How, if at all, should science relate with Christianity?: an open exploration thread

[juvenissun]

Well, then you cannot affirm or agree that the Bible is scientifically accurate now, in any meaningful sense.

Why do I say that? Here's a theoretical example. ...it is now 1/2*m*gamma*v^2. ... according to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and is not strictly constant in time. Suppose I told Aristotle, Lagrange (a classical physicist), Einstein, and Heisenberg that the kinetic energy of an object is 1/2*m*v^2. Aristotle would have little idea what I was talking about, Lagrange would agree with me, and Einstein and Heisenberg would say that I was almost correct - but nonetheless wrong.

I hope you see what I am saying?

Yes, your message is loud and clear to me.

The Bible is written to save people, not to teach people science. Lovely sister like Glaudys, who refuses to recognize that there is any modern scientific knowledge imbedded in the Scripture, the ancient scientific understanding illustrated in the Bible is perfect for her. So, to her, the Bible is scientifically accurate.

To me, I see the images of modern science in the Scripture. And I find what the Scripture says fit very well with the current understanding in science. So, I say the science message in the Bible is 100% accurate.

To people you are referring to, who thinks, e.g. the "east wind" is not an accurate message, because in the so called east wind, there are NE wind, SE wind, NNE wind and SSE wind. Then I think the person might eventually discover that somewhere in the Bible, the NE wind or the SE wind does make difference. But when it says east wind only, it means there is no need to tell NE wind from SE wind. So just use the summery term east wind, is still accurate enough.

So, what you are talking about is the resolution problem. Sometimes we do want to examine a rare mineral in soil by microscope. But many times, we just want to know this is the red soil and that is the black soil. Even the classification is crude, but it is true. So the low resolution message can still be called: Accurate. Scientific messages hidden in the Bible include resolutions at all levels. So, it is improper to criticize a message intended for low resolution purpose by the lack of accuracy.

And if the Bible's scientific useability is so limited in its scope, being only applicable to our generation, then how much can be made of its scientific applicability? If past generations could not access its current scientific validity, and future generations will not have necessity or its scientific validity, why should we and we alone consider its scientific validity so vital to our own faith here and now?

This is another very good question, but is of a different nature. I will address it a little bit later. Hey, Shernren, I really appreciate your thought. May God bless you with more wisdom.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

It's understandable that science can not say much about the spiritual/supernatural...but often, scientists act as if it does not even exist. They make conclusions that are purely materialistic; rather that is the assumption that they start with. I know that not all scientists are like this, but it seems that many are. I have no problem with science as long as it doesn't become agnostic...it's one thing saying that something is untestable (like the existence of God), it's another saying that what is untestable is not real.
As long as there is no assumption that atheism is true, that there is no soul, and that faith is a mental illness, I can get along with science

 

[gluadys]

As long as there is no assumption that atheism is true, that there is no soul, and that faith is a mental illness, I can get along with science

I think most of us can agree with that. I have even seen scientists who are not believers themselves rebuke militant atheists who treat atheism as a scientific conclusion and faith as a mental illness.

 

[Paul365]

We should not forget that the bible was inspired by God, but written by many authors. While they believed in the same God, their world views and their knowledge and understanding of science were very different. It is understandable that those differences are also visible in the Bible.

So I think the Bible does not contain "the science", but it contains many scientific facts, some accurate, some less accurate, and some in contradiction with our today's scientific observations.

Genesis says rather clearly that the world was created at almost the same time when Man was created, yet we can see galaxies whose light appears to have traveled billions of years before reaching us. The "science" in Genesis is in contradiction to our astronomical observations, however not in contradiction to the observations at the time the Bible was written.

The book of Kings says that the value of Pi is 3; by today's standards it is 3.14... However 3 was good enough for most tasks at the time the Bible was written.

The Bible contains good science, but not 'absolute' science in the sense of absolute truth.

 

[gluadys]

We should not forget that the bible was inspired by God, but written by many authors. While they believed in the same God, their world views and their knowledge and understanding of science were very different. It is understandable that those differences are also visible in the Bible.

So I think the Bible does not contain "the science", but it contains many scientific facts, some accurate, some less accurate, and some in contradiction with our today's scientific observations.

Genesis says rather clearly that the world was created at almost the same time when Man was created, yet we can see galaxies whose light appears to have traveled billions of years before reaching us. The "science" in Genesis is in contradiction to our astronomical observations, however not in contradiction to the observations at the time the Bible was written.

The book of Kings says that the value of Pi is 3; by today's standards it is 3.14... However 3 was good enough for most tasks at the time the Bible was written.

The Bible contains good science, but not 'absolute' science in the sense of absolute truth.

I see you are fairly new here, Paul.

If it hasn't been said before, welcome to OT.

 

[juvenissun]

So I think the Bible does not contain "the science", but it contains many scientific facts, some accurate, some less accurate, and some in contradiction with our today's scientific observations.

We can NOT think it that way. This is an either black or white situation. Otherwise, it would be meaningless.

So, if I can modify what you said, it would be like this:

So I think the Bible does not contain "the science", but it contains many scientific facts, some are known to be accurate today, some appears less accurate, and some in contradiction with our today's scientific knowledge because we do not understand enough.

Otherwise, you should say: Bible contains NO scientific fact.

