Why, when scientists say they don't have an answer the public accepts that, but when Christians say, "We can't?

Question

Why, when scientists say they don't have an answer the public accepts that, but when Christians say, "We can't?

Answer 1

The difference is that scientists admit there are still things to be learned. Christianity makes claims of absolute knowledge, but when it comes up against a direct inconsistency it tries to squirrel out of it. You do not take an approach of learning; you take an approach of stating your assertions as incontrivertible truth, so if you were right these inconsistencies WOULDN'T be there.



Also, you don't seem to know too much about quantum mechanics, and especially not about Chaos Theory.

Johnblock: Completely false. 500 miles would make no difference; the 'habitable zone' would allow for a 30% difference in the distance of our orbit and still fall within the range, and given how closely packed, relatively speaking, the inner planets are, it's more likely than not that one of them would fall inside that range. As for the makeup of the planets, that's directly explained by solar system formation theory, and is also due to the varying distances from the sun; the relative temperature at a certain distance defines what elements will solidify at that distance and which won't, and that in turn defines which can be captured by the gravity of a planet forming at that distance. So in other words, sorry, go learn more.

Answer 2

"Don't scientists have faith in the consistency of laws and systems"



Um, no. They work whether or not you believe in them, and this can be demonstrated and (perhaps most importantly) independently verified.



"yet that does not seem to hold good in the world of quantum mechanics"



Um, yeah. You + quantum mechanics is like lemur + rocket science. Please don't.

Answer 3

an example of your first question is this: the doppler effect and the laws of thermodynamics seem to make the big bang necessary, however every model scientists try to make of the big bang fails to observable data, for example one theory fails because the gaussian Temperature average of the universe is not what is predicted, another fails because there is not enough matter in the universe, and another fails because the center of the universe would be moving. All their models fail, they cant explain it, but they at least have LOGICAL reasons for seeking a correct model, because there is no way to consolidate the observed doppler shift and the law of entropy without it.



Science is difficult becuase your theories have to be confirmed with MEASURABLE OBSERVATION. If you have no such restrictions, then everything should be easy for you.

Answer 4

"yet that does not seem to hold good in the world of quantum mechanics? "

quantum mechanics conflicts with common sense, not consistency of laws and systems.



it can be figured out to the point with mathematics.



"Why, when scientists say they don't have an answer the public accepts that, but when Christians say, "We can't explain that", they're ridiculed, with their faith rubbished as illogical?"



because it is illogical, it doesnt follow a set order merely what the human trying to interpret it wants.

Answer 5

Because Scientist don't claim to have the infallible word of god as the basis of their world-view! And when was the last time a Xtian said they couldn't explain anything? They almost invariably attribute everything good to god and bad to satan, and think that is an explanation!



No, Scientist have confidence in their system, based on experience and testability. That is not the same as the blind faith in ancient dogma that Xtians profess!



Simple as that!

Answer 6

I note that you are NOT implying that certain scientific theories are incorrect. You are dealing solely with the fact that science holds its hand up and admits it cannot answer certain questions, and you are not critical of such an admission. What might need to be pointed out to all those who accuse Christians of giving the answer "God did it" when faced with inexplicable questions, is that Christians never state that as the answer to inexplicable questions.



For example, Christians admit that they just cannot explain the virgin birth. It cannot have been a divine cloning for Jesus would have been a female if that was so. I've got books here, written by Christian theologians, admitting that it's beyond their ability to explain. It's the same when they come to the end of the line detailing their Trinity doctrine. The bottom line is that they cannot answer the ultimate questions regarding the mystery of how the one God is comprised of three eternal persons. Nor can they give a completely satisfactory answer to the question of suffering on earth. They can go so far, but at the end of the day, they know that some things will not be understood until they are in the glory. It is their hope that such issues will become clear eventually - but not now. So it is very ignorant of non-Christians to accuse Christians of not honestly admiting that some answers are beyond them. They do!



