There are people who lie for money and career everywhere... even people of the cloth.... Human nature is human nature. Remember Jimmy Swaggart who cried "Lord, I have sinned against you"(after he was caught)... How about Jim Baker?
I mean, I understand... we must take things with a grain of salt when we hear them. To blindly believe in things without questioning them is folly.
In fact, Thomas Jefferson once wrote this to his Nephew about religion..."Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."
Good words... Question everything...even the existence of a God.
Now personally, I believe there is a God.... what I question is his intolerance. I have doubts about him being the boogeyman who wants to send us hopelessly flawed humans to hell for making our mistakes and never seeming to truly repent.... because repenting means not to sin again. I know I am unable to do that. I can and do easily confess my failings and ask for forgiveness... but I always fall short in the "not sinning again" part.
A reasonable and well-tempered post....
....but I don't believe that it hits the mark.
If I can presume to speak for koshergrl and the OP, it seems to me that it is geared toward those who use 'science' and 'scientists' as some sort of cudgel against religious folk, and theology.
The point is, as you suggest, scientists are merely people. Further, science itself uses faith and belief at its hightest levels to advance theories and hypotheses.
This, from chapter five of David Berlinski's "The Devil's Delusion,"
"As a general explanation, arguments follow from assumptions, and assumptions follow from beliefs, and very rarely- perhaps never- do beliefs reflect an agenda determined entirely by the facts. No less than the doctrines of religious belief, the doctrines of quantum cosmology are what they seem: biased, partial, inconclusive, and largely in the service of passionate but unexamined conviction."
It seems, unfortunately, that there are those who are chagrined that others believe, have faith, but mistakenly attribute an undeserved greatness to science.
Thus the OP.
Most of us who are religious are not offended by those who are not...but there are those on the other side who never miss an opportunity to insult the community of faith.
Since you mention Jefferson, I find this quote germane:
But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
I think the problem is when people forget scientists are mere mortals who are no less likely to succumb to temptation than anyone else -including lying, cheating and stealing -and yes, falsifying their findings for WHATEVER reason they use to justify doing so.
I object to those who insist Protestants and Catholic somehow oppose knowledge when in reality what they oppose is the leftist demand that we treat science as a religion -taking upon nothing but FAITH whatever the theory du jour happens to be! But especially if it a theory that has been grabbed up and politicized by the left. For example their constant demand that it is somehow incumbent upon ME to explain why I don't BELIEVE in global warming! I'm sorry, science is not a religion where I must just take upon FAITH what scientists have theorized about -but failed to indisputably prove! They OWE it to first PROVE it, then I accept what IS. I am NEVER required to just BELIEVE in some unproven and highly disputed theory, much less responsible for explaining my lack of worship at that altar!
The left refuses to accept this -but they are in reality guilty of doing EXACTLY what they objected to the Catholic Church doing centuries ago when it rejected any science that even APPEARED to contradict religious doctrine. Except the left demands the immediate rejection of any science if it HAPPENS to support any religious doctrine! The left deliberately uses "creationism" interchangeably with the theory of intelligent design -because they know sticking the "creationist" term on it will immediately undermine the theory even before the science is examined. They want ANY science rejected that even APPEARS to support religious beliefs. But in fact the theory of intelligent design is NOT the same as "creationism" which isn't a scientific theory whatsoever!
Creationism is proposed by ministers, priests -people whose expertise is IN religion. It is a religious statement, not a scientific one. The theory of intelligent design is proposed by scientists themselves -and in every field of science without ANY religion or religious justification offered in support in ANY way. It is NOT been offered or even suggested it is the best explanation for everything -because it is NOT. It has only been offered for a few very, very highly specific scientific phenomena where it is science itself that leads to the proposition that the best possible explanation for that specific phenomenon is intelligent design.
For example -if you look at this picture, what is it that leads you to believe the way in which it came into existence is NOT the result of random, meaningless chance? Can science actually tell the difference between that which occurred due to random, meaningless chance and that which is extremely unlikely to have resulted from it? Of course it can -we TEACH people how to recognize that ALL THE TIME and in fact it is CRITICALLY important people learn to recognize it -even though we usually call it by different names and not "intelligent design". There are many factors that lead someone to recognize this statue as being of intelligent design -not just one.
