Why I like Science and Why I was Wrong

[cre8]

For many years I lived an evangelical Christian lifestyle. I spent 15 years in the church and attended Christian college. I have released nine Contemporary Christian music albums, was nominated for six Gospel Music Awards, and have preached the gospel in seven countries. I later taught adult Bible courses for the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. I served four years as a voluntary Chaplain for the Military Department. I have spoken in tongues. I also “experienced†the Holy Spirit and have tasted the “sweetness†of Christ. I know the power of personal and corporate prayer and the importance of forgiveness. More importantly, as a Christian, I was sincere in my walk with God. Anyone familiar with me, my lyrics, or teachings knew that I was serious about my faith. I was completely convinced that I was saved, genuinely believed that God's Holy Spirit lived in me, and had a personal relationship with Jesus. I know the theologies, lifestyles, and languages of the church. I say all this to emphasize that I was not disingenuous, unhappy, or disappointed with my experience; for many years I was very satisfied with my life as a Christian. What happened?

I believed every word in the Bible. I truly understood that once the Holy Spirit “opens your eyes†that you really knew the way of truth. That meant that any seeming contradiction in the Bible was simply a lack of knowledge and understanding on my behalf. The Bible ALWAYS gets a pass when you are born again. Why? Because the Bible, Christians say, is the word of god. And no one, I thought, can argue with god and win. This gave me a very tidy and neat worldview seeing only the evangelical spectrum. I clearly understood that anyone who was openly “sinning†was either a non-believer or a backsliding Christian. Never once did I think that I was arrogant in my view of others; I simply knew that my belief in the god of the Bible was the only way to truth, life, and salvation. All others belief systems were, in my mind, deceived.

It is commonly believed that someone who articulates an alternate view of Christianity was never a Christian or never a sincere and authentic believer in the first place. I ask you, if you are divorced now, did you ever really love your ex-spouse? You probably did. After a divorce, some grow bitter and spiteful toward their former spouse; the smallest hint of their memory upsets them. I have noticed this about some former Christians. They tend to be hostile toward Christians, the Bible, and churches. This, in my view, is an emotionally negative response that gets nothing positive accomplished.

I am very familiar with what is said of people who leave the fold. Some Christians will say that it is arrogance or pride. Many Christians might assume that I must have been spiritually dead or attended unfulfilling churches. A number of Christians believe that it is primarily a moral issue that causes people to leave the church; in my book, [edit]An Infidel Manifesto: Why Sincere Believers Lose Faith</A>, I dedicated all of Chapter 6 to morality and why religion often promotes immorality. Some might postulate that I was harmed by false Christians. Or, perhaps I have an inaccurate notion of God because of experiences with cultists. Some Christians use the old adage “they have gone out from us because they were never of us†while others say “they simply lost their salvation.†In reality, I have not gone anywhere or lost anything.

For evangelical Christianity, the biggest enemy is science. Why? Because science gradually reveals the explored truth of the universe. As it does so, religion is faced with its own contradictions. Copernicus discovering that the earth circles the sun and Columbus discovering the earth’s actual shape meant that the church was wrong. The church cannot afford to be wrong because it speaks “the word of god†and god can’t be wrong! In general, science doesn’t pigeon-hole itself with such arrogant declarations of absolute knowledge. When a scientific theory is proved to be wrong, the scientific community stands up and declares that it is wrong. The very great Stephen Hawking, for example, did just that regarding black holes.**

What is science? In the broadest sense, science refers to any system of knowledge which attempts to model objective reality. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.* Here’s a few reasons why I like science.

1. Science can cure disease. Faith heals no disease. Faith talks a lot about curing disease but is powerless to actually cure. In many cases, faith actually objects to research that can lead to cures.

2. Science explores the unknown. Religion fears the unknown.

3. Science has a very strict accountability for that which can be called truth. Faith has no boundaries for that which can be called truth. “Up†can also mean “down†in the make-believe world of faith. That is why you cannot intelligently argue faith.

4. Science raises our awareness to realities in the universe. Religion very often promotes and capitalizes on the ignorance of people.

5. Last, and above all, I like science because it can admit when it is wrong. Christianity cannot admit when it is wrong because it speaks for an all-knowing god.


