Theophilus, a serious question.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

But why "design" such a, pardon me, shitty system in the first place?

And why place the shit sytem right next to the fun parts?

Or make it so our DNA matches the Chimp by 99%. We even look a lot alike to our cousins.
Very stupid design. If we're so special, we shouldn't even have DNA that matches any other animals, nor should we even be an animal in the first place (because we are.)

The ONLY thing that sets us apart from all other animals is our intelligence. And some days, I question the intelligence of many humans.

I don't doubt the intelligence of humans, I just don't promote people to that rank until they've proven themselves.

[Valden]

But why "design" such a, pardon me, shitty system in the first place?

And why place the shit sytem right next to the fun parts?

Or make it so our DNA matches the Chimp by 99%. We even look a lot alike to our cousins.
Very stupid design. If we're so special, we shouldn't even have DNA that matches any other animals, nor should we even be an animal in the first place (because we are.)

The ONLY thing that sets us apart from all other animals is our intelligence. And some days, I question the intelligence of many humans.

I don't doubt the intelligence of humans, I just don't promote people to that rank until they've proven themselves.

[Rob]

After reading quite a few of your posts I have come to the opinion that you are misusing a word Theophilus. I have seen you post that you are a scientist (I'm currently working towards a career in molecular biology myself) and that you support science in its endeavors but I must ask if you have given thought towards your religious belief. Not the precise belief in a deity, rather if you can call yourself a Christian in any meaningful way? Disregarding the True Scotsman Fallacy, it seems to me that the methodology behind your system of beliefs and your views towards a prime mover render the notion of god useless in the Christian sense of god.

In fact I would go further than this question. I would posit that any person who studies has taken the time to devote time to studying both science and the bible cannot meaningfully call themselves a Christian. Any in-depth look into the formation of the bible renders the rational mind incapable of accepting the bible as most Christians would have us do: words handed down directly from a deity that in turn are infallible.

[Theophilus]

Science Rob

You raise an important point. But actually I think you've fallen for a false dichotomy. Yes I am a scientist (20 years post-doc now). But yes I am also a Christian who holds fully and "faithfully" to the Nicene creed. I let science inform my faith and vice versa (especially concerning the morality of the application of science; I won't for example involve myself with human embryo research or with anything to do with abortion which on a couple of occasions has impacted on the choices I have made in my career), but actually the two worlds are very largely separate.

There was a time I thought like you. There was a time I thought science was the tool for everything and nothing could be true unless it could be explored and validated by science. But the more you study and use science the more I think you'll realise what it's great for and what it's pretty much useless for. You can try to use it for everything (you can try and shoe-horn art, love, beauty, mercy, marriage, morality, music, justice, ethics, compassion, faith, etc) into a scientific realm but I think after a while you'll find that you've been trying to use a scalpel when you actually needed a suture, if you get my meaning. Additionally, if you use science alone you can be left with a pale shadow of what you were originally looking at (who cuddles their first child for the first time and thinks "isn't this an interesting collection of chemical and physiological processes"?). So I have been down the sola scientia route but ultimately found it wanting, just as I find even the very best electric screwdriver wanting if what I actually want to do is to play a Mozart flute concerto. So I am now at a point where I feel no more pressure to validate faith with science than I feel a need to validate my love of Mozart flute concertos with science; I simply accept that faith, science and flute concertos are different parts of what it is to be me.

But, do enjoy your science. It's a marvelous career to be in, and is full of fun. Never be afraid to say "I didn't expect that to happen"; that's where the best science starts but you will find many scientists get locked into trying to prove their own pet paradigms (science is ultimately objective, but scientists rarely are). I'm not suggesting you need to rush out and embrace faith; that may or may not come in time. No, I'm quite comfortable with you fully exploring science if that is where you're being drawn at the moment. Just maybe remember not to always try to force everything to fit one preferred model; allow life (scientifically and personally) to surprise you without always thinking views that conflict with your own paradigm and presuppositions must be wrong and also make a mental note of how quickly and easily it is to fall into defense of your own scientific paradigms against other scientists' views - becoming trapped by our pet theories is the greatest daily danger we face as scientists and I've heard so many scientists say "the experiment didn't work properly" when what they should have said was "my theory is obviously wrong somewhere".

Anyway, that's enough pontificating from me! Time to get on with my own science for the day.

[Rob]

A valid point, Theophilus, but I don't think I've hit a false dichotomy yet. It all depends on how you square your scientific learning with the bible. For instance, a literal translation of the bible is not possible if you accept the findings of science. As you flesh out more and more you find a deity which coincides with the Bible to be less and less probable. I don't question the idea that science cannot help you in all avenues of life(love for one) and I have experienced that first hand. The main idea I'm trying to present is that with your knowledge of science, regulating god back to a prime mover or creating a singularity, can you still consider yourself a Christian as major portions of the bible must be interpreted figuratively as the conflict with what we know to be true(or almost certainly know - you get what I'm saying)?

To be a Christian I would say you have to as a minimum:

1. Believe that salvation is through Jesus alone
2. Believe in the Trinity (although this might only apply to certain sects - I'm not quite sure)
3. Believe that Jesus Christ died for your sins and was resurrected.

I think given those three premises you could call yourself a Christian, no matter the scenario. Of course you could be presupposing that god suspended the laws of the universe for Christ, rendering my question meaningless.