The anti-Christian answers so far have demonstrated your very claim, that Christians are "ridiculed, with their faith rubbished as illogical". But fortunately, a couple of sensible non-Christians have given balanced answers, for scientists know that quantum physics throws a whole load of certainty up into cosmological space, and they don't know how it will all fall back down! Science also admits that it does not know how life began even though it has got as far back (theoretically) as a minute point of time just after the Big Bang. Christians cannot give a scientific answer to how life began either, but just because they suggest that God created life (with many Christian scientists accepting the Big Bang theory and even evolution as being a God-given means of developing variety) is no reason to ridicule them for having faith! All scientists know that if one aspect of a mathematical formula is missing, the anwer cannot be right. Christians are suggesting that they need to factor God into their equations. And they are laughed to scorn! Yet, as John Gribbin says, "Some of the remaining detailed issues the mathematicians love to debate seem as esoteric to the lay person as arguments about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin."



As Albert Einstein said, 'the most incomprehensible thing about the Universe is that it is comprehensible.' And John Gribbin adds, "The Universe is comprehensible to the human mind because it was designed, at least to some extent, by intelligent beings with minds similar to our own... the Universe was created in the image, more or less, of the universe of the Designers." Of course, Gribbin does not admit to God being that intelligent designer being, but give him a bit longer, and he might! We live in hope! That's what people of faith do!

Answer 7

Fair comment

And, of course, many top scientists are believers.

Answer 8

The ignorance on this site never ceases to astonish me. Never.



First off, dearie - science never claims knowledge it doesn't have. If it can't explain something, it says so.



Religion, on the other hand, claims that it DOES have knowledge but when challenged to demonstrate the truth of it resorts to "faith".



Science: "We don't know what "caused" the Big Bang, but we're working on it..."



Religion: "We know what caused the Big Bang - Goddidit. Evidence? Er....".



Do you see? Hmm?

Answer 9

Your assertion that a double standard exists supposes the burden of proof in each instance is equivalent, but it is not.



A physicist declaring that empirical evidence at the quantum level appears inconsistent with physical laws above the quantum level in no way constitutes an unverifiable claim. The physicist is simply stating what has thus far been observed, with an admission that some of what has been observed is inconsistent with previous findings, and is thus of particular interest and warranting further investigation.



In any investigation regarding the existence of any god, nothing has yet been observed. There is no evidence to analyze or compare.



Your logic is hence flawed, rendering the question irrelevant.

Answer 10

The difference between scientists and the religious faithful is the scientist is constantly searching for answer to what they don't understand. A scientists will usually say "we don't have the answer yet". And all you have to do is look at the last 150-200 years. Look at how many unknowns have been discovered in that time. Yet religion can't provide any better answers than it did 2000 years ago.

Answer 11

The Q : 'Why, when scientists say they don't have an answer the public accepts that,

but when Christians say, ""We can't explain that", they're ridiculed, with the faith

rubbished as illogical?...."



The 'public' that is referred to in the Q may be a group of people that

chooses to walk by 'sight and not by faith'. Doubting Thomases, so to speak.



I know real scientists, those whose are employed in some branch of science to

make a living, or are teachers in educational institutions...not a one of them

bashes or ridicules. They've come up against 'stuff' they cannot 'prove' but that

they have 'observed', and they've been taught not to make a conclusion on that

'stuff' they 'observe' but cannot 'prove' [that means recreate by means of the

experiment-process], nor a judgment. It's left in the 'pile' of 'unexplainables'.



That's when the scientists are following the protocols of their professions.



Others who claim to be using science to 'disprove God' appear to me to

be folks with 'hidden agendas'. True scientists realize that ALL MATH

and the science that is based on math is an agreement to work within

the theoretical. And what proves out from that is NOT absolute proof or

truth but the proof of the theory. This may be a bit much for some to

wrap their minds around, but that is the truth of science, and any ethical

and principled scientist will tell you that...



So, this answer would be more clearly stated this way:

this goes to public opinion, not really science, and

while it is understandable that people want to feel safe

and secure and basically grab onto anything appearing

safe and understandable, those who ridicule are merely

projecting their fear about their structure of safety being

jostled.



