for christians,how many true scientists nowadays go to the church?

Question

some scientists were burned in the middle centuries,others were tortured ,and now we found that the beliefes of those scientists were true and the church was wrong! this explains why most christians have become scientologists !after they discovered that its full of myths which contradict with sceintific knowledge.

no body commented on the explanation i made to the question!.meaning nobody have explanation to the contradiction between science and christian beliefs!

Answer 1

Real Christians could care less.

Answer 2

I remember I had biology professors in college that went to church. They really didn't act like it was a contradiction to go to church and be a scientist. The deal with the catholic church was that it was a political organization just as much if not more than a religious organization. They felt any threat to their claims of infallibility would result in a loss of power or control. It is interesting to note that most early scientists were also monks priests or a person who had studied religion. I even thought I read somewhere that Einstein believed in God. I dint think religion and science are mutually exclusive but instead compliment each other. Scientists are only discovering what God has created. We also have to remember many atrocities have been created with the help of science. The soviet union is a good example of a godless society which based all its belief in science. It is not science or religion which is inherently bad but the people who commit acts using whatever excuse they can to gain from their fellow man

Answer 3

Christians don't usually turn to Scientology. Scientology is a cult that demands your money in order to progress though the "religion" and find release or the state of being "clear." Despite the name, Scientology is one of the least scientific groups out there. Scientologists by their actions and beliefs deny science and logic.
Despite what many people assume, scientific law does not contradict Christianity. The Bible tells of the earth being round thousands of years before the earth was proven to be so, molecular biology proves the existence of a genetic "Adam" and "Eve" and statistics proves that one protein (the basic building block of life -- a sub-component of a cell) coming together in a functional unit would be impossible. There are many more examples that you could look up, books, websites, etc. the answers are not hard to find if you are actually searching.

There have been periods where "the church" was lead by corrupt individuals who lead "the church" astray, but the Bible itself has never been contradicted by scientific law, only irrational or implausible theories which are later debunked or recalled into question.

Answer 4

Your question is the exact one I asked when looking at Christianity in general. Before my conversion to Catholicism, all I knew was to read the Bible. I knew nothing of the Bible's history or how I was supposed to read. The question that kept nagging me was, "If the whole Christian thing is based on this book, how can we ever know if the Truth wasn't lost somewhere down the line?" You see, Protestant denominations - most of them - hold to a Bible-alone theology, that the Bible is their sole and singular authority. The problem is a myriad of Protestant denominations all claim scripture-only, all claim to have the right teachings, but they each teach and believe different things. Hows does that happen if the Holy Spirit teaches only one Truth? The fact is I Iearned that Jesus preserved the Church with Himself through the Holy Eucharist. He gave authority to the Apostles, naming Peter has the first Supreme Bishop. The Apostles taught and trained others to succeed them, instructing them in the Sacred Traditions they had learned from Jesus, and passed their authority to their disciples. Later, Sacred Scripture was written over a period of about 70 years; it was canonized around 400 AD. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, those three elements - Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magesterium of the Church - formed the Deposit of the Faith. Ultimately, it is the Holy Spirit that holds the whole thing together. So then, to your original question, I could ask the same of Protestants. Martin Luther left the Church around 1500 AD. Soon after, Calvin, Zwingli, and others popped up. Within just a few years of the Reformation's emergence, a myriad of differing beliefs and biblical interpretations rippled everywhere. How do we know that the Protestants didn't lose the message at their beginning or somewhere in the middle? The truth is the Holy Bible was written by and came from the Catholic Church. Her Traditions are sacred and found in Scripture. And, She is guided by the Holy Spirit, Who instructs, nurtures, and guides the Church. God bless.

Answer 5

Firstly, it is a false statement to say most Christians become scientologists after any kind of intelligent inquiry. The Bible and Science are not at odds in that they serve different purposes. The Bible is primarily the 'why' and science is the 'how.' Now, to look at popular argument against the science of the Bible, consider evolution. Do you believe we evolved from the same source as the great apes? Why do you believe that? How many books have you read on the subject and have you been conned into working from the unscientific premise of assuming the theory is true (which in scientific honesty is closer to a hypothesis than a theory)? Most people have had their 'science' lessons from TV University. I hope that you are not such a one. Have you ever looked at the relationship of faith and science with absolute scientific objectivity? If you have written off the Bible and faith as unscientific without a proper study, then you are operating from the unscientific position of BLIND FAITH. Do you realise that there are numerous anthropologists without any faith that refute evolution as a process? Try looking up the work of scientist Henry Morris and his work about the supposed tensions of science and scripture. Whist you are at it, have a read of Matthew 7:7 and see how Jesus dispels that myth that Christians must operate from a position of blind faith. Dare you check it out for yourself, O scientist? Happy investigating.