As I stated, I spent many years within the walls of Christendom. In 1999, I admitted that I was wrong. Why, you may ask, was I wrong?

1. I was wrong because I declared with absolute certainty that the Bible is the perfect, infallible word of god. It isn’t. As I point out in my <A [edit]>book</A>, it contains many errors, contradictions, and inconsistencies.

2. I was wrong because I declared, as most evangelical Christians do, that all people who reject the Christian god will burn forever in hell. Not only is this a cruel, barbaric, and ancient teaching, it leads no one to do anything noble.

3. I was wrong because I looked at nonbelievers as second-hand people; foolish fodder for god’s destruction.

4. I was wrong because I denied biological evolution as proven by science.

5. I was wrong because I believed that Jesus Christ is the only valid and truthful god; the only way to real knowledge.

I was wrong.
©2007 Gary Lenaire

edit by jg removed link that goes against the TOS of this site.

 

[jgredline]

Gary
If what you say is true, I have a couple of comments...

First, This post ''if'' it is not deleted should be moved to apologetics..

Secondly, You are a perfect example of
Heb 6:4-6
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.

You see, while this section is speaking specifically to the Jews, this section of scripture also serves as an example of ''Folks who thought they were saved, but where NEVER born again''

No place in this scripture does it say these once enlightened ones were ever born again...

Lets take a closer look.
The word enlightened φωτίζω in the Greek means to illuminate, to lighten up, This is where we get our word for photograph from..In this context the writer is saying that you have been shown the truth of the scriptures...The truth about Jesus Christ who is the light of the world...

The word tasted is the Greek is γεύομαι and it is used as a savoring of food...In other words, these folks have had a chance to savor and taste how good the Holy Spirit spirit is by the works of the Apostles, but notice it does not say they swallowed their food...They only tasted it....Same as you...You tasted it, but never had the meal.....

The word Partakers in the Greek is μέτοχος and in this context the word means a partner; someone who helped and shared in the duties of the church...Now we all know that there are many Christians who attend Church and even Pastors and Priest who are not born again and yet are partakers in the local church...

So what was it that these ''enlightend ones partook and tasted? The word of God....

Notice that no place does it ever say these folks were born again...Most people when they read this English just assume they were born again because of the English semantics, but when it is read in Greek, it makes perfect sense....

I have included the actual Greek words, so you can do your own research...

I pray that you will come to swallow your food...
Blessings, javier

 

[Veritas]

1. Science can cure disease. Faith heals no disease. Faith talks a lot about curing disease but is powerless to actually cure. In many cases, faith actually objects to research that can lead to cures.

On the contrary, faith heals the biggest disease of all, sin and death.

2. Science explores the unknown. Religion fears the unknown.

Which explores that which cannot be "proven" and what must be taken on faith? I think you've misinterpreted what is meant by "fear".

3. Science has a very strict accountability for that which can be called truth. Faith has no boundaries for that which can be called truth. “Up†can also mean “down†in the make-believe world of faith. That is why you cannot intelligently argue faith.

On the contrary, as of late, many of those in science do not even believe there is such a thing as "truth".

4. Science raises our awareness to realities in the universe. Religion very often promotes and capitalizes on the ignorance of people.

What is more important, all the stuff we know, or building relationships with people? - even with people who do not have the capabilites to understand all the latest "science". Science neglects much in the realm of morality, love, and passion.

5. Last, and above all, I like science because it can admit when it is wrong. Christianity cannot admit when it is wrong because it speaks for an all-knowing god.

I am Christian and I can admit when I am wrong. It seems you are mixing two different concepts. Yes, I do believe that God is all-knowing and is not wrong in what He does. But what He does and and we do are two very different things

1. I was wrong because I declared with absolute certainty that the Bible is the perfect, infallible word of god. It isn’t. As I point out in my book, it contains many errors, contradictions, and inconsistencies.

And there are many answers to those, a starting place is http://www.carm.org/

2. I was wrong because I declared, as most evangelical Christians do, that all people who reject the Christian god will burn forever in hell. Not only is this a cruel, barbaric, and ancient teaching, it leads no one to do anything noble.