This can also be turned around and noted that there are

people professing to believe a certain way, but when

confronted with different opinions, move from their point

of fear about their belief system being jostled.



Which goes to the thoughts held in mind producing after

their kind.



Double-minded thinking in other words.



God created, which includes science and math, but it's

individual choices which turn this into separation instead

of communion...

true science proves God....my humble observable opinion.

[science even recognizes the 'God gene', but since it can't

be proved, it's not brought forth for public awareness]



thanks for a very valid Q for today's world :)



True science proves God

Answer 12

Evolution is no more of a religion than the periodic table or Newton's gravitational theory. In other words: it is a scientific model with empirical evidence, and not a religion at all. PRIVATE schools (read: schools that do not get funding from any of the taxes I pay) can teach whatever they want. But PUBLIC schools ARE (and SHOULD) be secular. >>If Evolution is a fact, then why don't Christian >>schools have it?????? I went to a private Catholic high school where I learned about evolution in my biology class. And the teacher was a Xaverian Brother. Obviously, evolution didn't conflict with his personal life-long dedication to Christianity! He was a science teacher who taught science in science class, not religious scripture erroneously taught as geological history. If you're going to try to teach biology without evolution, you might as well replace chemistry classes with alchemy and "the four elements", assume the earth is flat for a geography class, and teach a computer class with an abacus.

Answer 13

Scientists have had their fair share of 'laughs' on themselves throughout history. Flat earth, bloodletting, female hysteria, hallow earth theory, and today the debunking of the 'global warming' scientific community.



The scientist usually researches and comments on the physical world around us. They have for the most part a very visible, tangible, canvas to paint on.



Christians must expect to have a higher hurdle to jump, in that they are professing belief that is by it's nature not so visible, tangible, painting on a canvas that has no substance, other than professions from the Bible, which is a problem in and of itself.



Christians say that the Bible is the word of God, because the Bible says it is. No matter how many historical facts can be confirmed via archaeological finds, scientific verification of events or time periods, the Bible assertion that it is inspired, is not and cannot be confirmed without doubts or reservations by observers.



So as other answerer's have stated, it is the 'absolutism' of Christians, and other theists that present a problem to those of us, who are much more comfortable to say "I am not really sure".



Scientists seem to be able to make this admission much easier than the average Christian. Perhaps if Christians could adopt more of an attitude of 'well this is what we hope God will do' rather than the typical. 'accept Jesus as your lord or die', might reflect a less hostile response from those who are not quite as sure of themselves. You think?

Answer 14

Well because most of our yahoo atheist scientists fail to realise that God is outside of the constraints of the material universe and is therefore not detectable by science. Science will one day discover what happened immediately at the time of the big bang, but it will not discover what happened before it, simply because there was no matter before the big bang. Science deals with this world, this universe, not the God universe, but too many atheists who have probably never demonstrated the laws of science to themsleves but have had faith in the fact that scientists say so, seem to think that God must be a measurable and quantifiable being.

Quantum mechanics does demonstrate to science that what it once thought it knew to be true suddenly isn't always true, and also demonstrates quite clearly that there is some very clever underlying principal at work, so far undiscovered and only postulated. This principal still does not explain God, only the method he used to create. God is outside of the material universe, science is within it, and many yahoo atheists fail to recognise that any part of them could be spiritual, i.e driven by or inspired by something outside of the known universe.

Answer 15

Because science doesn't claim to know everything. And it can explain why we don't know something and what we'd need to do to find out.



Yes. Scientists do have faith that the world is how it seems and not some cosmic puppet show. I wouldn't consider that a religious faith. It's just an assumption that you work with, and all science is done within that context. If it is a puppet show, then that makes your "creator" the father of lies.



Religous faith, that the world isn't exactly how its observed, is illogical. And a "we can't explain that" from the religous comes with an implied "stop asking questions, that's unanswerable because god said so." When science says "we don't know", the only thing that's implied is "yet".





