Science and Religion

ebia · #11 13th November 2009, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by kidsagainstkows

It seems to me like Science is in direct confrontation with religion on a number of issues. some of these issues have been solved (always with Christianity backing down to science) and some have not (well they have in all common and legal senses, but not in a debate sense).

Here is my question of the day, Why didnt God put down the correct way the world works in the bible?

a) Why doesn't my year 7 Maths textbook include the correct way to make a black-forest-gateaux?
b) what would such a description look like anyway? Our idea of 'the correct way the world works' would undoubtably be completely incomprehensible to someone 1,000 years ago and look hopelessly naieve and simplistic to someone 1,000 years into the future.

The bible uses the cosmology and understanding of the world of the time describe the relationship between God and creation and to be the prologue to the biblical story of what God is doing to put right everything that is wrong in creation.

If you pick up any book and try to use it to answer sorts of questions it was never intended to answer you can't be surprised if the answers you get arn't very good. Scripture isn't trying to be an enlightenment-science textbook any more than it's trying to be a recipe for black-forest-gateaux.

Bible2 · #12 14th November 2009, 12:09 AM

kidsagainstkows:
why would God allow a false theory into its holy book?

The Bible doesn't teach anything false: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16).

Scriptures should be for everyone and for the purpose of proving that your god exists (and some tenants about your god).

It is Creation itself which proves the existence of God: "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead" (Romans 1:20).

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world" (Psalms 19:1-4).

[Re: Evolution]
the problem with the "well thats his mechanism" argument is that it can be replaced with any name and the argument is equally defensible.

The point is that evolution cannot be used as some sort of proof against the existence of God. Regarding the name of God, that is revealed in the scriptures: "Know ye that the LORD [YHWH] he is God" (Psalms 100:3).

Van · #13 14th November 2009, 11:22 AM

Hi Kidsagainstkows, to assert that because folks have held false views of the Bible, that the Bible is false is irrational.

The theory of evolution is a theory of how God or nature created the various kinds of living organisms. The Bible tells us God created all things, but does not tell us exactly how, or over what duration, God created all things. In fact, the Bible tells us we do not know how God did it. Now some folks believe God created everything less than 10,000 years ago, but created it with apparent age, like the wine at Cana. This view might be correct or it might be mistaken, because the Bible says we do not know.

Does the Bible teach that disease is caused by directly by the Devil? Again, no it does not. Neither does it teach that sin causes disease. So rather than provide references to where the Bible supposedly teaches false information about reality, you support the charge with reference to what people believed about the Bible. Does the Bible say it cannot be misunderstood, or that folks misunderstand it? So your support does not suggest the Bible is not trustworthy and reliable. It reaffirms it!

Your third false charge is that the Bible teaches the sun revolves around the earth, when in fact the earth revolves around the sun. Here you referenced Ecclesiastes 1:5 which says the sun rises and the sun sets. I would counter that the Bible teaches the sun "appears" to revolve around the earth, which is truth. For because the earth is spinning once per 24 hours, the objects in space appear to rotate about the earth.

Your next charge is "religion" impeded scientific discovery? Well, what I think is true is that false beliefs held by folks who use compulsion to get their way "impeded" scientific discovery. But to the contrary, the Bible teaches that we are to love others as we love ourselves and that love does NOT demand its own way. So the "impediment" was not Christianity, but a lack of Christianity!

Last point, you can replace God with any other name such as flying spaghetti monster. Exactly, that is what Darwin did. Origin of the Species by "evolution" rather than by "God." But the fact is Darwin's mechanism has gone the way of flying spaghetti monsters - nobody believes in them - and has been replaced by neo-Darwinism. Note that folks held false beliefs about the mechanism for the origin of the species, yet you still belief the mechanism is valid. Ever consider what is good for the goose is good for the gander?

May God Bless

soundwords · #14 14th November 2009, 01:50 PM

"Micro-evolution" has little to do with Macro-evolution. No new information or new species in microevolution. Varieties within one kind are no proof for "evolution". Macro-evolution simply does not follow.

kidsagainstkows · #15 14th November 2009, 07:26 PM

ok, lots of good responses, ill try to hit a least one point of each.

What false theory? AFAIK there aren't any scientific theories in the Bible.

while im not sure what your acronym means there are plenty of theories in the bible. the most obvious theory is that there is a god (its hard to miss that one). that there was a seven day creation. that the world has corners (its flat). there are many others as well but when a person attempts to say something true about the world, they have implicitly made a theory about it.

For this argument to bear any grounds, you have to prove that the church and science are the complete mutual opposites.

i think that they are "complete mutual opposites" on subjects that have already been "answered" by scripture. the problem with not judging all christians by what a small segment say is that you all proclaim to be christians. if what they say is so ridiculous then call yourselves something different to make you sound less crazy. ya there are different denominations but each one holds the same basic values (the whole Jesus died thing anyway).