:
Because scientists who have proposed the theory of intelligent design for some very specific phenomenon in their field of expertise are saying what they see is like looking at that picture above and insisting it came about by pure, random and meaningless chance. So unlikely as to be silly. They specifically document the scientific rationale and factors involved in coming to that theory. Unless they can do that, it isn't supported by science either -but they DO THAT. Yet the leftists are so convinced science should be able to prove God does NOT exist -they have gone to extremes demanding the IMMEDIATE rejection of any scientific theory if it
happens to support any religious beliefs. Which is no less flawed, short sighted, ignorant and STUPID as insisting we must immediately reject any science that fails to support religious beliefs. BOTH are wrong and for the exact same reasons. And rejecting any scientifically supported theory for no reason but that it contradicts or supports religious beliefs only sets back human knowledge and discovery. The last time it set back human knowledge for CENTURIES -and demanding we do so again for the identical reason in reverse will do the same. BOTH are artificial and irrelevant to the science itself which can only BE what it is. No matter whether religions happen to disagree OR agree with it. Yet the left is demanding even louder than any religion that even well supported SCIENCE must be thrown into the trash for NO reason but the fact some religions may like it.
I am a religious person -but there is NO scientific discovery that can affect my faith whatsoever. Science cannot prove God exists and it cannot prove God does NOT exist -although the left seems convinced it can prove God doesn't exist, that just isn't true. I don't look to science for that. I expect science to help explain the natural world around me as much as human beings are able to comprehend, learn about and understand it.
And I, like millions of others who share my faith, happen to think God heartily approves of that journey to discover EVERYTHING we can about our natural world. A science book will never replace my Bible -and likewise, I NEVER look to my Bible to explain the natural world around me. It isn't a science book and was never intended to be one either. But likewise, the demand we instantly reject any science that HAPPENS to agree with some religious belief is no less IGNORANT and detrimental. Creationism says "God created everything in 7 days -even though the measure of time is a man-made invention based on the rotation of the earth and its movements around the sun, neither of which even existed yet." That is a religious statement unsupported by any science whatsoever -because it wasn't derived from any science in the first place.
Creationism is not science and it CANNOT and SHOULD not EVER be taught as science -because the basis for it comes from a BIBLE and religious DOCTRINE. It is a religious statement -but it is not based on scientific observation and discovery WHATSOEVER!
The theory of intelligent design has been proposed to explain very highly specific phenomena in our natural world by scientists in every field of science as the best and most likely explanation for at least one very specific phenomenon in their particular field of science. Ones that experts in those fields say is as obvious to the well educated and well trained in their field as it would be to any archeologist that the statue above is the result of intelligent design if they came across it -and for the very same reasons. We TRAIN people to recognize our OWN intelligent design all the time even though we call it something else when we come across it. But then demand they ignore that if our own intelligent design must be ruled out -as if that somehow makes it "random and meaningless chance". Are there really ANY circumstances under which you would believe that stone statue above was far more likely to have been the result of random, meaningless forces of nature as opposed to intelligent design? Because if you say "yes" it only proves a total lack of common sense but it will never make it more "scientific" to pretend it was due to random chance. There is NO natural explanation for the existence of that stone statue that would be more likely than intelligent design. NONE. And we all know it -which is why we can even train people how to spot intelligent design and separate it from that which occurs as the result of random chance and the forces of nature.
But it is no coincidence that MORE scientists are coming forward proposing the theory of intelligent design as the most likely explanation for very specific phenomena in their particular field of science in the last 25 years when we have made THE greatest advancements in scientific discovery and knowledge. Scientists are more comfortable outright ADMITTING what they scientifically observe and measure with regard to VERY specific phenomena in their particular field is as highly unlikely to be the result of random chance as is the existence of that stone statue above. And because it is based entirely on scientific principles and the scientific rationale to explain that conclusion given just as any archeologist could give the scientific explanation for why that statue is the result of intelligent design and it is proposed to explain very specific phenomena only, it should not only be taken seriously, it can be scientifically tested just as any other theory. It is proven to be true by trying to prove it to be FALSE -which requires FAR more scientific investigation and research. NOT less. The minute another explanation is discovered for even one of the specific phenomena for which the theory has been proposed, it will immediately throw into doubt that it is the best explanation for ANY of them. It is a theory that BEGS for more scientific discovery -not less. It is the left that demands LESS scientific discovery -which is why they insist no theory which they have politicized can be allowed to even be challenged -even though challenging a theory and trying to prove it false -is how it is eventually proven to be TRUE! And of course they demand any theory that happens to even remotely support any religious beliefs must instantly be tossed in the trash as well no matter the fact it is sound science that led to it and supports it -it is actually the LEFT that stands in the way of scientific discovery far more than any religious people.
The left insists there is only a need to keep ministers and priests trying to pass off their religious expertise as "science" -but it is those with a POLITICAL AGENDA who cause the most damage to the field and interfere the most with the advancement of scientific knowledge -BY FAR. The Catholic Church and all but a handful of the hundreds of different Protestant churches accepted LONG ago that science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God and the Bible is not a science book. Scientists are INCAPABLE of making ANY scientific theory that could undermine Christianity whatsoever. And it is Christians themselves who know this best. I assure you the left fears where science will lead far more than the overwhelming vast majority of Christians.