You want an example: "What created God?" vs "Why did the Big Bang happen?" Scientists are doing experiments (LHC) to better understand the origin of the universe and trying to test models that explain it. Religion just tells you to stop asking, their creator gets a free pass from the very arguement they use to suggest that there *needs* to be a creator god.

Answer 16

I get the feeling that you are referring to the fact that quantum mechanics, specifically the uncertainty principle, or more generally the non-commutation of many of the operators, proves conclusively that this universe is fundamentally non-deterministic. The essential point that you are missing here is that this is a positive proof of an aspect of reality, albeit a deeply counter-intuitive one, it is nothing like an acceptance of our inability to understand the phenomenon itself. There is also absolutely no belief associated with this concept, it is simply that model which provides the most testable predictions, most of which have proved very accurate.



There are problems with this model, and the mathemactics which back it up do not rigorously allow us to apply it to situations in which relativistic effects are appreciable. This is an area of intensive research, however, and to assume that this current limitation is a proof that the theory is incorrect, or even that this means that the whole theoretical framework must, therefore, be accepted on 'faith' is to completely misunderstand more-or-less every detail of the scientific method.

Answer 17

Scientist said there were no such thing as giant squid and the world beleived it, despite 'ancient man' drawing hundreds of pictures depicting the exact opposite





scientist laugh at christians when we try to expalain what God is



but yet spend billions of popunds and depriving most of swtizerland of electricity in trying to find the Higgs boson particle which they admit might not actually exist



30 billion pounds later they are back at sqaure 1



Chrisitianity never cost anyboy anything, Salvation is a free gift from God



the 30 billion pound gift came back empty handed, God will fulfil his promises



the scientist spend 30 billion trying to find the higgs boson which they call the 'god' particle



they should have spent $7.99 on a King James Bible they will find him, and evident proof in prophecies of empires and cultures that are mentioned before they existed



i wonder how daniel who lived in the era of babylon knew that there would be a persian, greek and roman and vatican empire in that exact order?



i wonder how JOb knew there were springs under the sea, when scientist only found out about it in 1970...



i wonder how Job knew that the constellation of orion was getting further apart and that the Pleaides was getting closer together, as i recall he did not have the benefit of the hubble telescope

Answer 18

Scientists don't have faith in anything - that's the point of science. As for quantum mechanics - the laws and systems there are very consistent. Just based on a different set of rules that won't apply for big world.

Answer 19

Many Christians act like a bull in china shop. They expect people to know there is a God and that Christ is Lord



How can people have faith in something or someone they can not believe?



A Christian needs to present Christ Jesus in such a way that He is living and Savior. As Paul on Mars Hill as Jesus in the Sermon a Christian needs to present Christ to the unbeliever and former believer.



So many church groups for the last few hundred years have just counted on generational membership and believers. These leaders have played a numbers game many not being believers themselves but in religion for power or money.



Of course after being exposed to the racket and travesty that many denominations have become 21st century people are much more aware and not so fooled as only 25 years ago or the naivete of people of time past.



The adversary has formed strong attacks about God and life since 1859 and Darwin's theory. Christians have fought back a bit but with blunt instruments as the adversary has continually refined his tool.

Life from no life is not a new theory or only 150 years old but with modern science it has become formidable. But the real enemy is within the churches claiming Christianity. Christians have not and do not know the depth of the bible so do not have the weapon to overcome the garbage spewed forth as scientific fact.



Their own science shows them to be wrong but Christians often do not have the desire to learn and defeat the fallacies that are put forth.



For example evolution counts on millions and billions of years and very specific changes in an unbroken chain for plants and animals to be as they are seen today.



The last two worldwide extinction events occurred so close together as to be one complete obliteration of life. The Yucatan was hit by a massive meteor and the mountains of India developed into a chain of volcanoes just a mere 60-65 million years ago.



Little escaped from these events but perhaps deep sea life and perhaps some insects. So there is not one single traceable chain of 'from primordial to intelligent ape' exists.



No matter the pretty morphing pictures that are presented on 'science' shows there is not one single example of transitional species. And the evolutionists know it.



