General Chat

I am sorry that I have been called patronising. Ceratainly did not feel patronising. And I have not said that the world was created 6,000 years ago. I am old, but I wasn't there then :-D

I have suggested that what scientists call facts and what Christians call facts may indeed not be facts. That is why I keep asking Eldrick his definition of a fact.

And from my own personal experience, you can be a fully committed Christian without believing much of the Old Testament. I just said that during my 30 years now as a Christian I have learned more and more of the symmetry between the Old and the New. I do believe the first verse of the OT that God (Elohim, so plural in original) created this world. So if the label creationist fits me, I will gladly wear it.

The evidence of my eyes tells me the world is devolving. Things seem worse now, we have exhausted many raw materials, we have more endangered species of fauna and flora. My grandparents told me they thought the world had devolved during their lifetimes ie 1900-1960 period.

To say that "creationists" are not very intelligent (I think Eldrick used that label and made that suggestion) is not quite accurate. I guess people who literally believe the Bible (and I know a few) are roughly a cross-section of society - some very savvy about science and very intelligent, some like me.

There is no generation in last 2000 years when Christians of any hue have been in a majority. Usually a small and oppressed minority. I am amazed so many knowledgable Christians have contributed to this thread, andf that has been a lovely surprise.

see John - there you go again

"I am amazed so many knowledgable Christians have contributed to this thread, andf that has been a lovely surprise"


perhaps it's just me, but then again, I know it isn't


from Julia

Ann, I also thought John's remarks re Eldrick were patronising, arrogant and condescending

As Ant n Dec say Ann - it's not YOU! :-D

It must be me :-D :-D

Honestly, no one has ever in my life called me patronising till I started posting on Community 4 months ago. Since then I have been called patronising several times.

I honestly don't think I patronise anybody - either here or in real life. My OH always has a chuckle when you call me patronising, so I know full well I am not.

Rude, yes :-P Loving and kind, absolutely <3 Handsome and charismatic, you judge ;-)

No, it was you, mate, who said you didnt have to be intelligent to understand christianity. I merely agreed :-)

You also said you believed in a young earth and that Einsteins theories were in dispute. 1 out of 3 isn't very good.

My definition of a fact? Well, there is the OED one - a thing that is known or proved to be true. Night follows day. Grass is green. Water is wet. Einstein is correct. There is no god. That sort of thing.

But I digress. A scientific fact is something that has been hypothesised, tested, retested, peer reviewed and constantly tested again. If not found wanting, it may be safely considered a fact. I'm happy with that. Evolution is a fact. Gravity is a fact. E=MC2 is a fact. The speed of light is a fact. These are not disputable except to use metaphysical arguments.

What is a christian (or muslim, jewish etc) fact?What standard of proof are you willing to accept? Because it's written in a book from the bronze age.....?

The Supreme Governor is a woman who has done a superb job for sixty years, so I do not understand how women bishops could be rejected. :-(

I do remember once being in a philosophy seminar when the tutor held up a glass of water and sai it is not a fact that I am holding a glass of water. Why?

The next 45 minutes was the most surreal as the other 4 rattled on. I could not wait to get to the Union Bar in Bangor and down my draft Newky Brown.

Evolution is a hypothesis - full stop. It cannot be tested. No scientist can recreate an experiment yet where the world can once again appear out of loads of atoms.

Creation is also a hypothesis. A world formed perfectly and spoilt by mankind's rebellion against the Creator.

I guess any "fact" that a religious person held to be true would be exactly the same as a non-religious person. Your defintion of how we arrive at a fact is acceptable to me as far as it goes.

But what you omit is that scientists review these "facts" like the speed of light when new research occurs. So "facts" develop with each generation and I don't believe they are quite as solid and non-controversial as you suggest, Eldrick old butty :-)

John, you said:

Evolution is a hypothesis - full stop. It cannot be tested. No scientist can recreate an experiment yet where the world can once again appear out of loads of atoms.

Now I admit most of this discussion flies straight over my head but aren't new planets being formed to this day? A new one was discovered this year I think. The difficulty in actually finding them during their birth is the distance from Earth and the limitations of scientific equipment.

So this negates your assertion doesn't it?

I am a scientist. I have been for over 50 years.

I have 2 degrees in science

I taught science in an English grammar school, and then worked in university science departments for over 30 years.