And how do you come up with a definition of what is "noble"?

3. I was wrong because I looked at nonbelievers as second-hand people; foolish fodder for god’s destruction.

I'm afraid you were looking at them wrong. God loves all, and we spread the good news because we care for the people without the Message. I am spending the time to write this to you because I want to share Jesus and share eternity with you too.

4. I was wrong because I denied biological evolution as proven by science.

Can you admit you might be wrong now? If you are a true scientist, you would be skeptical of even that "proven" concept.

5. I was wrong because I believed that Jesus Christ is the only valid and truthful god; the only way to real knowledge.

My friend, Truth, by nature, is exclusive.

 

[Rhetorickety]

Okay, first of all, I am going to come out and say that your faith should be based on the power of God, and not logic of the world. And I know that everything you wrote that I didn't bother reading is not how you feel at all. But I do think there is some hope for you, because this is a reliable saying.

If we died with him, we will also live with him;
if we endure, we will also reign with him.
If we disown him, he will also disown us;
if we are faithless, he will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself.

I don't know if people like us have any hope at all for sure, for I have lost my faith many times, when I was younger, and I have been nothing but trouble for God. But wake up! I do not judge you as permenantly dead. I don't know what to do... I don't know what to do. For if you have truly fallen away, perhaps if you overcome it will be worse for you, but the same goes for me. I can devise many excuses in my mind for these sayings to mean different things... But I do not know the truth. Brothers, stay far away from thinking I am cool. Who is cool? Doesn't matter. Jesus is Lord. Know the truth, and not coolness. Truth is, I will most likely burn. But look, I am still alive, through the mercy of God. I have many delusions in my own mind, however, that are signs of Satan trying to control me. But I have weighed the risks. Not knowing which is true, it is better to try and save you.

Know how you feel now. Know the power that he sent upon you. Surely you know that those who don't believe are condemned?

 

[jgredline]

And I know that everything you wrote that I didn't bother reading is not how you feel at all.

Personally speaking, I do not believe it is right to comment on the ''OP'' with out reading the whole thing...This is how things get taken out of context...I am not defending ''him'' but all who go through the trouble and time to put together an Opening Post....

Folks...The shorter one can make his / her opening and regular post the more people will be inclined to read them...I know there are times and I have been guilty of this myself, of having to write long drawn out explanations and when in the middle of a debate, that is OK...jUST my 2 cents worth....

 

[Rick W]

I like science too. Always have.
But not everything claimed as science is scientific. The conclusion drawn from the data that science produces is that of the scientist. This is the "scientific conclusion", not science.
Forensics is a science. That science produces data.

A prosecuting attorney uses forensics to gather data that the defendant is guilty, the defense attorney uses forensics to gather data that the defendant is innocent. Each uses science, the science of forensics. Each presents the data found to a jury who draws a conclusion on the data produced.

In any research or study assumptions are first made. In this case quilt or innocence. There must first be assumption or the research/study has no direction. Even in debate where evidence is brought forth assumptions at the outset must be made or there can be no debate. There must be something to prove in any case. There must be a reason to do the research/study.
So the defense and prosecution searches for evidence, using science, to support their case. Evidence unsupportive of either side looking for data is either ignored, overlooked or tossed out. And if one is looking for something then one is not sensitive to what is not sought anyway.

The jury makes the conclusion based on the data presented much the same way a scientist makes his/her conclusion based on what they found and sometimes based on what was NOT found. Or both. But science did not make the conclusion... it only provides the data on which decisions are made.

Science is the God given gift to man that he may explore/discover the glory of God standing in ever-increasing awe of His power and majesty.
But most don't do that. Most would rather use that gift to collect data that they think proves, by their own conclusions, that there is no God in the first place. Or that scripture needs re-interpreted or is just wrong anyway. That is the error of those making the conclusions, not the error of science.

 

[Guest]

You know, when somebody comes up and says you have to pick christianity OR science, thats a crock [edited]. There is clearly a separation between science and faith and you do NOT have to choose between the two.

Just because you love jesus, doesn't mean you can't come up with a new vaccine for the flu or a more efficient internal combustion engine.