Evolutionists assign values to this artifact or that bone. They make it up as they go along and many of the general population accept it because they know no better.



There are other extinction events even closer in time to today. For example many people worry that a meteor will impact Earth but it is unlikely that any will survive the atmosphere of Earth unless it is extremely massive. More likely the American Yellowstone will erupt. About every 500,000 years the area erupts and this spews so much material into the atmosphere that • the sun is darkened • and life as "is" becomes "was" worldwide.

We are 50,000 years overdue for the Yellowstone event.



God does not error in His prophecy or teaching man does.

Answer 20

Scientific theories are based on direct observation and testing of the world. Findings are repeatedly replicated and put under heavily scrutinized peer reviews. Theories are admittedly only the best explanations at the present moment and are open to shift, or became more finely tuned, as new Information comes in. There is plenty of room for growth. The bible was written by an ancient civilization, with archaic and mythological notions of the world. To me, it is absurd to even compare the two.

Answer 21

One obvious answer is that this planet was put in exactly the right place to sustain life. 500 miles closer or farther from the Sun would have made a lot of difference. And no one can explain why we have such a variation in the density of our Planets some gassious and others solid.

Answer 22

People expect christians to know all there is to know about GOD and that is just not the case.We only know what we have learned,what we have seen,and what we feel,but to some that is just not enough.Some christians have gone so far as to say they know for "fact"that GOD exists,but we can only claim that for what we know for ourselves.

Answer 23

Science says "We don't know that yet, but we'll try and find out. We'll come up with some ideas, and we'll test them. When we find the right idea, we'll let you know, and when we find the wrong ideas, we'll admit that we were wrong and carry on with our work."



Christianity says "We don't know the answer, so we'll say that god did it. We'll offer no proof, no investigation... we'll just say that god did it. We won't offer any valid empirical proof of god, but we'll expect you to believe us anyway, AND we'll refuse to admit our mistakes and errors, even when evidence shows that we are wrong."



THAT is the difference.

Answer 24

I though the stock answer was 'goddidit'



when science says 'we dont know the answer' - they dont use their uncertainty to try and impose their beliefs on politics, education, media and law.



also, if a scientist says, 'we dont know', then they are opening the door to other scientists with diverging opinions to come along and hypothesise and experiment.



when is the last time you saw a theist say "we dont know" and invite someone from an opposing religion to come and explain something?

Answer 25

Science says we can't answer something and are still investigating. Christians say they can't but they are going with the made up answer they can't explain anyway and its the "TRUTH". See the difference?

Answer 26

But Xtians don't JUST say "We can't explain that", and leave it at that. What they say is "We can't explain that but you're just going to have to accept that that's the way God wants it and do what He (through us, of course) tells you to no matter how irrational it sounds."





Big difference.

Answer 27

The faith of the Christian rests solidly on the character of God.

The unregenerate man does not know God nor does he care to.



The Christian - a man or woman regenerated by the Spirit of the living God - knows much about God through His eternal Word and the indwelling of God the Holy Spirit - and is learning daily.

To know absolutely all about God is knowable only by God Himself.

Throughout eternity the beloved people of God will still be learning - how exciting!



When Jesus Christ announced Himself as the I AM of the Hebrew scriptures, men were set to stone Him to death then and there.

Man does not believe what Jesus Christ said about Himself and therefore are determined not to believe us when we boldly state that we have taken God at His Word.



Note the immediate rejection.

It infuriates man to no end that the eternal God - though He is everywhere present at once - dwells relationally only with His people that He has plucked out of harms way and regenerated through the power of His might.

And thus it will remain until Jesus Himself ushers in His Kingdom.

Answer 28

Don't lie... xians NEVER say they don't know something cos their imaginary friend agrees with everything they think, do and say.

At worst a xian may say 'god' moves in mysterious ways, which translated means, they dunno BUT they'll never say they dunno.

~

Answer 29

I don't know but they have come up with a lot of false scientific theories in the past so you surely can't put your faith in scientists