magic by an assumed being.
3. A woman can get impregnated by magic.
4. A body can magically be turned into a zombie which leaves its grave.

But it says nothing of the kind.
Sorry, but I just can’t take you seriously. Here is a site from which you might learn.
Classical Logic (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

That was not an assumption, it was a question.

It was an assumptive close question.

You are contradicting yourself in just one sentence. If we agree on the axioms of science, we agree that every phenomenon has a natural and knowable cause (except, maybe, the Big Bang). If you introduce unnatural causes, you leave science, i.e. you believe in magic (non natural causes).

That which is unnatural to you is natural to others:

“The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome.
He can be worshipped in the cathedral or in the laboratory.”
Francis Collins

You haven't convinced me that you have reconciled Christianity with science.

I haven’t been trying to convince you, Heyo. I know how your mind works, because I was once an atheist who presented the same ‘argument’ you do. I could never convince you, but someone or something might, some day. Or maybe not.