Courtesy of Rich Blinne, the American Scientific Affiliation, a somewhat diverse range of articles on homosexuality by scientists who are Christian.
This is mainly a note to myself for the moment.
R
Courtesy of Rich Blinne, the American Scientific Affiliation, a somewhat diverse range of articles on homosexuality by scientists who are Christian.
This is mainly a note to myself for the moment.
The Blinne link appears to be wrong. It links to an entry regarding a silly comment by Thomas Sowell. (Although “silly” and “comment” may be redundant.)
When I saw the term ‘Religious Scientist’ I immediately began to think of Mary Baker Eddy and Louise Hay. They do not seem to be the focus of this though, are they? Religious Science is a specific category of Christian thought. Along the lines of: God is Love, There is No Death.
The link was in the comments, not the original article. You should note that recent posts for the ASA mailing list are found at Calvin College. You can search them here.
The ASA is an association of Christians who are professional scientists. While they are for the most part evangelicals, they are not the stereotype pseudo-scientists you see running around the internet.
For example, many ASA members on the mailing list criticize young-earth creationism because there is:
1. A pattern of dedication to bad science to the bitter end, regardless of how silly it gets.
2. Recriminations against Christians who don’t buy the bad science. (One had to threaten a lawsuit against a creationist site to erase an accusation of being an apostate. Then after the site relented they said Christians shouldn’t sue!)
3. If the party line is not held to Western Civiliation as we know it will end.
4. The necessity of following the political agenda.
Sound vaguely familiar?
The association with Mary Baker Eddy makes me sensitive to the ordering of the words Christian and scientist.
I didn’t say “Christian Scientists” in the headline because of the CS association with Mary Baker Eddy.
Apparently “Religious Scientists” wasn’t generic enough, but I can’t say “Scientists Who Are Christian” in a headline because it’s too long.
Perhaps “Evangelical Scientists” might have been OK, but I don’t like to presume someone is evangelical or fundamentalist without careful examination, and I hadn’t done that yet.
It was probably as good a title you get. Even though there are evangelicals in the group, it is not limited to them. If you can hold to the following, you can belong:
We accept the divine inspiration, trustworthiness and authority of the Bible in matters of faith and conduct.
We confess the Triune God affirmed in the Nicene and Apostles’ creeds which we accept as brief, faithful statements of Christian doctrine based upon Scripture.
We believe that in creating and preserving the universe God has endowed it with contingent order and intelligibility, the basis of scientific investigation.
We recognize our responsibility, as stewards of God’s creation, to use science and technology for the good of humanity and the whole world.
Not being too serious Mike, just saw that and had a giggle. Do think that Louise Hay is a minister for the Religious Science Church. And btw, the various science churches are about the only part of Christianity I am at all sympathetic to. And that I find at all convincing.
Why was Thomas Sowell’s comment “silly”, because you said so? I’m sorry but I don’t feel this silliness was so self evident. In fact, I agree that dogmatism/fundamentalism is not confined to some members of the ultra religious. There are gay people who choose to maintain their ties to different religions, some accepted, some fighting for acceptance but I dont see the positive or the intelligence in scoffing at deeply held religious beliefs.
A couple of things:
1. To Raj: My original post was referring to the second comment on Rich’s page, rather than Rich’s original post about Sowell.
2. To Passerby: I agree that there are different types of fundamentalists, and agree that California Democrats ran the state’s finances into the ground — with the help of some pork-barrel Republicans. I don’t believe the examples cited by Sowell excuse or justify his stereotypes of liberals as a class. While Sowell made some solid points, some of his generalizations were, in my own opinion, a bit silly.