Christian Archaeologists (Oxymoron?)

Thjey can do the same work. They will just put their own spin on the reults if it otherwise conflicts with preconceived beliefs. So it seems to this infidel.

Pretty true edgar. It's really not too hard either.

A true archaelologist believes in science and sets his/her personal religious beliefs aside. If all scientists were swayed by Christian tradition we would never develope cures for disease, explored the heavens or developed any technology. As Louis Pasteur stated, "when you come into my laboratory, leave God outside".

"True" being the operative word. There are people who call themselves scientists that will ignore the truth when it's staring them in the face, when they have undeniable proof, simply because it clashes with their dearly held beliefs.

Well, most archaeologists I know are Christians - which is not such a surprise, living in a Christian region.

Howewver, Christian in Europe are 'normal' Catholics and Protestants; besides, I suppose the number of people with a "belief that the Earth is in the thousands of years old" is less than 1,000 for all Germany.

as a now dead pope once said "we don't need no stinkin' science cause we got the vulgate"

Archbishop James Ussher, the Anglican primate of Ireland (oh, the irony!), declared that the world was created on October 23, 4004 B.C., making the claim in 1658. (Sir John Lightfoot, Vice Chancellor of Cambridge University--Oxford and Cambridge both were intended in those days to produce clerics--made this calculation, adding the astounding informatoin that the creation took place at 9:00 a.m., and published it in 1644. However, Ussher's name has been associated with the calculation ever since his book was published. My gratitude is due to this site for having made me dig deeper into this "mystery," and therefore, to learn about Lightfoot.)

Ussher published after the end of the English civil wars, and just before the restoration of the monarchy under Charles II (as Lightfoot published at the height of the first civil war, the explanation for his obscurity probably rests there). With the restoration of the monarchy, and the subsequent return of the Anglican church to prominence, an atmosphere of authority and certainty grew up in clerical circles, especially at Cambridge, Oxford and Trinity universities. Most students did not pursue a clerical career, even though their studies were formed in that direction, and the universities now began to offer readings and seminars in Philosophy (i.e., in science) and in Natural History. George Berkeley, who was eventually to become an Anglican Bishop in Ireland as well, wrote a good deal on the meaning of the physical world, and came to the conclusion that: "the observing mind of God makes possible the continued apparent existence of material objects." This was poor philosophy, and his reasoning has been criticized as circular--nevertheless, his writings helped to spark a blossoming of the study of the natural world by the young graduates of the universities, many of whom used their positions as country prelates to afford them the opportunity to collect samples of the flora and fauna, and to write and speculate on "creation."

Enter Charles Darwin, who, as a recent graduate of Cambridge, has left a record in his correspondence about how he intended to proceed in life. He was considering taking the position of "Philosopher" (scientist) on HMS Beagle, to which his father objected, his primary objection being that it would be "disreputable to my character as a Clergyman hereafter." (Many fundamentalist christians today believe that Darwin was an atheist, or heathen of some sort--most would be astonished to learn, or prepared to deny, that he actually had contemplated a career as a country priest.) Darwin left with HMS Beagle in December, 1831, and his observations during that ship's circumnavigation eventually lead to his formulation of an evolutionary theory. Henry Wallace, a poor welshman whose passion for "natural history" lead him to a dangerous career collecting specimens in the Amazon rain forests, and later, in the rain forests of what is now Indonesia, came to the same conclusions. When Wallace wrote to Darwin about his theory of natural selection, Darwin was moved to publish his On the Origin of Species in 1859. He has been "sitting" on his data and conclusions for a generation--he well knew the storm of controversy which would arise from the publication. But his vanity was such, that he wanted to get into print before Wallace. Later, Darwin and Wallace jointly presented the theory and select data in an address to the Royal Society.

