Christains and non Christians?

-Removed-

I befriended two Japanese JWs in northern Japan when I lived there. We had lunch a fair few times over about an 18 month period and talked of this and that. Husband and wife. I used to cycle to our rendezvous because their car looked like it was about to croak. For their sake, I hope they counted their time with me as time off from doing "good works". As nice as their company was, I hope they had some other "good works" that they were involved in, apart from giving me their magazine and talking about their organization and the bible. But maybe it's for Christians - and not post-Christians like me - to assess the "good works" of their fellow Christians.

Originally posted by galveston75
Should a Christian teach non Christians about the Bible? This would include athiest.

I turn the question 180 degrees around:

Should creational christians be taught some good ol' scientific evolution?

If the answer is no, then the same asnwer applies to the original question.

Because Jesus said "Treat others the way you would like to be treated yourself!" I give christians the right to believe in anything they want. So why don't they respect my will not to be shoven religious stuff through my troat?

Whenever christians agree to just one thing, no, let's say two to be sure, then I'm prepared to listen. Whenever christian teachings are homogenic, then I'm prepared to listen. Until then, go quarrel among yourselves before you try to quarrel outside the church.

-Removed-

I say it goes for any christians, not only JWers. And every creationist too, christian or non-christian.

-Removed-

I like the science that does not fight against the fact that God is the Creator.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I like the science that does not fight against the fact that God is the Creator.

That would be all of it, or none of it, depending on how you define
"Fight against god as the creator".

As no science disproves the existence of god (and almost certainly never will)
then no science is in conflict with the idea of their being a god, (it makes one unnecessary
but being unnecessary is not proof of non existence).

Evolution for example provides a coherent and useful explanation for how the diversity of
life came about and makes useful (and validated ) predictions about life and how it works.
However it is impossible to disprove that god didn't create all the creatures presently alive
and create a fossil record of creatures past 6 thousand years ago or 6 years ago.
But if god did then god did it in such a way as to be indistinguishable from life having evolved
over billions of years.


God is the creator is an idea that is totally and completely unscientific, and can never ever be
part of science.
In which sense ALL science is against that idea.

So you either accept all science is against your religion or none of it is.

You don't get to pick and chose.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I like the science that does not fight against the fact that God is the Creator.

That's not within the domain of science.
Science cannot prove, nor disprove, the existance of god, of any god. That's religion.
Science and religion cannot ever meet, but they can both live side by side.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
That's not within the domain of science.
Science cannot prove, nor disprove, the existance of god, of any god. That's religion.
Science and religion cannot ever meet, but they can both live side by side.

They really can't. Scientific world-views will always be at odds with faith based world-views.

Originally posted by googlefudge
They really can't. Scientific world-views will always be at odds with faith based world-views.

Science are not even meant to be proving/disproving god. They don't even care to try.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Science are not even meant to be proving/disproving god. They don't even care to try.

If god were real, in this reality, and had thus had properties and effects, then science would be
capable of and indeed bound to investigate the existence and properties of god at some point.
It is only impossible for science to prove the negative that god doesn't exist, the reverse (if god did
exist) is not a given.

However most theists claim that god is incapable of being detected by science and has no
properties or effects that science could detect.

Which is why their belief is based on blind faith.

Believing in things based on blind faith is the complete antithesis of the scientific skeptical world
view.

The diametric opposition of the scientific skeptical outlook and faith based belief is why science
and religion can't cohabit peacefully.
While some people are able to permit the cognitive dissonance of accepting scientific skepticism
about everything but god, there is a sizeable number (I would say probably a majority) for whom
that isn't permissible and who can accept only one of those contradictory world views.

For that reason, science and religion, and their respective world views, will never coexist peacefully.

(note: I am not talking about coexisting peacefully in terms of physical violence, but in terms of
argumentative disagreement. I would hope it is possible for people of (almost) any beliefs to be able
to coexist non-violently with each other. I would contend that of the two, the theists have the hardest
time living with each other and with atheists peacefully than the atheists have living with theists.)

Originally posted by googlefudge
They really can't. Scientific world-views will always be at odds with faith based world-views.

Hmmm—

Why isn’t it the case that a claim that is in principle( a priori) indefeasible in any epistemic sense a claim that technically falls outside any epistemological inquiry at all? If one takes the standard definition of “knowledge” (episteme) as “a justified belief that is also true”, then a claim that is insulated from justificatory testing is strictly, a priori, a non-justifiable belief. In such a case, simple disbelief is warranted (in a sense, there is not even room for the kind of doubt that would undergird agnosticism).

I want to say that such a claim is not an epistemological claim at all, and therefore that science—as a particular (empirical) epistemological methodology for determining justification—has nothing further to say. It is always possible that a non-justifiable belief could turn out to be true—but “accidental truth” does not entail knowledge.

The above assumes that the non-justifiable claim does not contain internal contradictions (which are, of course, challengeable). Non-justifiable (and hence non-justified, to be redundant) claims can also be challenged by justified claims to the contrary. That is where, it seems to me, that science—and epistemology in general—can respond with actual argument, rather than simple (justified) dismissal.

After all that—an exercise in thinking while writing—I think I am just worrying out some detail that is, as usual, in agreement with your point. I also wanted to bring in philosophy because I don’t think that science can get to ethical claims without philosophy (that is, getting from an “is” to an “ought” ), and ethical claims I also think are subject to justification—or dismissible in its absence.

_______________________________________

NOTE: It seems that sometimes “belief” is used in non-epistemological (e.g., pragmatic) senses. I try not to, to avoid confusion, but etymologically there seems to be some basis for such usages—both pragmatic and aesthetic. And that may be a bit where FabianFas is coming from…

EDIT: I intended this post as a reply to yours immediately above, but I got lost...

Originally posted by vistesd
EDIT: I intended this post as a reply to yours immediately above, but I got lost...

Yes, but it is sometimes fun to go down the rabbit hole or go on a magical mystery tour, and this was certainly one of those occasions :-)

EDIT: I take the Granny Weatherwax view on getting lost... I always know where I am... But I sometimes temporarily misplace everything else.

Originally posted by galveston75
Should a Christian teach non Christians about the Bible? This would include athiest.

G75: "Would you like to know more about the bible?"
Mark: "Yes"

Then its OK

G75: "Would you like to know more about the bible?"
Mark: "No"

Then its not OK