Why do many "fundamentalists" oppose science?

Question

Why do they feel threatened?

btw I'm Christian

Answer 1

Fear. Reason is the only thing that threatens religion. They're afraid that if their beliefs are wrong and unfounded, then they are not The Elect, the ones destined to join the creator in paradise; they're just fools who believed a lie. Nobody wants that to be true.

Answer 2

Because they believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. Thus, even the smallest Bible truth which is proven to be literally false by science means their entire belief system is shot.

It's true, because the only way around such an inflexible position is compromise - which by definition they cannot do, because they are inflexible.

It's a philosophical bind for 'em, because here and there they have to sneak in a few "interpretations" about why a Bible truth is really something else (as in allegorical) while all the time claiming that the literal truth is not compromised.

That's why their scholars and apologists are not stupid people. It takes a HUGE amount of intelligence and work to pull it off.

Of course, people who CAN compromise use an allegorical interpretation of the Bible. They have no problem at all reconciling their religious beliefs with science.

They're known as "scientists".

An example of such a scientist is ernest77h, a few responses above this one. Take a look at that excellent article! I personally disagree with him on a few points - such as the logic used to decide that it's nearly impossible for DNA words to spontaneously "spring" into being. This concept is actually at odds with evolution, which posits that ALL changes develop gradually in response to changes in the environment. To acknowledge this for all things EXCEPT DNA is to throw at least part of the baby out with the bathwater.

But that's just MY opinion.

That technical difference notwithstanding, ernest77h is a scientist because he used scientific methods to arrive at a conclusion which he thinks is the most logical - and he did not consider it a violation of Biblical truth for the simple reason that it is not.

Real scientific advances are made by religious scientists like ernest77h and those who argue his conclusions on technical grounds. The advances are the compromises between the two.

Answer 3

I have been following this debate for awhile and I don't think fundamentalists can tell you why it is an issue. They can give you the surface reasons, but they can't tell you why they have a problem with it when the rest of Christianity doesn't. At most they can tell you why the rest of Christianity is wrong and/or false.

All of this goes back to the beginning of the Reformation and sola scriptura. Fundamentalism is extreme Protestantism. It is Protestantism taken to its logical extreme. In this one aspect, fundamentalists are correct and in many respects are the intellectual superiors to their Protestant brothers in that they do remain true to the logical underpinnings of Protestantism whereas other denominations fudge it to make it work.

Prior to the Reformation, no one would have considered scripture alone as a good idea let alone a valid idea. The earliest Christians would have rebuked you for the idea. Scripture alone was necessary for the survival of Protestantism. Luther broke with traditional underpinnings of Christianity, I believe because he had no choice.

Just a note, in Luther's early work, he was largely correct. It is unfortunate that history worked itself out the way it did.

When Luther said that all truth can be found in scripture alone he created a completely new standard of truth determination that had only a weak analog in earlier Christianity. It is important to understand that is wasn't until the year 405 that the books of scripture were finally determined in a list promulgated by Pope Innocent and under his authority alone.

Luther rejected papal authority and so rejected the bible with it. He went through and picked the books over again himself. A remarkable feat really. He rejected the books many Protestants now call the Apocrypha, James, Jude and Revelations. Later Lutherans returned James, Jude and Revelations to the canon.

So it wasn't just any bible that was the standard of truth but Luther's bible. This is important because you see echoes of that here when you here people speak of how only the King James Version is true. If they actually knew the history of the KJV they might quite well throw theirs away, although modern versions of the KJV are quite good.

So, you start mixing a number of ideas such as the bible alone is the truth, my version is true so if you disagree with me I am leaving your denomination and making my own and if this is false then Christianity is false.

In comes Darwin to the picture. In most respects he did not do anything any worse than Gallileo did. In fact, he did less harm to Christianity than Gallileo in most respects. Gallileo was the first person to really prove the bible was false. People no longer remember what all of the Gallileo story is about. Gallileo was able to prove large sections of scripture were patently wrong. He did it through observation.

Gallileo however never said their need not be a God, he simply said that religious people were stupid and did it to their face. Unfortunately many powerful nobles took offense at being called stupid and set him up for a fall.

Darwin was different. Darwin was the first scientist who said God is unnecessary to explain nature. It wasn't that God existed or did not exist, simply he was unnecessary to develop a complete explanation. Darwin did not rule a God out, he just relaxed the previous assumptions and eliminated God.

The next problem for fundamentalism is that Gallileo was a Catholic problem. Had Gallileo lived today, it would be the fundamentalists screaming. Darwin lived in Protestant England, the most powerful empire in the world. Literally the sun did not set on the British Empire.

If Darwin is right then scripture alone is wrong and then Protestantism is wrong. It isn't Christianity or God who is being attacked but rather the intellectual underpinnings of Protestantism of which Fundamentalism is the most extreme heir to the system of thinking.

Evolution on a number of levels attacks not Christianity but the philosophical underpinnings of Protestantism. It attacks scripture alone and justification by faith.

Answer 4

Science dares to ask, "could our understandings of God and the Nature of things be incorrect?"

Fundamentalists fear having this question asked because they believe the Bible is infallible (like the Pope is infallible for Catholics) and that God does not change (though our understanding of God can change).

All the fundamentalists I've known behave as if the infallibility of the Bible inherently means their understanding is likewise infallible. Fundamentalists do not accept changes in understanding easily, except when they were children.

Children accept change easier than do adults. Children progress from kindergarten to elementary school to high school to college with relative ease. Once adults leave school, they see no further progression and conclude they've reached the pinnacle of understanding.

Who, however, had said, "Unless you come as little children, you shall not enter my Father's Kingdom?"

As children, adults need to accept the changes brought on by a continuance of progressive understanding. Just as the Truths of childhood are later understood to be myths (Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Monster in the Closet), adults need to understand what are myths in their understanding, too.

Both religion and science contain myths. We humans need to expand our understanding beyond those myths.

Answer 5

Some fundamentalists are afraid of science because they think parts of it go against the idea of creation; science explains things that religion attributes to god

Answer 6

I consider myself a "fundamentalist" and do not oppose science. Maybe you are speaking of the "science" which refuses to aknowledge the data which might support creation and assumes data which fits the evolutionary model (yes, BOTH are models, not theories or laws).

Answer 7

the authorities stands to achieve more beneficial from putting forward that CO2 emissions do not harm the surroundings. lowering carbon emissions will influence marketplace and the governments tax sales more beneficial adversely than sticking a eco-friendly tax on gasoline or taxing carbon emissions mostly. If the authorities did not attempt to finish independant study on the end results of carbon emissions then the in simple terms study being performed must be by using oil businesses, who i'm sensible you'll agree are extremely biased on the concern.

Answer 8

I Am a Christian that likes Science not a "fundamentalist"
The more I observe science and the make up of living organisms and ecosystem I see it is impossible to exists outside of God,

....However I despise the theory of Evolution, It is foolish and irrational (it is not science) and makes it appear as if our existence happened for no other reason than mindless chance, if it were true nothing has purpose or meaning,

Answer 9

Science without religion is lame.Religion without science is blind.

There are two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.

Answer 10

I think that they separate science from religion because allot of them believe in creation and science has a habit of trying to grab at straws to somehow push this lie of evolution.Real science however,creation science points exactly to the opposite of that and exactly shows how creation happened.If they could understand creation science than i believe that they wouldn't be so closed minded to science in general.