The word "religion" encompasses a vast array of differing beliefs and practices. It might be helpful to narrow the focus of your opening statement a bit.

you are correct and i apologize for being so broad, it is just that i am not trying to tell people what they believe and i try to start with as broad a brush i can and move from there. for the sake of this lets say that i am talking about Fundamentalist Christians.

What Christians are actually confronting in the secular world, when it comes to science, is the philosophical perspective called naturalism.

i am infact a naturalist so i hope to have good discussion with you in the future.

As a number of people have already pointed out, the Bible was intended to relate spiritual and eternal truth, and reveal God to us. It is not a science text. God has, though, shown us in the Bible how the "world works" - just not on the scientific level.

I was under the impression that most Christians believe that God created everything, and it was good. this means that God would be proud of all that he created. why then would god allow a mortal to give a stupid reason for how something works in its holy book when the stuff it came up with was so much better?

you obviously didnt read the example that i gave that you quoted otherwise you would realize that a teacup dog and a great dane are not of the "same kind" they cannot reproduce naturally and are therefore different species.

Genetic info has been added gradually out of either necessity (such as ice ages) or out of pure accident.

The Bible doesn't teach anything false: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16).

The bible doesnt teach anything false because it says it doesnt teach anything false... your circular logic amazes me. this is why i dont often respond to your arguments because they are all as ridiculous as this.

The point is that evolution cannot be used as some sort of proof against the existence of God.

you are correct sir. evolution is not a proof against god, only literal creationism.

i will also say here that it is not my job to disprove God, but rather, it is your job to prove it. you are the one making the positive claim, so therefore, the burden of proof is on you.

Does the Bible say it cannot be misunderstood, or that folks misunderstand it?

ya it does. 1 Corinthians 14:33 "God is not the author of confusion"

I would counter that the Bible teaches the sun "appears" to revolve around the earth, which is truth.

thats not what the guys who burned Copernicus at the stake thought.

Origin of the Species by "evolution" rather than by "God." But the fact is Darwin's mechanism has gone the way of flying spaghetti monsters - nobody believes in them - and has been replaced by neo-Darwinism.

Darwin simply tried to explain a natural phenomena and did so fairly accurately, but you are correct, Darwin was wrong about alot of stuff. i dont actually blame him for it though. take that we did not know what cells were when Darwin wrote "origin of species". we didnt know what dna was. we didnt know alot of things about the body so ya darwin got it wrong alot. he was still the catylist that moved biology forward by leaps and bounds.

"Micro-evolution" has little to do with Macro-evolution. No new information or new species in microevolution. Varieties within one kind are no proof for "evolution". Macro-evolution simply does not follow

what you are saying is basically "i could walk to the end of the block, but i could not walk across the country". the only difference between micro and macro evolution is time scale.

catzrfluffy · #16 14th November 2009, 08:32 PM

There are scientifically accurately statements in the Bible Science and the Bible

The Bible isn't there as a technical manual so we can find out how everything works, discovery wouldn't be as exciting if it was.

N.B - The word for corners = quarters
The Hebrew word in Isaiah 40:22 also means sphere.
And no-one thought the earth was flat in the middle ages, just to clear that up before it gets mentioned. The Myth of the Flat Earth

Bible2 · #17 14th November 2009, 10:29 PM

kidsagainstkows:
The bible doesnt teach anything false because it says it doesnt teach anything false... your circular logic amazes me.

The Bible has not been proven to be false. So its claim that it doesnt teach anything false still stands (2 Timothy 3:16). It's innocent until proven guilty.

this is why i dont often respond to your arguments because they are all as ridiculous as this.

What arguments have been proven to be ridiculous?

evolution is not a proof against god, only literal creationism.

Evolution is not a proof against God or literal creationism. For gradual, natural evolution can co-exist with God's instantaneous, miraculous creation of species (or new, individual members of already-existing species). That is, God can either create a new species immediately (cf. punctuated equilibria), or wait for his own created mechanism of evolution to bring about new species over a long period of time.

i will also say here that it is not my job to disprove God, but rather, it is your job to prove it. you are the one making the positive claim, so therefore, the burden of proof is on you.

The proof for God's existence has already been provided by God himself via people being able to see everything that he has created: "The invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead" (Romans 1:20).

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world" (Psalms 19:1-4).

ebia · #18 14th November 2009, 11:15 PM

while im not sure what your acronym means there are plenty of theories in the bible. the most obvious theory is that there is a god (its hard to miss that one). that there was a seven day creation. that the world has corners (its flat).

So if I say "the sun came up at 6.07 this morning" I'm a deluded geocentristist?