I've been married to a scientist for over 45 years

I know many, many scientists, from all over the world, and, of course, most of our friends are scientists.


I think I might, therefore, be qualified to correct Eldrick's statement on p. 4 ...........

"Oh – I believe the figure is in the region of 80% of scientists have no religious belief. If you restricted that to the sciences of physics, medicinal research and biology then I believe the figure is nearer 100%. One thing’s for sure - if my surgeon who was about to do a operation on me started praying at my bedside, I would politely decline the offer and tell him to ...go away, or words to that effect."



You would be surprised at how many scientists DO have religious beliefs. Most of them, however, are very quiet about it. It is often a deeply held but private part of them.

One close scientist friend is a very active member of the Baptist church, as well as an evolutionary biologist.

One of his hobbies is determining the actual plants mentioned in the Bible.

Another is to actually FIND sites named in the Bible .................. practically all such sites are supposedly "known", and people visit them, thinking "this is where Jesus stood when he ....."

Our friend has determined that most of the places known today as such-and-such are not in fact the biblical place ..................... often, very simply, you cannot see what the Bible says one should see. However, move 5 kms down the road or to the next hill, and you will see exactly what was described.

I would think that close to 50% of the scientists I know have some sort of religious belief.


Many are like myself when I was younger .................... we plain did not believe the story of the Creation as told in the Bible.

We took it as an allegorical story, in which eons of years were condensed into 1 day, because the "simple" people would never have been able to understand the concept of 10,000, 100,000 or millions of years.


Me??

I was educated in an Anglican church school from age 4 to 11 .......... and decided I would not again go regularly to church. My parents did not indoctrinate me ............. an old-style parish priest did.

I did however know my Bible, until I deliberately forgot it.

I was married in church. Hypocritical? Maybe

I go to church for hatchings, matchings and dispatchings.

Otherwise, I am quite happy for my OH to be in the church choir and go to church to sing in the choir on Sunday mornings. Although he says that will stop when the choir director leaves .............. it is the choral music that he enjoys, having been educated in a Methodist school in Wales where choral music was a large part of the Music Department.

Cyn ....


to answer your question re what happened to the parishes that tried to opt out.

Most of them actually split .................. the parishioners who did not agree with gay marriage or women priests left, and either joined another parish that did have those same beliefs, or tried to operate on their own. The ones who were accepting stayed in the parish, choosing a new priest who fit into their views.


It was one of the wealthiest parishes in Vancouver that caused most problems ............. they opted out, talked about moving to be under the African Bishop, and intended to stay in the church building. They were the ones that took the case of who owns church property all the way to the Supreme Court, only to lose the case.

The end result has been that the parish still exists, a new priest was appointed, most of the parishioners who left have returned and are very happy.

I have not heard anything about the ones who really disagreed, and their vicar, for 3 or 4 years.

From having been very vocal, they have become silent.

Evolution refers to the evolution of species by natural selection. It has nothing to do with the formation of the earth. You are clearly confusing the two when you say that evolution cannot be recreated from atoms. It was not something that was created in the first place – it was a process that took millions of years. In any case, evolution can and was and is tested and found to be proven. There is no dispute about it and it’s no longer a theory. It is an indisputable fact, old bean. The debate is finished, we know it is so. The only deniers are those who interpret the bible literally. It’s so yesterday to say evolution is only a theory. So is gravity. You need to learn the parlance of science or you will misinterpret phrases and terms such as 'theory' and 'hypothesis' when used in a scientific context.

We know how the earth was created and many experiments have proven this. It is another fact disputed only by the religious fraternity. Its schoolboy physics, primary school for that matter, to know how the earth was formed. And the moon. And the rest of the planets in the solar system.

To flaunt your belief in creation on one hand and then tell me that absolutely proven facts are disputable is rather weird. Your creation idea has absolutely no evidence whatsoever in its favour. Not even an atom of evidence. Not a proton, an electron or a neutron. Not a quark or a muon of evidence. Not even a higgs boson of evidence. And now we are getting seriously small!