In other words, just because you believe that you'll spend eternity hanging out with jesus doesn't mean you can't believe that CaO + H20 = heat energy + CaO2. Savvy?

 

[jgredline]

You know, when somebody comes up and says you have to pick christianity OR science, thats a crock [edited]. There is clearly a separation between science and faith and you do NOT have to choose between the two.

Just because you love jesus, doesn't mean you can't come up with a new vaccine for the flu or a more efficient internal combustion engine.

In other words, just because you believe that you'll spend eternity hanging out with jesus doesn't mean you can't believe that CaO + H20 = heat energy + CaO2. Savvy?

Very good and well said...... 8-)

 

[Guest]

But most don't do that. Most would rather use that gift to collect data that they think proves, by their own conclusions, that there is no God in the first place.

Not so man. A conclusion by someone who is a scientist or likes to call himself a man of science that there is no god is a personal conclusion, and not one of science. Scientific theories may be part of his conclusion, not the reason of. To my knowledge I have never heard of a seriously funded truly scientific study into the existance of god. Rather, any science in that regards has to do with the historical significance of god, and gods, and how they relate to the beliefs of different civilizations. To date I believe that the word "god" can be used to describe almost 4,000 individual dieties, including the judeo/christian god.

True science cannot and willnot tackle the existance of "god", as it needs to be asked, which one? More to the point the concept of god cannot be scientifically proven OR disproven, and would be a waste of valubale resources to do so.

What you're talking about is scientific theory. A theory is drawn based on a hypothosis gleaned from observation, then evidence is gathered from unbiased observation of the natural world, and properly documented experimentation. If the observations and experimentation lead to confirm the hypothosis, a theory is formed, and if not, the hypothosis is scrapped. Usually this leads to many more hypothosese as more information is gathered from this observation and experimentation. As time goes by, the theory may be modified based on new observations and better instrumentation and experimental techniques, or maybe scrapped altogether for a more pertinant one based on the new information. Proper scientific evaluation uses double blind studies and peer evaluation techniques to filter out any bias, whether intentional or not. Remember, your feet are firmly glued to the earth, due to gravity. Gravity is "only" a theory. I do think that the theory of gravity will be revised over time, the "why", even though the effects stay the same, for example.

Again, anybody who thinks they can use science to prove or disprove god cannot be using science, only their own personal bias based on whatever evidence they think is pertinant. Often on subjective or faith based conclusions the evidence used is NOT pertinant and very biased towards their own personal beliefs.

Potluck, who are these "most" you speak of, and why would you think this is so?

 

[Rhetorickety]

Wow, I have not been giving it my all. I thought I was doing okay, but nope, now I realize that it is wrong to not read all of the posts. At first, I just didn't read them and didn't give that much thought... But now I realize that that is wrong.

This is the reason we often shy away from scientific discovery; scientists often deny that Jesus is Lord. So, we want them to know that and be saved. We want the people who don't believe to start. We don't judge people as worthy of going to hell, because God gave us salvation out of His grace; He sent His son to die for us.

