You have a gift for eloquence, and a rare humour my friend. I’ve learned a few things with this discussion and have had my own viewpoint challenged in a positive way.

A large part of my own negative association with Christians comes from having had to go to a private secondary school for a number of years where the ministers would use what we call post 9/11 as terrorist interrogation tactics to scare kids stupid with the Word of God. In the same school Christian ministers would denounce the teaching of the science lessons as “heretical”, with particular vehemence against our biology classes that taught Darwinian evolution theory! And if that wasn’t enough, after I graduated from university, the place I went to live (in a big city) for work, was a regular route for Seventh Day Adventist members who would come in every Saturday afternoon and attempt to convert the house, and get us to give up our “sinful” beliefs that “Satan’s” science had lulled us into holding. These were some of the funniest discussions of my life – ignorance can be hilarious.

It wasn’t until years later when I started studying Buddhism in London, did I realise that theology could be rational and not in conflict with science. The Dalai Lama himself is an scientist of some reknown and has made many changes to the Buddhist Dharma (teachings/doctrine) where science has proven doctrine wrong.

Thanks very much for stopping by and giving us your comments. Very enjoyable, and extremely interesting.

Andy.

I think part of the problem with seeing how a person can be both a Christian and a believer stems from misconstrued historical events and from the multiplicity of religious confessions. For instance, there are certain Protestant Christians who argue that faith is all that matters and that science must either take a secondary role or that the devil himself has a hand in falsifying scientific discoveries. The Catholic Church has repeatedly rejected this stand. I heard one fundamentalist minister contend that fossils were planted by Satan and that the dinosaurs died because they could not get them onto the ark. This is all silliness. Most scientists, even the late Pope John Paul II, had no problem with evolution, albeit with an Intelligent Designer in the background.

Catholics study astro-physics and speculate about the big bang, the residual radiation at the edge of the universe being a tell-tale sign, and about matters like string-theory. Catholics do not use the Bible like a science book. Of course, neither are we schitzophrenic; we do not accept contradictory truths but feel that truth must compliment itself, no matter if from science, theology or philosophy. As a believer, I contend that the Bible shares stories and events from real history, as well as religious metaphor to convey its message.

The story of Galileo is somewhat convoluted. He was not alone in thinking that the earth and other planets revolved around the sun. Various churchmen thought as much, not simply from scientific data of the time but from a knowledge of the ancient Greeks. If he had argued straight science, he probably would not have gotten into so much trouble. Man’s place in creation was not dependent upon the planetary alignment. But he also tried to weave his science with Scripture and religious faith. His writing was creative and used a cast of characters, one of whom was rather dumb and overly resembled the Pope at that time. In any case, Pope John Paul II offered an official apology, especially in how the event seemed to create enmity between the religious and scientific communities.

Take care and watch out for crashing protons, quarks and those pesky bits of strange matter!

Firstly my apologies then for missing the sarcasm, and taking your post seriously. I’ve actually seen other posts that do in all honesty say stuff about the world ending from Christian fundamentalist groups.

Your site is actually pretty interesting, but I find it hard to reconcile how a Christian can be a scientist. Faith belies understanding. To have faith in a Christian God, you have to forgo questioning and challenging the establishment and simply accept how it is laid down in “The Book”. This is the diametrically opposed paradigm of science, where the scientific method is to challenge accepted ideas and expand the body of knowledge that leads to understanding.

I don’t believe there can be such a person as a Christian scientist. Quite simply the two paradigms are in conflict, so one must give to the other. So you’re either a scientist, or a Christian. But you are not both. If Christianity wasn’t so fundamentalist in it’s view of the world, they would not have taken 183 years to accept that Gallello’s theory was correct. Nor would they have put him in front of the Inquisition.

However, this is purely my own viewpoint based on my understanding of the world; my own training in science (as I hold a university degree in a science field); and my belief in Buddhism above all else theologically.

You’ve got my interest though, so I look forward to reading more from you on your blog.

Andy.