Evolution, on the other hand, has all the evidence a man could want. Or a woman. Even a woman bishop. Presumably your beliefs entitle you to say the pope is wrong, the archbishop of canterbury is wrong and lord richard dawkins is wrong. But you are right. OK, whatever :-D :-D

Sylv - I get my figures from Professor Dawkins in his book The God Delusion. I quoted from memory - when checking I see that, for instance, fellows of the Royal Society show a 5% belief in god. that's 95 against, 5 in favour. I was being too generous I'm afraid :-)

The figure in America was 7% in favour. Make of it what you will :-)

Eldrick


I'm not disputing what you say. I assumed you had a basis for what you said ..............

....... BUT my personal experience with the scientists that I know is different.


There do seem to be more scientists active in a church to some degree or other, that there was, say, 40 years ago.


Most of them keep it very quiet. They do not make a statement about it. They do not proselytize. They do not demand that friends or students conform. But occasionally it slips out in conversation.

Our evolutionary friend for example has NEVER discussed his faith with me ............... but one of his reasons for going on sabbatical to Israel was for the biblical plants.

Then he got very excited in a conversation with us, talking about the many places he had been to while there. My natural question was "why on earth did you go there?"

The reply was trying to find the real biblical site.


I have to admit that I have not read that book .......... and only know about it because of the controversy it raised.



This really is a topic where neither side can win ......... because nothing can be proved either way.

I have always liked reading Cynthia's comments. I respect that she is firm in her faith but able to discuss different points of view with humour.

Likewise Eldrick - always interesting and you give food for thought.

I can't say the same for John's points of view but then I also find it difficult to imagine how he reconciles his Christianity and his very obvious prejudices against people he feels he is superior to. People on benefits, people living on housing estates, smokers, owners of large dogs etc. etc.

I think it is true that we open a post and can have a pre-conceived opinion about what will be said. That must colour our view of someone's opinions.

I also love to open Eldrick's posts because I know he will be stimulating and very knowledgable in areas I know nothing about. And he is fun. And I don't feel too judged by him.

And I love to open Cynthia's posts. Not because we agree on many things, but because her posts are always fun and pleasant and make you think.

And that has been true of most posters on this thread. ;-) Not a great debater myself, I know that. But I have done my best to put across my very sincerely held point of view about women in religious high office and religion generally. :-)

Sylvia - nothing can be proved either way.......? Im interested in what you mean?

If you mean that science cannot disprove religion, than i would submit that neither can it disprove the 3 headed unicorn in my garden that only i can see. Its not up to science to prove or disprove anything religious. Its up to religion to show proof positive of its outrageous claims. It cannot and never wil be able to do so!

Eldrick


I mean that none of us can now prove religious beliefs as written in the Bible ............. or the Koran!

All are based on oral tradition, passed down for hundreds of years.

Of course, the details were changed as the oral stories passed from one generation to the next .................. story tellers are story tellers after all.



Similarly, scientists can put forward various hypotheses as to how the world came about, but it is difficult to prove that any one hypothesis is correct, or more correct than another one. Simply because we can not return to the state the Earth was in when first formed, or when the first bacterial cell divided and the 2 cells stayed together to form a multi-celled organism. Or when the first fish walked out of the ocean.

We can have our imagination as to what happened and when, and carbon dating can help prove a true time scale, but we were not there, and we cannot reproduce it.

We can demonstrate possibility using small scale experiments ......... in a petri-dish, or a flask or a huge container, but it is not the whole wide world that then existed.

Sylvia, as far as i am aware, there is no dispute over how the earth was formed, nor over how old it is. Of course no experiment is going to replicate the full scale formation of any planet, but small scale representative experiments and models have proven the hypothesis. It is as certain as anything else. Backed up by vast amounts of evidence. Vulcanology, plate techtonics, particle physics, whatever. The standard of proof is beyond conjecture.

Now if we apply that same standard to any belief system it immediately shrivels and dies in a nanosecond.

Sue, you are dead right, new planets are constantly forming, as are new stars. If you look up to the sky at the moment, the brightest star is actually the planet Jupiter. Using binoculars, you can see the moons that galileo discovered and was imprisoned for the rest of his life for saying they moved around the planet. ( by the church)

But near to jupiter you will see a small cluster of stars called The Pleiades. In astronomical terms, these are babies, formed when dinosaurs roamed our planet. They are still evolving and fit the model of star formation perfectly. Now look at the great nebula in orion - the middle star in orions sword. This is an active star forming region and is worth looking at for its sheer beauty. But in it astronomers can see exactly how and why stars and planetary systems are formed.