So, I challenge you to a debate. About what I said about not reading your post? I thought I knew pretty much everything you had to say, because I had had this problem. This is what I profess; despite everything logic tells you, know the power of God. That is logic enough. From what I gather, you think that you just felt better because you believed you were going to heaven. You said you spoke in tongues? So you must be completely convinced that everything you experienced was just your reaction to your belief. What caused you to die? I think I know. You think that all the judgement passed and all your looking down on others was caused by your belief? Or is that just what you were convinced you were doing? Let me tell you- if someone does not believe in Jesus, they are condemned. That's just the truth. God gave His son to die for the world, so it might be saved. God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would the faithful of the old covenant, that is, before Christ, would be made perfect- they have not perished. Please, I will still call you brother... Believe. And since this is the truth, how can you blame us for proclaiming it? How can you blame us for warning people? I will not say, you will die in your sin, and leave... I will warn you. Hear my warning. If anyone has seemed overly judgemental, let that not deter you. They are not in the truth. For God says, "Do not judge, lest you be judged." You probably already knew that, didn't you? Did anyone tell you it didn't matter if you did wrong to a non-believer? It is written in Paul, to do good to all men. Did someone tell you a woman is less that a man? It is written in Paul, all are one in God, and there is no male nor female, Jew or Gentile, Greek or Scythian. Did someone tell you that black people are less than white people? What about the ethiopian Paul preached the Gospel to, and recieved it with joy and was saved? No, the word of God is truth. Perfection is in Jesus. Science is but man's logic. Sure, some of science is very true. I can even scientifically prove to you the existence of God. But faith should rest on the power of God. Were you not a slave to sin before you believed? Did He not free you? Hah! Are you caught up about the time the sun stopped in the sky, or about the great flood? The sun stopping is a figure of speech that explained what happened well enough, and God had meant for the sun to look to move, so that it would seem that it did to us. And don't you know that the mountains are covered in the remains of sea creatures? And is it so hard to say that God created out of His infinite power the whole universe? No, do not doubt the truth of God's word. Do not be offended that we call an unbeliever condemned; we want him to be saved. Weren't we all unbelievers once? But we are now a new creation, not born of woman or the will of man, but of God. Christ tasted death for all so that we wouldn't have to die. Yes! God has saved the world!!!! But if anyone does not believe in Him, they stand condemned, because they did not believe in the one and only Son of God. For anyone who denies Him also denies the Father, that is, God. Do you not believe? Have you not seen the devastation yourself? I know you know the pain. I know how it feels. So do not abide in death a second longer. The word of God is truth. God is truth. Doing good is God's command, and loving God is good, and secondly your neighbor, that is, anyone, and also your enemy.

 

[ÃÂoppleganger]

Well, All I have to say is you lost your faith over nothing. I tend to agree christians as well science tends to only except those those of its own faith and opinions, and reject those who disbelieve. Despite how much you think that christians are bound by faith in the supernatural, which can't be proved. Christ came in the flesh and walked among us. Science also has its faith. It puts its faith in a theory just called a fact. For example, the Shroud of Turin, once carbon dated to the 12th -14th century has been scientifically been proven to date to the time of Jesus. Poor Science by scientists made this possible. Taking samples of the most contaminated part of the shroud! When in reality, and despite all the nay-saying, the fact remains that tradition was right all along. Science went out to disprove the shoud's unauthenticity. Which it accomplished. But like Christ rising from the Dead, the controversy didn't die, and once again faith prevailed. Anyone, who goes out to prove something can do it nowadays! That doesn't mean its a fact!

 

[Rick W]

Science cannot answer the basic and oldest questions of all.

What is the purpose of life?
Is there life after death?

Science cannot give us moral direction.
Science cannot ease the pain of death for a loved one.
And science cannot love.

Science is merely a tool. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Vic C.]

Wow, I have not been giving it my all. I thought I was doing okay, but nope, now I realize that it is wrong to not read all of the posts. At first, I just didn't read them and didn't give that much thought... But now I realize that that is wrong....

Yeah, it's important to read all of one's post so you konw where they're coming from and so you don't misquote nor misrepresent them.

It's also important to submit long posts in a paragraph form so all may read it easily.

* * * * * * * * * *

Gary, I understand your skepticism but we ask that you conform to the ToS as best as possible and NOT try to persuade anyone here away from their first love. Also, we cannot allow the promoting of websites like you have posted, so I will have to remove them, including the one in your signature.

I pray that instead of turning away from your Creator, you reconcile what it is that turned you off about mainstream Christianity.

* * * * * * * * * *

CuriousAgnostic and J, I took the liberty of editing your post(s). Keep in mind, CuriousAgnostic, this is a Christian site and not all here may be comfortable with "off color" language. 8-)

Peace,
Vic

 

[Guest]

Keep in mind, CuriousAgnostic, this is a Christian site and not all here may be comfortable with "off color" language.

I had no idea that word was considered off colour. I'll try to be more mindful in the future.

 

[francisdesales]

So what was it that these ''enlightend ones partook and tasted? The word of God....

Notice that no place does it ever say these folks were born again...Most people when they read this English just assume they were born again because of the English semantics, but when it is read in Greek, it makes perfect sense....