Answer 6

Are you speaking of the true knowledge of the scientists who discovered the real nature of fire was phlogiston? Or perhaps of those who knew that our destinies were revealed by the stars?
Could it be you speak of the alchemists who strove to turn lead into gold? Or perhaps you refer to those who knew that the three elements were earth, water and fire? I cannot imagine that you speak of any other because these were the scientists of the middle centuries. Oh, yes, there were the ones who knew the world was flat.

My knowledge of such scientific matters is poor. So could you tell us who proved all these scientific things to be true?

Or is it that you speak of the enlightened ones of later centuries like Galileo who, despite his rude handling by the church said, "God is known by nature in his works, and by doctrine in his revealed word." He also argued his discoveries did not disagree with the Bible. He said, "The Bible teaches men how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go," It was, after all, Galileo who demonstrated to the other scientists of his day that the scientific “truth” that held that bodies of different weights fell at different velocities was “false”

Galileo was right. There is no conflict between God and science. Why would his creation disagree with him? The only remaining conflict exists between dogmatic theism and dogmatic atheism. Galileo destroyed many scientific “truths”. And since his time many others have fallen. Those who believe what is left is “truth” are as arrogant as the Inquisition which bedeviled Galileo.

And the only science which appears to disagree with religion is Darwin. But Darwin is not wrong,. the theory is simply “inverted”. When it coincides with the rest of science it will be accepted by scientists and believers alike.

And it will. Scientific “truth’ is not truth, but only the current level of understanding. Many such “truths” fell in the last century (light theory, for example), and many more will fall in this one.

If most scientists believed that scientific truth is immutable, they would stop labeling their work as “theory”. Nor would there be any research. Why bother when we “know” it all?

And if you want the real truth, there are far more people from scientific pursuits in churches than there are atheists in scientific pursuits.

As for Scientology, what does the work of a fraudulent writer of science fiction which happens to attract movie stars (those most scientific of people) have to do with any of this?

Answer 7

I don't really care how many scientists there are or aren't in the christian faith attending church....Plus there are many different types of science, some which don't deal with our origins or are not applicable to the Evo/Creo debate.

I did want to point out that Scientology has nothing, and I mean nothing, to do with the scientific community, except to get called a psuedo-science and pure quackery by them. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/scientology

Most of scientology is full of myths which contradict with scientific knowledge.

http://www.clambake.org/archive/techniques/
http://www.clambake.org/archive/fischer/

http://www.clambake.org

Answer 8

it doesnt matter if it contradicts science, miracles happen they did then and they do now in the Bible it says that with God everything is possible and he who doubts is like a wave driven by the wind i dont know how many scientist go to church tho probably not very much

Answer 9

I don't worship scientist. What were "scientist" saying back in 1550 or 1654, 1723, 1826..I can tell you what they said in 1858: Blacks wern not human. They placed people on wheels an spun them to get rid of head problems...not a good track record

Answer 10

In my life I found more scientists that go to church than those that don't. This is just from personal experience. Have a great day.

Answer 11

Check out this link and you may be surprised. I don't want to copy and paste it for you 'cause it's too long. But it answers your question, at least in part.

http://www.tektonics.org/scim/sciencemony.htm

Here's the first entry...

Dr. Francis S. Collins is Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute at the National Institute of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. He currently leads the Human Genome Project, directed at mapping and sequencing all of human DNA, and determining aspects of its function. His previous research has identified the genes responsible for cystic fibrosis, neurofibromatosis, Huntington's disease and Hutchison-Gilford progeria syndrome. He is a member of the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences. For the rest of his credentials, click on the link here: http://www.genome.gov/10000980. Collins spoke with Bob Abernethy of PBS, posted online at http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/transcripts/collins.html, in which he summaries the compatability of fact and faith thusly:

“I think there’s a common assumption that you cannot both be a rigorous, show-me-the-data scientist and a person who believes in a personal God. I would like to say that from my perspective that assumption is incorrect; that, in fact, these two areas are entirely compatible and not only can exist within the same person, but can exist in a very synthetic way, and not in a compartmentalized way. I have no reason to see a discordance between what I know as a scientist who spends all day studying the genome of humans and what I believe as somebody who pays a lot of attention to what the Bible has taught me about God and about Jesus Christ. Those are entirely compatible views.

“Science is the way -- a powerful way, indeed -- to study the natural world. Science is not particularly effective -- in fact, it’s rather ineffective -- in making commentary about the supernatural world. Both worlds, for me, are quite real and quite important. They are investigated in different ways. They coexist. They illuminate each other. And it is a great joy to be in a position of being able to bring both of those points of view to bear in any given day of the week. The notion that you have to sort of choose one or the other is a terrible myth that has been put forward, and which many people have bought into without really having a chance to examine the evidence. I came to my faith not, actually, in a circumstance where it was drummed into me as a child, which people tend to assume of any scientist who still has a personal faith in God; but actually by a series of compelling, logical arguments, many of them put forward by C. S. Lewis, that got me to the precipice of saying, ‘Faith is actually plausible.’ You still have to make that step. You will still have to decide for yourself whether to believe. But you can get very close to that by intellect alone.”