Strangely, even with the most powerful telescopes, nowhere in these regions is there any sign of a man with a big white beard and a few pals with wings flapping around him. Near to the constellation argos you can however, see a huge Penguin wearing a panama hat, laying eggs that turn into stars and go whooshing all over the place.

Actually, i made that last bit up but it sounds good. You could make a whole belief system round that, much more imaginative and interesting than some i could name

:-D :-D :-D

lol Eldrick, I'm not entering into this debate, or discussion, with anything sensible to add to either side, other than the fact that your last two paragrphs could apply to Terry Pratchett's Discworld series of novels, except that instead of penguins, elephants are involved :-D

It's the night before our Annual Christmas Fair in the church school........picture the scene.....names have been changed for obvious reasons :-D

Is the whole scenario of the Women Bishops Issue (WBI), going to affect the event?

I park in the playground beautifully - I'm a woman - and brave the rain as I head for the door. Joe our music Maestro looks worried. He not only teaches music, runs the church choir, a community choir and a children's choir, that I doubt he is worrying about the WBI - more likely looking for the lost chord.


As I enter the main hall, I see Mary on her knees. Praying for guidance re the WBI? Nope, I think she's looking for summat under the table.


I move on my way, waving to Frank and his cohorts in the kitchen. They are in an anxious huddle. Oh dear, are they discussing the WBI? Ah......something to do with the huge amount of hotpots they will be serving tomorrow.


Em and Jean seem to be studying something intently. Maybe it's the statistics re the WBI? Oh no! Should the apples pies be put here.... or there....on their massive cake stall?


I find my allocated spot and look round for a strong man (they have their uses). I espy Mick the head bellringer and one of his ringers............hopefully, they are not too stressed about the WBI to be able to carry my heavy box from the car. Nah....they're cool!


Raucous laughter erupts from a classroom. The guides and brownies! Maybe they are finding the whole WBI quite amusing???


Bill, the Boys Brigade captain lunges past carrying a heavy box of books. He is so brave. His beloved wife died only a few weeks ago - she was younger than me. I doubt the WBI has crossed his mind.


My daughter and I set up my coffee stall...........looks quite good if I say so myself. I put my head round the other classrooms to see how people are coping with the strain of the WBI.


Three of the flower arrangers and a husband are peering intently at something. Is it to do with the WBI ? No....it's about how much they should charge for something and is £2 too much?? Decisions. Decisions. And the hierarchy think THEY have problems.


Oh dear! Two empty stalls! Have the ladies group and the creche mums been overcome with a sense of loss because of the WBI? Nope. They're coming early tomorrow!


Down the corridor and two choir ladies look worried. They haven't bagged their carrots yet. No worries about the WBI there then!


An intense male conversation is going on in the grotto between Brian and Jo - surely they are worried about the WBI? Ah, the grotto.....have we enough toys for Father Christmas to hand out?


The Men's bottle stall is beautifully set up by Dave. I don't think he would allow the WBI to affect the symmetry of the bottles.


Muttering is issuing from another room.....Joan is folding raffle tickets and would obviously prefer to be discussing the WBI!


Our lady churchwarden Jill, is sipping a cup of tea gratefully. She is 3rd in command at a prison a distance away and is working 11 hour days at the moment. I think she's too tired to even think about the WBI.


People of all ages are buzzing backwards and forwards, smiling and laughing; should I stop all this frivolity and sit them down to make them consider the WBI? Are these people weak or unintelligent? No. No. No. On both counts.


The vicar, meantime, has been hithering and thithering; thithering and hithering about the place. Tomorrow, he will be here at 8am and stay till the bitter end. He will then organise the clearing up before turning his attention to the huge Confirmation service we are having tomorrow.


Our eyes meet. He grins and says " I've heard that the women priests are thinking of going on strike over the WBI". At last! Someone mentions it!


He continues with a VERY wicked twinkle in his eye.........."but would we notice?"
A swift slap soon sort him out and off I go home with a big grin on my face.


So....it is now morning.......I am leaving in an hour or so to face the day. Hopefully, all will go well and happily.


Whilst the hierarchy are feeling sad at the results of the WBI, a lot of the laity are getting on with the work and having fun!


Cx ~~~~~ :-D