# Christians: Why are scientists more likely to be non-believers? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 1, 2013, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322 "2013-07-01T06:22:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 34
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/661 "2013-07-19T01:38:00Z")
> [@dougie\_monty](#): > > I’d like to know how you approach “literal” vis-a-vis Romans 12:17-21. Well, after having taken a couple of years to learn to read it in the original, learn about the culture of the writers, reading what 2000 years of Christian theological thought on it was, etc… My conclusion was that it, and everything else in the book, was useless bullshit, and rejected the Catholicism I had been raised in. Good enough answer for you? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/662 "2013-07-19T01:38:09Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > Sorry I don’t see that demonstrated in your article. Demonstrating, once again, that you cherry pick what your read and fail to read. If you failed to “notice” the statements indicating that the RCC opposed accusations of witchcraft, then your clearly failed to read the article. That puts you into the same category as **reef shark** , in terms of objective analysis or reading comprehension. (It is one reason I generally avoid feuds between competing fundies–atheist or religious.) ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/663 "2013-07-19T01:42:02Z")
> [@dougie\_monty](#): > > I had begun this “discussion”–if I can call it that–with a straightforward account, from a high-school biology textbook, of historical scientiific experiments testing a hypothesis critical to a tenet of evolution. Unfortunately, some people took it upon themselves to reply in such a manner that I could not carry on a coherent discussion; and they even impugned the scientists’ motives (“falsification” was one term they used.) I have a very low tolerance for the attitude of contermpt expressed by people who taunt me in a public forum with cutesy words like “Goddidit.” I consider myself to have been provoked and that is why I wrote what I did. The attitude of contempt stands as a grosser insult than any words I have used. Given your clear misunderstanding of scientific terms such as “falsification,” hurling accusations that a poster is behaving as a third-grader is both out of line for this forum and an indication that you might be out of your depth. A lot of posters dislike how their beliefs are characterized by their opponents; it steps over the line from disagreement to insult when one chooses language that insults the poster rather than the opinion. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/664 "2013-07-19T01:53:00Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > I was not reaching at all. You just proved my point by showing there was a different Hebrew word used in Gen 1:3 for light vs. Gen 1:16 ('owr vs. ma’owr). If you can admit this, we can move on to Matthew, thanks. You do realize that the word for greater light and lesser light is the same, don’t you? Your 1:3 point (whatever it is) is irrevelant. The root is 'owr for both, with ma being masculine. In any case they both refer to light and can be used the same way. In short, you are completely reaching, so unless you wish to concede,we can remain on Genesis and it’s hilarious inaccuracy of the moon generating light. I see that you’ve also dropped the absurdity of plants living without the Sun, so we shall count that as a concession. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/665 "2013-07-19T02:01:32Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Demonstrating, once again, that you cherry pick what your read and fail to read. If you failed to “notice” the statements indicating that the RCC opposed accusations of witchcraft, then your clearly failed to read the article. Maybe you should quote that part I missed, cause from what I gather the author admitted that Catholics killed witches, but tries to say they just didn’t kill as many witches as most people think. So my guess is she’s probably Catholic. Just like you. > [@](#): > > That puts you into the same category as **reef shark** , in terms of objective analysis or reading comprehension. (It is one reason I generally avoid feuds between competing fundies–atheist or religious.) I understand, it always sucks to be on the side of the religious. BTW, did you hear the one about the priest and the rabbi walking together in the park? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/666 "2013-07-19T02:35:04Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > Maybe you should quote that part I missed, cause from what I gather the author admitted that Catholics killed witches, but tries to say they just didn’t kill as many witches as most people think. So my guess is she’s probably Catholic. Just like you. Really? You missed the mountain of evidence that the church opposed belief in witchcraft and the punishment of witchcraft outside the few areas where witch hysteria was a secular phenomenon that infected the local clerics? > **[The Great European Witch Hunt](http://www.tangledmoon.org/witchhunt.htm)** > [@](#): > > a) Chronology. Popular history places the witchcraft persecutions in the Middle Ages (5th-14th centuries). 