Sorry, human communcation can't be reduced like that - we talk in metaphors and approximations 100% of the time.

there are many others as well but when a person attempts to say something true about the world, they have implicitly made a theory about it.

But not all observations about reality are scientific in nature. In fact very few are. To hold all such statements to that standard is just silly.

freeport · #19 15th November 2009, 12:51 AM

Originally Posted by kidsagainstkows

It seems to me like Science is in direct confrontation with religion on a number of issues. some of these issues have been solved (always with Christianity backing down to science) and some have not (well they have in all common and legal senses, but not in a debate sense).

Here is my question of the day, Why didnt God put down the correct way the world works in the bible? Instead it put in exactly what people believed when it was written. there are three (one of God's numbers) scientific theories (read: facts) which are at odds with reality.

The first one is of course evolution. Evolution clearly happens through natural and artificial selection and it is easily visible to anyone who looks. for instance, all domesticated dogs come from wolves. teacup dogs and great danes are technically different species because of a mechanical hindrance to reproduction (size).

The second is Germ Theory. Germs live in and around all things, but were not discovered until the late 1800's by Louis Pasteur. When he came out and began to talk about germs the religious institutions came down on him hard saying that sickness was the direct result of the devil. The Christian Science community still believes this to be the case, most other sects have conceded this one.

Lastly is the Heliocentric model. Copernicus was killed becuase he dared to create an accurate model of how the Earth rotated around the sun. the religious defense was Ecclesiastes 1:5 (for the guy who wanted to talk about Ecclesiastes), and a couple of other verses stating that it was not so. Galileo was forced to recant the same findings.

so, discuss.

The concept of the earth revolving around the sun was known to the Greeks. Ecclesiastes does not say otherwise. It was symptomatic of that day that the monks, the religious establishment felt and acted like God revolved around them. The reality is otherwise. Scripturally, the sun is often used to represent Christ. (Very different from literally being Christ, obviously.)

(And no, that verse in Ecclesiastes is not such a verse.)

Making statements like "all Christians are as the monks" is a rhetorical fallacy. It is a logical fallacy. It is simplistic "Us vs Them" thinking. Very dangerous stuff and behind most wars. People get into the habit of making generalized judgments on people and accepting statements of absolute truisms in knowledge -- when this happens they literally close their minds.

This has happened very often in science. I would suggest studying the history of science more closely: it is a history of individuals going against often other scientists and dogma - scientific dogma - first, not being accepted, and finally, if they are right... making their way through. It is the same with most endeavors. For instance, art. Many great artists were very obscure and not even discovered until after their deaths.

For instance, if one says, "all respected authorities agree" as a proof, one is falling into the very same trap the religious establishment of the Catholic Church fell into. Thinking begins to be thrown out the door. Opposing theories are shot down with viciousness.

How dare someone oppose "The Group" or "Tradition". Even worse, many of these very same people look to how Galileo opposed the religious establishment of the day, or Jesus, and others who have done this... and identify themselves with the hero while acting like the villains.

Did all Christians oppose Pasteur? No, of course not. And Pasteur was a Christian.

But, one reads a book designed to cater to a group, and it might make an all inclusive statement like "all the religious people opposed this" or even just "the religious people" or "the religious establishment".

One of the most pernicious, wrong ideas of science, for instance, was the concept of the "ether". No ether. But scientists held onto that idea and resisted all change. Einstein's ideas were resisted. He could barely get a job. Many great scientists found themselves in just such situations. From the religious people? No. From other scientists.

How many in science or who consider themselves fans of science today are able or even willing to consider challenges to traditional beliefs which are accepted by the mainstream, respected authorities of science? Sadly, not many. In many fields. Instead, like most groups they are trained about what the group believes and what the group does not believe, and who the "enemy" is. This gives social cohesion.

But is a false social cohesion and absolutely unnecessary except for the fact of the shallowness of people. They do not like to accept or deal with "outside" groups. They long for acceptance in their own favored group and might work their entire lives to win that acceptance. That means saying what those people want to hear.

Does such activity actually give someone one more year to their life? No, of course not. It deadens them. It removes their individuality.

It imprisons them in consensual delusions.

It forces them to live in fear, distrust, hate. To see themselves as independent of all others but their own little groups - or big groups - but not independent of these groups themselves. They give up their own individuality for their desires, their envies of other people, their idols, their heroes.

Dead end road. One often repeated.

soundwords · #20 15th November 2009, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by kidsagainstkows

what you are saying is basically "i could walk to the end of the block, but i could not walk across the country". the only difference between micro and macro evolution is time scale.

No it simply does not follow. Science is based on logic and this hurts the fundamental principles of logic. Macro-evolution is something entirely new.