For any creature such as a human, placed on this planet with its ecosystem and the neighbors in space and a multitude of other indicators, it is very difficult to believe this was put together by hazard alone. The problem is that a creature such as humans are will immediately apply nouns and adjectives in order to capture something that is vaguely perceived to exist. It is possible to be awed at the apparent universe, and especially Earth, and remain free from projecting exactly what it is or means. Further, it is possible to essentially maintain this attitude and also accept certain metaphors from religions in order to be have a vocabulary to think with, all the while reminding oneself of the quality of metaphor. Opening the mind beyond what has so far been known as open is the surest path forward for the existential success of our race.
Amen. It seems like a pretty natural progression from the time when far less was known about this universe, including Earth, progressing through improved understanding to today, and forward, as there is still much to learn. Language and models of the universe had to track that growth in understanding. Thus we are constantly leaving behind old understanding. That's especially difficult for religion, as once ideas are tied to a god, it's hard to let go of those ideas while preserving the perfection of that god.
This is the single most damning thing about secular scientists; they seem incapable of admitting there might be more to the universe than what they can see and touch and measure. They are deliberately and determinedly ignorant of at least half of God's creation.
Scientists are limited by what they can observe. Trying to reach outside the sphere of the natural/physical is outside their pay grade.
String theory is one of many ideas from theoretical physics. Let's remember that ideas from theoretical physics are in that realm because they can not be tested. They are held to mathematical consistency with the universe as scientists know it today. But, the technology for testing these ideas does not exist. Theoretical physics is hugely important as it provides guidance in where science should look for advancement of knowledge. Yes, the terminology is confusing, but that's not going to change.
This just sounds like when someone tells a story his audience scratches their head over. I guess you just had to be there is not a satisfactory answer.
They don't even recognize their ARE things outside their pay grade. IMP it leads many of them to be completely arrogant and hostile to Christianity rather than inquiring.
Yes, science is secular, based on the fundamental, immutable premise that one may learn through observation. Obviously, there exist aspects that can not be observed. We have limited technology, making observation of such things as the creation of the universe difficult to impossible to observe, depending to some extent on the exact question. If you can come up with a method of observing phenomena that haven't been observed, please indicate what that method might be.
In fairness to them, I don't know what transpired in their lives that would make some of them hostile to Christianity. For a child that was abused by someone in authority in religion I can't say I could blame them for their hostility. The Apostle Paul had Christians killed and yet even he was received by God, so I'm somewhat cautious with my judgement of others.
No, science is not hostile to Christianity nor is it arrogant. It is simply limited by the fundamental premise that one may meaningfully observe. Thus, the ONLY scientific answer to questions concerning the supernatural is, "I don't know." You can not call that "arrogant". I agree that there may be individuals who think that science can somehow disprove your god, but that is simply not the case.
So, if you don't understand it, it must be false? To what extent is your satisfaction a requirement of the truth? Do you think ANY human has all the answers?
There are many devout Christians who are scientists, carefully following the rules of science. Science has NO requirement on the religion of those taking part in exploring the universe through science. So, "secular scientist" is nonsense. Science is science.
You used lack of understanding as an argument for considering the idea false, irrelevant, or whatever. Are you suggesting that either religion or science or both do NOT have truth as an objective??? I like your last answer. But, I don't see it being applied.