19th century historians considered the Great Hunt an outburst of superstitious hysteria, fostered and spread by the Catholic Church. “Naturally”, therefore, the persecution would be worst when the Church’s power was the greatest: in the Middle Ages, before the Reformation split “the” Church into warring Catholic and Protestant sects. Certainly there were trials in the early modern period (15th-18th centuries), but they must have been a pale shadow of the horrors that came before. > > Modern research has debunked this theory quite conclusively. Although many stereotypes about witches pre-date Christianity, the lethal crazes of the Great Hunt were actually the child of the “Age of Reason.” > . . . > Many of the stereotypes about witches have been with us from pre-Christian times. From the Mediterranean to Ireland, witches were said to fly about at night, drinking blood, killing babies, and devouring human corpses. We know this because many early Christian missionaries encouraged newly converted kingdoms to pass laws protecting men and women from charges of witchcraft – charges, they said, that were impossible and un-Christian. For example, the 5th century Synod of St. Patrick ruled that “A Christian who believes that there is a vampire in the world, that is to say, a witch, is to be anathematized; whoever lays that reputation upon a living being shall not be received into the Church until he revokes with his own voice the crime that he has committed.” A capitulary from Saxony (775-790 CE) blamed these stereotypes on pagan belief systems: “If anyone, deceived by the Devil, believes after the manner of the Pagans that any man or woman is a witch and eats men, and if on this account he burns [the alleged witch]… he shall be punished by capital sentence.” > > In the Middle Ages, the laws on magick remained virtually unchanged. Harmful magick was punished, and the lethal trials we know of tended to occur when a noble felt that he or she had been bewitched. The Church also forbade magick and assigned relatively mild penalties to convicted witches. For instance, the Confessional of Egbert (England, 950-1000 CE) said that “If a woman works witchcraft and enchantment and [uses] magical philters, she shall fast [on bread and water] for twelve months… If she kills anyone by her philters, she shall fast for seven years.” > . . . > When all trials are plotted on a map, other surprising patterns emerge. First, the trials were intensely sporadic. The rate of witch hunting varied dramatically throughout Europe, ranging from a high of 26,000 deaths in Germany to a low of 4 in Ireland. Robin Briggs’ Witches and Neighbors can give you a good feel for how erratic the trials were. It contains three maps showing the distribution of trials throughout Europe, throughout Germany, and throughout the French province of Lorraine, which Briggs studied in depth. They reveal that some of the most enormous persecutions (like the panics of Wurzburg, Germany) occurred next to areas that had virtually no trials whatsoever. > > Second, the trials were concentrated in central Europe, in Germany, Switzerland, and eastern France. The further you got away from that area, the lower the persecution generally got. > > Third, the height of the persecution occurred during the Reformation, when the formerly unified Christian Church shattered into Catholic and Protestant sects. In countries like Italy and Spain, where the Catholic Church and its Inquisition reigned virtually unquestioned, witch hunting was uncommon. The worst panics took place in areas like Switzerland and Germany, where rival Christians sects fought to impose their religious views on each other. > . . . > c) Christianity’s Role in the Persecution For years, the responsibility for the Great Hunt has been dumped on the Catholic Church’s door-step. 19th century historians ascribed the persecution to religious hysteria. And when Margaret Murray proposed that witches were members of a Pagan sect, popular writers trumpeted that the Great Hunt was not a mere panic, but rather a deliberate attempt to exterminate Christianity’s rival religion. > > Today, we know that there is absolutely no evidence to support this theory. When the Church was at the height of its power (11th-14th centuries) very few witches died. Persecutions did not reach epidemic levels until after the Reformation, when the Catholic Church had lost its position as Europe’s indisputable moral authority. Moreover most of the killing was done by secular courts. Church courts tried many witches but they usually imposed non-lethal penalties. A witch might be excommunicated, given penance, or imprisoned, but she was rarely killed. The