# 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:** 13\ **Page:** 37
**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 23, 2013, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/721 "2013-07-23T19:21:34Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > How is this supposed to be an answer? I gave you some failed prophecies, how about you actually respond to them rather than just citing some web site that doesn’t actually seem to have anything to do with what I posted? Eschatology = endtimes. The context of those verses will also give you some clues as to why it is endtimes. For example in Isaiah 19 you will see the phrase ‘in that day’ used several times. Those events are all part of endtimes. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2013, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/722 "2013-07-23T21:14:44Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Eschatology = endtimes. The context of those verses will also give you some clues as to why it is endtimes. For example in Isaiah 19 you will see the phrase ‘in that day’ used several times. Those events are all part of endtimes. Please. This is a cop out. You try to claim this like it’s some kind of get-out-of-logic-free card. You specifically said that the bible was your book because: > [@](#): > > Fulfilled prophecy, which you will not find in any other text, with no inaccuracies. You’ve been shown unfulfilled and/or inaccurate prophesy repeatedly, and all you can say is ‘endtimes dont count’. End times prophesies are still prophecies. This is just curiosity, but why don’t you give us an example of an unambiguous accurate fulfilled prophecy. Please note the ‘unambiguous’ stipulation. Claiming that there’s going to be war in the future, or famine or disease or sand isn’t prophecy. ---
**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 23, 2013, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/723 "2013-07-23T21:35:49Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I’d suspect that otter types are good for land animals that spend a lot of time in the water. But did you expect that the remote ancestor of a seal would look like a seal? And this animal evolved into a seal, which was what you were asking for. > > Perhaps otters will evolve into seal-like animals. There is no way of predicting that. This isn’t about individual expectaations. It is about what is observed. That fossil is morphologically consistent with an otter, not a seal. ---
**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 23, 2013, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/724 "2013-07-23T21:36:50Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > Please. This is a cop out. You try to claim this like it’s some kind of get-out-of-logic-free card. You specifically said that the bible was your book because: > > You’ve been shown unfulfilled and/or inaccurate prophesy repeatedly, and all you can say is ‘endtimes dont count’. End times prophesies are still prophecies. > > This is just curiosity, but why don’t you give us an example of an unambiguous accurate fulfilled prophecy. Please note the ‘unambiguous’ stipulation. Claiming that there’s going to be war in the future, or famine or disease or sand isn’t prophecy. Unfulfilled does not equal inaccurate, sorry. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2013, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/725 "2013-07-23T21:49:27Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Once again, you are comparing a reference to the sun with the light in Gen 1:3. Henry says ‘for no man, when he has lighted a candle, puts it under a bushel, but on a candlestick (Lu. 8:16 ), and a stately golden candlestick the firmament of heaven is, from which these candles give light to all that are in the house.’ in reference to verses 14-19. Let us be honest here, thanks. … The author of the commentary doesn’t agree with you - as I showed. I’m not even sure what to make of what you wrote here. **You are the one** who is bringing up Gen1:3. You were trying to make the passage say something about providing enough light to keep the plants alive (from v 1:3). This wasn’t the case as the commentary **you linked to** attests. So why, all of a sudden, you are trying to say that _I_ was comparing the Sun in v 1:16 with the light in 1:3 is bizarre. Further, once again, there is no defense of the Moon producing it’s own light. You are essentially just hand-waving here Reef Shark. You don’t seem to be following what you’ve previously argued. I think you believe that if you write something, anything, then you believe you’ve refuted the skeptic - no matter how irrelevant what you wrote is. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2013, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/726 "2013-07-23T21:51:34Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Unfulfilled does not equal inaccurate, sorry. Then every book of prophecy is inerrant. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2013, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/727 "2013-07-23T21:53:54Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > This isn’t about individual expectaations. It is about what is observed. That fossil is morphologically consistent with an otter, not a seal. Cite? Why do you think they know it is a seal ancestor? I suspect internally they are quite different. Of course it looks like an otter, since it was in the same niche as an otter. Superficially dolphins look like fish, but aren’t. BTW, this is concerned with expectations, since I’m very curious why you reject clear evidence. I’m not a biologist, let alone an expert on seals, so I’ll trust the experts. Are you an expert? Or are you just rejecting anything not in line with your preconceived ideas? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2013, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/728 "2013-07-23T21:56:14Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Unfulfilled does not equal inaccurate, sorry. It does if the prophecy has an expiration date. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2013, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/729 "2013-07-24T14:04:40Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Unfulfilled does not equal inaccurate, sorry. Yeah, dodge that question! Don’t bother answering any real questions, don’t bother actually defending your position, just fall back on old denials! You really can’t beat the classics. So are you going to give us an example of unambiguous fulfilled prophecy, which apparently there must be or you wouldn’t have claimed it, or just keep on claiming you’re right without anything to back it up? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2013, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/730 "2013-07-24T14:12:17Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > Yeah, dodge that question! Don’t bother answering any real questions, don’t bother actually defending your position, just fall back on old denials! You really can’t beat the classics. > > So are you going to give us an example of unambiguous fulfilled prophecy, which apparently there must be or you wouldn’t have claimed it, or just keep on claiming you’re right without anything to back it up? And remember: It’s not a prophesy if you can’t show that it was written _before_ the event it predicts. ---
**Author:** ![Some\_Schmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Some\_Schmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Some_Schmo)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/731 "2013-07-31T14:23:48Z")
> [@Bremidon](#): > > Debates like this always remind me that the world would be a better place if science would stick to the “how’s” and religion would stick to the “why’s.” Every time they try to reach outside their natural domains, they end up looking silly. I’ve only ever seen religion venture outside its natural domain: generally when they make a claim about reality. However, I’ve never seen a scientific article on the trinity, for example. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/732 "2013-07-31T14:41:19Z")
> [@Some\_Schmo](#): > > I’ve only ever seen religion venture outside its natural domain: generally when they make a claim about reality. > > However, I’ve never seen a scientific article on the trinity, for example. On the other hand, science would be _soooo_ much easier if blind guessing was accepted as fact. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2013, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/733 "2013-07-31T17:28:36Z")
> [@Some\_Schmo](#): > > I’ve only ever seen religion venture outside its natural domain: generally when they make a claim about reality. > > However, I’ve never seen a scientific article on the trinity, for example. Yeah, and focusing on why implies there is something there to ask why about. Religious whys are kind of like saying why fairies like certain flowers to cavort about. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322.md?page=36)