With the storm of outrage and denial which greeted Darwin's publication of On the Origin of Species, and subsequently, The Descent of Man, the heart went out of religiously motivated research into natural history. What was then known as natural history embraced what are today considered the separate disciplines of biology (zoology & botany), archaeology, geology and anthropology. Since 1859, christian scholars in these disciplines have either done elaborate reconciliations of their faith with the science they have done, or they have modified the tenets of their faith to accomodate the data they have collected. By and large, in my opinion, the large christian sects in the world have accepted the new data, and have taken to describing Genesis as allegorical. The more fundamentalist christians have taken to denying the validity of data which contradicts strict interpretation of the bible, or suggests that the world is more than 6,000 years old. Whether or not scientists who identify themselves as christian (making the point is a significant indicator to the probable attitude of such scientists) have a valuable contribution to make would depend upon whether or not they would be able to invesitigate and report in as objective a manner as possible. Given that scientists have been swayed by political agendas as well as religious ones, my advice is that if a matter is crucial to you, you need to do the tedious work yourself of checking the data, and decide for yourself what conclusion you would come to. I'd apply that standard to all scientists, not just those who profess devout christianity.

Well, the archaeologists of our local diocese's museum have no problems at all presenting stuff much older than 6,000 years - and all this in the shadow of the cathedral, just 10 m away from it :wink:

As i mentioned, Walter, i think most of the large christian sects have modified their beliefs in order to accomdate scientific discovery. It means, however, the abandonment of the bible as "revealed truth."

The cathedral is ten miles away, and it casts a shadow on the museum ? ! ? ! ?

That's a hell of a tall cathedral, Walter.

I doubt that most people today take the biblical account of the worlds creation literally.

I doubt many people take the Bible seriously...

Museum, cathedral on the right site.

Cathedral


On the other sdite of the xathedral: carolingian palatinate (only the wall are to be seen) and Ottonian palatine (building; now Westphalian archaelologic museum).

Are you sue you mean archaeologist? Don't you mean, geologist or paleontologist or maybe anthropologist? I don't know that an archaeologist would be too concerned with the age of the world.

EdMark

Welcome to A2K, RedMark!

You ean, it doesn't matter for an archaeologist how old the things are, he'd found or is searching?

At least, when I did my classes, this was different.

Back when I was a Catholic (she says, frowning, in memory) I liked hearing about science, was rather avid, in fact, and tuned my ears to the currents of Catholic thought that accomodated scientific evidence.

I'd like to aver that I left for intellectual reasons. I was, after all, following the latest at the time theologic contretemps, pros and cons re Hans Kung, but no, I left because one day it all seemed too constructed, and I was tired.

That turned out to be quite freeing and more and more real.
I was free to not put a pre-formed view on data, evidence.
I say this not to convince anyone else, but to explain myself.




<hi, onyx! good to see you>

It sometimes seems to me that in order to look at the world from a purely scientific standpoint, a religious person must become somewhat schizophrenic. On the one hand you have the dogma of the church, on the other you have the dogma of the scientific world. Although it is possible, given enough time and effort, to incorporate any scientific theorem into your chosen belief system, it is by far easier to simply compartmentalize the religious teachings into a religious "file" and the the scientific data into a scientific "file".

The major drawback with this is that you find yourself with no absolute faith in anything. Although I suppose this might perhaps be a good thing for a scientist. After all, when you devote your life to science, you never know when you will be asked to completely overhaul your belief structure.

Doesn't matter whether they are scientists or Christians people will put their spin on everything they say according to the beliefs they hold. Some of sciences core beliefs are as unproveable as some of Christianity's doctrine. If we as humans would learn to value truth more than our personal beliefs we could progress. Most of the time truth is simple "we don't know."

Love

yes christians can be archaeologists
For this question I'm talking about the Christian that believes every letter of the bible and comes away with the belief that the Earth is in the thousands of years old (6000??? or something close to that).

Ok evolution is a theory.If your a darwinist you have to base your view of science on his work.It's subjective science You test darwins theories against data....Same with a scientist who believes in a literal 6000 + or - timespan

How does that belief jibe with the work of an archaeologist that puts the earth at a much significantly older age?

I think the big flaw in aging the earth is most scientist don't take into consideration that different enviroment influences change the rate of decay in radioactive particals.

If you are a christian archeaologist or you know one, please discuss this - or rather, let me know how you/they meet with this difference for themselves.

I am not a scientist. I try to be extremely objective in my scientific reasoning.Theoris are great they give us someplace to start,but what concerns me is how the scientific comunity protects darwinism at all costs .The truth is it could be very wrong.To many scientist refuse to think outside the box to protect there own personal bias.