Inquisition almost invariably pardoned any witch who confessed and repented. > . . . > The vast majority of witches were condemned by secular courts. Ironically, the worst courts were local courts. Some authors, like Anne Llewellyn Barstow (Witchcraze), blame the death toll on the decline of the “community-based” medieval court, and the rise of the centralized “national” court. Nothing could be further from the truth. “Community-based” courts were often virtual slaughterhouses, killing 90% of all accused witches. National courts condemned only about 30% of the accused. > . . . > d) The Inquisition But what of the Inquisition? For many, the “Inquisition” and the “Burning Times” are virtually synonymous. The myth of the witch-hunting inquisition was built on several assumptions and mistakes, all of which have been overturned in the last twenty-five years. First, the myth was the logical extension of 19th century history, which blamed the persecutions on the Catholic Church. If the Church attacked witches, surely the Inquisition would be the hammer She wielded. > > Second, a common translation error muddied the waters. Many records simply said that a witch was tried “by inquisition”. Some writers assumed that this meant “the” Inquisition. And in some cases it did. But an “inquisition” was also the name of a type of trial used by almost all courts in Europe at the time. Later, when historians examined the records in greater detail, they found that the majority did not involve the Inquisition, merely an inquisition. Today most historians are careful about this, but older and more popular texts (such as Rossell Hope Robbins’ Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology) still have the Inquisition killing witches in times and places where it did not even exist. > > Third, the only witch-hunting manual most people have seen was written by an inquisitor. In the 1970’s, when feminist and Neo-Pagan authors turned their attention to the witch trials, the Malleus Maleficarum (Hammer of Witches) was the only manual readily available in translation. Authors naively assumed that the book painted an accurate picture of how the Inquisition tried witches. Heinrich Kramer, the text’s demented author, was held up as a typical inquisitor. His rather stunning sexual preoccupations were presented as the Church’s “official” position on witchcraft. Actually the Inquisition immediately rejected the legal procedures Kramer recommended and censured the inquisitor himself just a few years after the Malleus was published. Secular courts, not inquisitorial ones, resorted to the Malleus. > > As more research was done and historians became more sensitive to the “an inquisition/the Inquisition” error, the inquisitorial witch-hunter began to look like a rare bird. Lamothe-Langon’s trials were the last great piece of “evidence”, and when they fell, scholars re-examined the Inquisition’s role in the Burning Times. What they found was quite startling. In 1258 Pope Alexander IV explicitly refused to allow the Inquisition from investigating charges of witchcraft: “The Inquisitors, deputed to investigate heresy, must not intrude into investigations of divination or sorcery without knowledge of manifest heresy involved.” The gloss on this passage explained what “manifest heresy” meant: “praying at the altars of idols, to offer sacrifices, to consult demons, to elicit responses from them… or if [the witches] associate themselves publicly with heretics.” In other words, in the 13th century the Church did not consider witches heretics or members of a rival religion. > . . . > In fact, in Spain the Inquisition worked diligently to keep witch trials to a minimum. Around 1609, a French witch-craze triggered a panic in the Basque regions of Spain. Gustav Henningsen (The Witches’ Advocate) documented the Inquisition’s work in brilliant detail. Although several inquisitors believed the charges, one skeptic convinced La Suprema (the ruling body of the Spanish Inquisition) that this was groundless hysteria. La Suprema responded by issuing an “Edict of Silence” forbidding all discussion of witchcraft. For, as the skeptical inquisitor noted, “There were neither witches nor bewitched until they were talked and written about.” > > The Edict worked, quickly dissipating the panic and accusations. And until the end of the Great Hunt, the Spanish Inquisition insisted that it alone had the right to condemn witches – which it refused to do. Another craze broke out in Vizcaya, in 1616. When the Inquisition re-issued the Edict of Silence, the secular authorities went over their head and petitioned the king for the right to try witches themselves. The king granted the request, and 289 people were quickly sentenced. Fortunately the Inquisition managed to re-assert its monopoly on trials and dismissed all the charges. The “witches” of Cataluna were not so lucky. Secular authorities managed to execute 300 people before the Inquisition could stop the trials. Cherry picking at its finest. > [@Kable](#): > > I understand, it always sucks to be on the side of the religious. It really sucks to be stuck in a fundy mindset, however, I have not found a cure for that world view, so I can offer you no help. Opposition to religion can come from many legitimate sources, but when it is simply driven by the binary belief system of a fundy, it fails to illuminate reality. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/667 "2013-07-19T03:01:38Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Really? You missed the mountain of evidence that the church opposed belief in witchcraft and the punishment of witchcraft outside the few areas where witch hysteria was a secular phenomenon that infected the local clerics? > [The Great European Witch Hunt](http://www.tangledmoon.org/witchhunt.htm) Right I don’t see any claims in there that Catholics opposed the punishment of witchcraft. More things like this: > [@](#): > > When the Church was at the height of its power (11th-14th centuries) very **few** witches died. Persecutions did not reach **epidemic** levels until after the Reformation, when the Catholic Church had lost its position as Europe’s indisputable moral authority. Moreover **most** of the killing was done by secular courts. **Church courts tried many witches** but they **usually** imposed **non-lethal** penalties. And again this comes from what is apparently the best article you, **as a Catholic** , could cherry pick from from another Catholic sympathizer. > [@](#): > > Opposition to religion can come from many legitimate sources, but when it is simply driven by the binary belief system of a fundy, it fails to illuminate reality. Tell us some more about reality. Does prayer do anything? Why do you people oppose condoms in AIDS infested Africa? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/668 "2013-07-19T03:51:14Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > Right I don’t see any claims in there that Catholics opposed the punishment of witchcraft. Proving that you read only what you choose to see. > [@Kable](#): > > And again this comes from what is apparently the best article you, **as a Catholic** , could cherry pick from from another Catholic sympathizer. Your pathetic attempt to ignore the evidence based on _ad hominem_ attacks are duly noted. (I have no idea what Jenny Gibbons’s religious beliefs may be, but she is respected among neo-pagans for her scholarship.) You seem to have provided sufficient evidence of your own biased spin on history. I’ll let the other posters decide for themselves whether you are providing anything more than fundy sniping. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/669 "2013-07-19T04:48:03Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Proving that you read only what you choose to see. I read and quoted directly from your source. I’m sorry it said what I said it said. > [@](#): > > Your pathetic attempt to ignore the evidence based on _ad hominem_ attacks are duly noted. (I have no idea what Jenny Gibbons’s religious beliefs may be, but she is respected among neo-pagans for her scholarship.) I’m sorry for calling you a Catholic. I didn’t think you would consider that pejorative. But maybe as much as you guys have been in the news the last few years I should have known better. You can always renounce your faith though. FWIW Jenny sounds as Catholic as you do. > [@](#): > > You seem to have provided sufficient evidence of your own biased spin on history. Have you ever heard that saying about the pot and the kettle? > [@](#): > > I’ll let the other posters decide for themselves whether you are providing anything more than fundy sniping. You got that wrong, it’s you liberal Christians that are doing all the fundy sniping. I’m just saying you’re doing so from a glass house. ---
**Author:** ![dougie\_monty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/439d5e/32.png) [@dougie\_monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dougie_monty)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/670 "2013-07-19T05:59:54Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > Well, after having taken a couple of years to learn to read it in the original, learn about the culture of the writers, reading what 2000 years of Christian theological thought on it was, etc… My conclusion was that it, and everything else in the book, was useless bullshit, and rejected the Catholicism I had been raised in. > > Good enough answer for you? No. Is it possible for you to phrase your paragraph without resorting to the convenience of crude obscenities? Or is that hard-wired into your mentality? If it is, don’t bother to continue. I wouldn’t want to be around you lest you decide to settle your differences with a deadly weapon: You might just have the same crude attitude toward your state’s criminal code. ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/671 "2013-07-19T06:01:13Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > You do realize that the word for greater light and lesser light is the same, don’t you? Your 1:3 point (whatever it is) is irrevelant. The root is 'owr for both, with ma being masculine. In any case they both refer to light and can be used the same way. > > In short, you are completely reaching, so unless you wish to concede,we can remain on Genesis and it’s hilarious inaccuracy of the moon generating light. I see that you’ve also dropped the absurdity of plants living without the Sun, so we shall count that as a concession. You do realize I was comparing the sun light to the source of the light used in Genesis 1:3 the whole time, right? You gave the definitions yourself: > **[H216 - 'ôr - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv)](https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h216/kjv/wlc/)** > > H216 - אוֹר ʼôwr, ore; from ; illumination or (concrete) luminary (in every sense, including lightning, happiness, etc.):—bright, clear, day, light (-ning), morning, sun. 1. light a) light of day b) light of heavenly luminaries (moon, sun, stars) c) day-break, dawn, morning light d) daylight e) lightning f) light of lamp g) light of life h) light of prosperity i) light of instruction j) light of face (fig.) k) Jehovah as Israel’s light -Open up Gesenius’s Lexicon help if you need to Now see the definition for ‘greater light’ in verse 16: > **[H3974 - mā'ôr - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv)](https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h3974/kjv/wlc/)** > > H3974 - מָאוֹר mâʼôwr, maw-ore'; or מָאֹר mâʼôr; also (in plural) feminine מְאוֹרָה mᵉʼôwrâh; or מְאֹרָה mᵉʼôrâh; from ; properly, a luminous body or luminary, i.e. (abstractly) light (as an element); figuratively, brightness, i.e.cheerfulness;... 1. light, luminary It is not simply feminine vs. masculine, there is an inherent difference in the meaning of the word, especially given the context. Now let me repeat myself for the third time for you: plants can live without light (sun, sunlight, light) for 24 hours, even though there was light provided from verse 3, meaning you are simply wasting my time here. There you have it, you can concede now graciously. ---
**Author:** ![dougie\_monty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/439d5e/32.png) [@dougie\_monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dougie_monty)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/672 "2013-07-19T06:14:32Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Given your clear misunderstanding of scientific terms such as “falsification,” hurling accusations that a poster is behaving as a third-grader is both out of line for this forum and an indication that you might be out of your depth. A lot of posters dislike how their beliefs are characterized by their opponents; it steps over the line from disagreement to insult when one chooses language that insults the poster rather than the opinion. > > [/Moderating] There is no question in my mind that I misunderstood the word “falsification” as the respondent used it. This person probably should have avoided the term and not assumed that another person would know its specialized meaning, given the controversial, highly-debated subject matter. I am not trying to evade blame but in this forum I am sensitive to harsh accusations, which I had perceived (incorrectly) here. I now know I was mistaken. This may sound like a stupid question, but I would like to know (please quote) which “language that insults the poster” you are referring to, so I can know exactly what I wrote that got someone’s nose out of joint. Or at least give me the post number, please. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/673 "2013-07-19T06:36:10Z")
> [@dougie\_monty](#): > > No. Is it possible for you to phrase your paragraph without resorting to the convenience of crude obscenities? Or is that hard-wired into your mentality? If it is, don’t bother to continue. I wouldn’t want to be around you lest you decide to settle your differences with a deadly weapon: You might just have the same crude attitude toward your state’s criminal code. This only merits a Pitworthy response, but you’re not worth it. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/674 "2013-07-19T07:34:08Z")
> [@dougie\_monty](#): > > This may sound like a stupid question, but I would like to know (please quote) which “language that insults the poster” you are referring to, so I can know exactly what I wrote that got someone’s nose out of joint. Or at least give me the post number, please. I already alluded to the insult, but if you need it explicitly cited, it was this: > [@](#): > > That’s nice for a three-year-old, but for someone your apparent age it betokens a snide attitude which deserves a rap in the mouth. Comparing a poster directly to a three-year-old and then posting metaphorical chest-beating and threats of violence is out of line. A lot of discussions are rather volatile and nothing in the rules of this forum require that such discussions