Right? The question I’d ask him is: “So which denomination would you adhere to, or would you start your own?”
And the crazy part is that I wouldn’t even be asking that mockingly but rather with genuine interest, because, frankly, denominational squabbling is what majorly contributed to my own departure (certainly not the only factor, but it definitely played a heavy role).
Yeah, I mean Wikipedia is a great place to stark looking at biblical criticism/historiography as well, which I guess is kind of ironic.
I’d love to know what his “proofs” are for his belief, and if there’s an element of the Pascal’s wager type thinking at all. I come from a family of scientists who are also Christian so I’m fully aware of the way people are able to hand-wave away the things that don’t mesh with their worldview.
The denomination hopping eased me out of faith too - I went from evangelical to Anglican, to Society of Friends, to being totally unengaged. If I was going to go back I’d still stick the the quakers to be honest - at least they know the value of shutting up!
I’d be curious to learn more about this if you’re willing to share.
What aspects are interesting to you particularly? I’d be happy to give you an insight!
Both my parents are physicists (my dad got his PhD, my mother taught Physics her whole working life) and my grandfathers (also practicing Christians) were both scientists; my paternal grandfather was a research scientist working with radio telescopes who had some pretty hot takes on life.
I’m not the person you asked, but I have chemists in my family who are also Christians, and it comes down to not taking the Bible literally. That’s mostly where Christians get in trouble, anyway, since it’s not even historically accurate much less scientific. Then you insert God into a position of being the architect of life’s mysteries, and science is an endeavor to comprehend the complexities of the universe Yahweh created. To uncover the mysteries is to seek God.
I don’t really find that logic personally compelling as a reason to believe, but that’s how they’ve kind of “squared that circle” so to speak.
This surprises me - it’s certainly not been my experience that it does (and definitely from a historians perspective).
It would be interesting to hear him talk about this with someone who isn’t a “mocking skeptic”.
I wonder if his conversion will stick.
Right? The question I’d ask him is: “So which denomination would you adhere to, or would you start your own?”
And the crazy part is that I wouldn’t even be asking that mockingly but rather with genuine interest, because, frankly, denominational squabbling is what majorly contributed to my own departure (certainly not the only factor, but it definitely played a heavy role).
Yeah, I mean Wikipedia is a great place to stark looking at biblical criticism/historiography as well, which I guess is kind of ironic.
I’d love to know what his “proofs” are for his belief, and if there’s an element of the Pascal’s wager type thinking at all. I come from a family of scientists who are also Christian so I’m fully aware of the way people are able to hand-wave away the things that don’t mesh with their worldview.
The denomination hopping eased me out of faith too - I went from evangelical to Anglican, to Society of Friends, to being totally unengaged. If I was going to go back I’d still stick the the quakers to be honest - at least they know the value of shutting up!
Interesting, I’d be curious to learn more about this if you’re willing to share.
Ha! That’s true, I actually did quite like Quakers based on the rare run-ins I had with them in the distant past…
What aspects are interesting to you particularly? I’d be happy to give you an insight!
Both my parents are physicists (my dad got his PhD, my mother taught Physics her whole working life) and my grandfathers (also practicing Christians) were both scientists; my paternal grandfather was a research scientist working with radio telescopes who had some pretty hot takes on life.
I’m not the person you asked, but I have chemists in my family who are also Christians, and it comes down to not taking the Bible literally. That’s mostly where Christians get in trouble, anyway, since it’s not even historically accurate much less scientific. Then you insert God into a position of being the architect of life’s mysteries, and science is an endeavor to comprehend the complexities of the universe Yahweh created. To uncover the mysteries is to seek God.
I don’t really find that logic personally compelling as a reason to believe, but that’s how they’ve kind of “squared that circle” so to speak.