NaClhv

Theology, philosophy, math, science, and random other things
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

Why are there so few Christians among scientists? (part 2)

My task in this post is to explain the shape of this graph. I have already ruled out a fundamental incompatibility between Christianity and science as the reason. The above distribution looks qualitatively different from the distribution of scientifically incorrect beliefs, and we also have the very words of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and Galileo Galilei stating that Christianity and science are compatible. Well then, if it's not incompatibility, why are there so few Christians among scientists?

NaClhv will now update every Monday

I don't think I have any readers yet who check for every update, but I should still be thorough. When I started this blog, I was thinking that a typical post would maybe be around 300 words, consisting of some insightful comments, but not requiring a substantial organization and systematization of my thoughts. Well, it […]

Why are there so few Christians among scientists? (part 1)

In the United States, among the general population, 83% believe in God. Among scientists, 33% believe in God. Among "greater" scientists (members of the National Academy of Sciences), the number is about 7%. How could this be, if science and Christianity are compatible, as I have claimed? Doesn't this clearly show that science disproves Christianity? That they are incompatible? No. The fewer number of Christians in the higher level of sciences are due to sociological factors rather than due to fundamental incompatibilities between the two worldviews. In the rest of this post I will address the issue of incompatibility, and in my next post I will address the sociological factors.

How physics fits within Christianity (part 2)

My previous post in this series examined what physics says about God. This post is about what God says about physics in particular, and science in general. There will be many parallels with the previous post, since natural revelation and special revelation must be in agreement, and we're just looking at one relationship from those […]

How physics fits within Christianity (part 1)

I have said: "So, no matter what your field of study is, it is based on God, and it is about God. It says something about God, and God says something about it. Your job, as a Christian who is in your particular field, is to find out what these "something"s are so that you […]

The word "If" does not apply to God

The word "if" does not apply to God. God is the ultimate being, the essence of existence, the one in whom reality itself finds root. All things exist by and through him. Consider the question, "if 2+2=5, what is the square root of 4?" The "if" in that question makes it nonsense, because if 2+2 […]

Can God make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?

This is something I wrote about a decade ago, on my old website which no longer exists. I still like it, so I reproduce it here with some minor edits. What I am about to write should not really be necessary. I am certain that a satisfactory discussion of the subject exists elsewhere, and the […]
2014-01-09

Orthodoxy vs. living out the Gospel: which is more important?

"I consider this question part of a standard test for orthodoxy: any theological system which claims adherence to the system as being more important than living out the gospel fails." I posted that on the internet somewhere. This is written to explain what I meant by that. I do not want to imply that adherence […]

Miracles: their definition, properties, and purpose

There are some really terrible ways to define "miracle". Some of the worst definitions are "something that violates the laws of nature" or "a low probability event". Aside from the blatant biases embedded in these definitions, they are poor definitions in the sense that it is difficult to apply them to label real world events. […]

An analysis of "Let It Go" in Disney's "Frozen"

But while all this is true as far as that goes, stopping the analysis there misses the great depth and subtlety of the song. Yes, the song is about empowerment, but there is also tragedy, anger, bitterness, and self-deception in it, in even greater measure. It doesn't mark Elsa's claiming of her identity or her apotheosis - instead, by the end of the song, she is in severe danger of losing herself.
Copyright

Categories