follow Robert’s Rules of Order or Emily Post’s instructions regarding polite discourse. The line gets crossed when one poster makes the insults directly personal. I really think that for your own peace of mind you should probably recuse yourself from any such discussions if you are going to feel the need to engage in this personal insults or to refer to such simple expressions as “bullshit” as “crude obscenities.” [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/675 "2013-07-19T11:14:05Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Not at all. Oil deposits simply result from extreme heat and pressure turning decomposing organic material into oil. A lot of that dead organic material could come from a global flood, no? The same goes for plants and coal. > [How fast can oil form?](http://creation.com/how-fast-can-oil-form) > -Before anyone automatically wants to discredit this article without checking the references, please check the non-biased references first. Thanks. > I assume you’re mentioning oil and geology in reference to the debate on the age of the earth. Here is an interesting article on diamonds, which are thought to require deep time to form: > [http://creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend](http://creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend) > > Regardless of the age of the earth, the main point that is debated here (from my standpoint) is simply creation vs. evolution. In no way have I ever claimed that someone who doesn’t believe in a young earth is not a Christian. This time element should not be a divider of Christians, in my opinion. If you believe in Jesus and what he claimed to be, that should be enough for common ground. Oil deposits really should have nothing to do with Christianity. I am not askign about the formation of oil. I am observing that oil complanies hire geologists who use an old-earth model to find where to drill for oil. As you are a Flood believer, I would think that a practical application of non-Flood geology in a religiously neutral situation might help you begin to examine the weaknesses of Flood geology. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/676 "2013-07-19T12:03:01Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > You do realize I was comparing the sun light to the source of the light used in Genesis 1:3 the whole time, right? In Genesis 1:3 the word is " 'owr", in 1:16, both words used for ‘light’ (ie, greater light and lesser light) are “ma’owr”. There is no differentiation between the two other than ‘greater’ and ‘lesser’, the _LIGHT_ is the same. Pointing to 1:3 is simply irrelevant. > [@reef\_shark](#): > > You gave the definitions yourself: > [H216 - 'ôr - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv)](http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H216&t=KJV) > > 1. light > a) light of day > b) light of heavenly luminaries (moon, sun, stars) > c) day-break, dawn, morning light > d) daylight > e) lightning > f) light of lamp > g) light of life > h) light of prosperity > i) light of instruction > j) light of face (fig.) > k) Jehovah as Israel’s light > > -Open up Gesenius’s Lexicon help if you need to I don’t need to really. > [@reef\_shark](#): > > Now see the definition for ‘greater light’ in verse 16: > [H3974 - mā'ôr - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv)](http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3974&t=KJV) > > 1. light, luminary > > It is not simply feminine vs. masculine, there is an inherent difference in the meaning of the word, especially given the context. The same word for the Greater light is used for the Lesser light. The difference between the two lights is ‘greater’ and ‘lesser’, not that one reflects light and one produces light. You seem to be arguing a distinction without a difference. The Bible considers both of them lights, as in, producing lights, but we know this is incorrect - or rather, those of us that accept science do. Since you accept scripture, you obviously have to believe that the Moon produces light. > [@reef\_shark](#): > > Now let me repeat myself for the third time for you: plants can live without light (sun, sunlight, light) for 24 hours, Prove this please. Let’s remember that it’s not just static life that Genesis refers to, it’s “And the earth **brought forth** grass, [and] herb **yielding seed** after his kind”. Which is rather fast, but regardless. You have to show that without heat, the sun, water, etc a plant could stay alive for 24 hours. Please show how this is possible without the heat from the Sun: Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: and it was so. Gen 1:1o And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good. How is there any ‘seas’? There’s no heat! It should be blocks of ice. The ‘water’ in the cells of the plants would expand and destroy the plant - it would not enable the plant to grow (as 1:11 indicates) or bring forth seed. Your position is invalid and your defense has