No one was allowed to receive the Eucharist (the eating and partaking of the Word of God) unless they were baptized, "born from above". Thus, we can presume that this letter, addressed to Christians, is addressing those who were born again and had received the Eucharist.

Is this an absolute? No, it is rhetoric, since we all know people who have fallen away, despite being born again and receiving the Eucharist. The later writings of the Scriptures make it clear that people DID fall away or became lukewarm. As such, Hebrews 6 is an EXPECTATION that Paul had, while Hebrews 10 is the reality of the matter. People DO fall away - although they shouldn't (if they'd recognize the gift given and persevere). But we know people DO...

Regards

 

[Bick]

Why I like science and why I was wrong

Hi cre8. I have heard and read testimonies of Christians who for years drifted away from their early Christian life, because of what they heard and believed in college, particularly in the field of science.

Here is a brief of one such person, Cliff Ellis, a scientist. Edited from Reasons To Believe publication, Staying Connected, June 2006, pp 1 & 3.

He was raised in a Christian home, and says he was saved at the age of 7. Then high school and university taught him math, biology, evolution and the other sciences. He enjoyed being able to explain how the world and the universe worked, but science seemed to contradict what he had been taught from the Bible.

He started exploring the Bible again when 24, reading it and researching the various commentaries. What he learned then was a serious conflict with
proven scientific knowledge. He also felt there were 10 different ways to interpret Bible topics. In short, Christianity seemed like a big mess.

But, on the other hand, scientists like Carl Sagan made God seem so impersonal and detached, and mankind so insignificant. But, it seemed so wrong to think we were the only created beings in the universe.

Thus, for over 30 years he had this internal conflict.

Then, while on the Internet last spring, he came across a message given by Hugh Ross (Pres. of Reasons to Believe), in which Hugh provided scientific evidence for God.

Well, to sum it up, after listening to Hugh and other messages by RTB scholars, everything fell into place for Cliff. He was able to link together proven science with the Bible.

Today, Cliff says he has 100% faith in God! It all makes perfect sense now.

NOTE: The initial message Cliff heard can be found at (http/www.cosmicfingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htm)

Also, much information is available at http://www.reasons.org.

God bless, Bick


[/i]

 

[stranger]

Hi Cre8,

Does your liking 'science' include 'bad science' or when things go terribly wrong?

About your testimony - have you ever met the demonic face to face?

 

[Guest]

Science cannot answer the basic and oldest questions of all.

What is the purpose of life?
Is there life after death?

Yet ;)

 

[cyberjosh]

Of course if we are going to talk science I might as well mention that there is not a unified theory of everything. Relativity and Quantum Theory have yet to find a connection point and it has puzzled scientists for decades. Einstien spent the last 8 years of his life attempting to unify his Relativity Theory with Quantum Theory, yet he failed. The modern day pursuit for merging these two is currently leaning on the superstring theory which is still being researched. But Quantum Theory rests fundamentally upon the Hiesenberg Uncertainty Principle, and paradoxes such as presented in the thought experiment of Schrödinger's Cat arise. I tend to lean on the fundamental fact of uncertainty as resting on the fact that God is ultimately what holds all things together on the most basic level of energy and matter.

The Bible says as much:

"And [He] upholds all things by the word of His power." (Hebrews 1:3)

"He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." (Colossians 1:17)

"If He should determine to do so,
If He should gather to Himself His spirit and His breath,
All flesh would perish together,
And man would return to dust." (Job 34:14-15)

This basically says that God is what holds all things together by the power of his Spirit, and if He were to remove His sustaining power and Spirit all things would disintegrate into their base elements.

This is my view on the matter anyway.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[Bick]

Excellent post, Josh.

Two good verses quoted.

Something that I've been thinking about is when theologians speak of God creating the universe 'out of nothing' or 'ex nihilo'. But, if 'energy can be neither created nor destroyed' than it couldn't have been 'created'.

Then, after reading Romans 11:36, "Because, of (literally 'out of' from 'ex' in Greek) him and through him and for him, [are] all things: to him [be] the glory, to the remotest ages. Amen" (Rotherham NT), it all makes sense. For God is the source of all energy, and it is 'out of' him.

I think of God creating the universe out of Himself.

Bick