failed. > [@reef\_shark](#): > > even though there was light provided from verse 3, meaning you are simply wasting my time here. > > There you have it, you can concede now graciously. So there was enough light from verse 3 to make the Sun irrelevant. Where is this light now? Further, why was the Sun created? In fact, when the Sun was created, why didn’t this instantly kill everything on the planet? Another attempted defense (a magical light from verse 3) has yet with more failure. No concession necessary - your position is absurd, as has been repeatedly shown. All you can do is put forth handwaving guesses (you have not backed any of your positions with **any** sort of empirical evidence to show that it’s possible). In fact, your position indicates that you haven’t thought critically about the issue. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/677 "2013-07-19T14:05:15Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Using talkorigins to defend Lyell, seriously? Ok then: > > [http://creation.com/darwin-and-lyell](http://creation.com/darwin-and-lyell) Wow, you’re not even reading the cites, you’re just spitting talking points back. I’m not even going to bother quoting from the cite to show you that you’re wrong, I’m going to let you go read it for yourself. I’ll give you a hint though, you’re totally wrong, but not for the reason you might think. And your cite is laughable. It’s crammed full of bias, cherry picked quotes, logical errors, and outright bs. Which is exactly what you’d expect from any creationist source. It quotes the bible as a factual source, in an attempt to refute the idea of deism. Saying ‘he got his ideas from deism and other sources we don’t like so Darwin is wrong’ is an ad hominem argument, and does nothing to disprove any of his actual work. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/678 "2013-07-19T14:09:00Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > Wow, you’re not even reading the cites, you’re just spitting talking points back. > > I’m not even going to bother quoting from the cite to show you that you’re wrong, I’m going to let you go read it for yourself. I’ll give you a hint though, you’re totally wrong, but not for the reason you might think. > > And your cite is laughable. It’s crammed full of bias, cherry picked quotes, logical errors, and outright bs. Which is exactly what you’d expect from any creationist source. It quotes the bible as a factual source, in an attempt to refute the idea of deism. Saying ‘he got his ideas from deism and other sources we don’t like so Darwin is wrong’ is an ad hominem argument, and does nothing to disprove any of his actual work. I find the amount of quotes to be interesting. It is almost as if they believe Science is conducted by quoting “authorized texts” instead of by checking the ideas in those texts against the real world. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/679 "2013-07-19T14:15:00Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Regardless of the age of the earth, the main point that is debated here (from my standpoint) is simply creation vs. evolution. In no way have I ever claimed that someone who doesn’t believe in a young earth is not a Christian. This time element should not be a divider of Christians, in my opinion. If you believe in Jesus and what he claimed to be, that should be enough for common ground. Oil deposits really should have nothing to do with Christianity. No it isn’t. The point this started with was your assertion that the bible is an authority because of > [@](#): > > Fulfilled prophecy, which you will not find in any other text, with no inaccuracies. And this has been shown to be false. The bible is full of inaccuracies, contradictions, and just plain baloney. There is no evolution vs creationism debate. It’s over. Evolution won a long time ago. All creationism has now is the same old tired talking points that have been long debunked. There’s a reason creationism has to try and force itself on students by trying to get it voted into schools, it’s because it isn’t science, it’s religion. It has no scientific validity, has produced nothing scientific, etc. If you’re going to cite [creation.com](http://creation.com) as a source, you may as well cite conservapedia, or uncyclopedia for that matter. They both have about the same veracity. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/680 "2013-07-19T14:18:22Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > Wow, you’re not even reading the cites, you’re just spitting talking points back. I think this is obvious at this point. He fired off two responses (one to me and then one to you) in about five minutes. There were a handful of cites for him to read (including his own). His responses to me have been almost incoherent and definitely irrelevant. He’s not actually trying to convince anyone here that he’s right. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322.md?page=33) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322.md?page=35)