 

[crawfish]

We can NOT think it that way. This is an either black or white situation. Otherwise, it would be meaningless.

So, if I can modify what you said, it would be like this:

So I think the Bible does not contain "the science", but it contains many scientific facts, some are known to be accurate today, some appears less accurate, and some in contradiction with our today's scientific knowledge because we do not understand enough.

Otherwise, you should say: Bible contains NO scientific fact.

How about: phrases that seem accurate scientifically were not written for that purpose, either primarily or secondarily. They exist because the desired idea happened to (perhaps accidentally) coincide with reality.

I have a hard time seeing it otherwise because so many passages are written from an observable reality and not actual reality.

 

[Mallon]

We can NOT think it that way. This is an either black or white situation. Otherwise, it would be meaningless.

Why?
I think you're being silly. The Bible was written to inform us about God. Not science. God.
So why would the Bible be meaningless if it didn't contain hidden nuggets of 21st century science? It strikes me that your theology borders on scientism. The veracity of the Bible hinges on nothing but the gospel message it contains. Insisting that the Bible is only meaningful if it is scientifically accurate through-and-through is just asking for a quashing of one's faith. Don't build on sand. Jesus is the firm foundation.

 

[juvenissun]

Why?
I think you're being silly. The Bible was written to inform us about God. Not science. God.
So why would the Bible be meaningless if it didn't contain hidden nuggets of 21st century science?

You are indeed very messy in logic. You expanded the argument off topic to unrelated issues.

 

[Scotishfury09]

You are indeed very messy in logic. You expanded the argument off topic to unrelated issues.

How is it unrelated and how is it messy logic?

 

[Mallon]

You are indeed very messy in logic. You expanded the argument off topic to unrelated issues.

Can you please elaborate? I don't think my logic is messy. I think it is illogical to assume that a series of books written over 2,000 years ago with the purpose of telling us about God should contain hidden 21st century science easter eggs.

 

[juvenissun]

Why?
I think you're being silly. The Bible was written to inform us about God. Not science.

I did not say the Bible "was to inform" us about science.

God.
So why would the Bible be meaningless [/I]

I did not say "the Bible" would become meaningless.


if it didn't contain hidden nuggets of 21st century science? It strikes me that your theology borders on scientism. The veracity of the Bible hinges on nothing but the gospel message it contains.

I did not say what is the Bible hinged on.

Insisting that the Bible is only meaningful if it is scientifically accurate through-and-through

I never use this type of "only ... if"

is just asking for a quashing of one's faith. Don't build on sand. Jesus is the firm foundation.

I did not say He is not, and I am not building anything

--------

I think you must be lost now. What have I said?
Your messy reading, interpretation and response is an excellent example on one of the major reason that this forum has wasted a lot of electrons.

 

[juvenissun]

How about: phrases that seem accurate scientifically were not written for that purpose, either primarily or secondarily. They exist because the desired idea happened to (perhaps accidentally) coincide with reality.

I have a hard time seeing it otherwise because so many passages are written from an observable reality and not actual reality.

Yes, you may say that. .

However, we may accept that one, two, or three, or four matches to be accidental. But if there were 20 or 30, hmm.... something must be going on.

I am sure we could easily (?) find more than 100 examples in the Bible that "seemingly" match modern science with the scripture verses.

Some science messages hidden in the Scripture are NOT directly observable by Biblical authors. For example, something hidden in the deep ground (miles deep), something only exist at the bottom of deep sea, and something which is simply not visible such as energy, force, various processes, etc. If I could, I will explain all them at later time.

 

[Mallon]

I did not say the Bible "was to inform" us about science...

I did not say "the Bible" would become meaningless.

What were you referring to, then, when you said,

We can NOT think it that way. This is an either black or white situation. Otherwise, it would be meaningless.

?

I did not say what is the Bible hinged on.

What would be meaningless, then, if we couldn't interpret the Bible scientifically?

I think you must be lost now. What have I said?
Your messy reading, interpretation and response is an excellent example on one of the major reason that this forum has wasted a lot of electrons.

Obviously, I'm not the only one having a hard time understanding you (in fact, I'm going guess that English isn't your native tongue). Perhaps you should think introspectively?

 

[theFijian]

So why would the Bible be meaningless [/i]

I did not say "the Bible" would become meaningless.

So I think the Bible does not contain "the science", but it contains many scientific facts, some accurate, some less accurate, and some in contradiction with our today's scientific observations.

We can NOT think it that way. This is an either black or white situation. Otherwise, it (the Bible) would be meaningless.

Sorry mate but you are condemned by your own words

 

[Paul365]

I am sure we could easily (?) find more than 100 examples in the Bible that "seemingly" match modern science with the scripture verses.

This is probably true, if you want to interpret them this way. It would be surprising if a book the size of the Bible would not contain 100 sentences that could be interpreted as a poetic expression of a today's scientific observation.

The problem is that you can just as easy find also 100 sentences that appear to contradict a today's scientific observation or mathematical fact, such as the value of Pi.

But when you can interpret the Bible as supporting and contradicting science at the same time, what does this tell us about the Bible? Just that it's a book about God and not about science.

If God had intended to teach us Relativity Theory in the Bible, don't you think He had then written this a little more clearly?

 

[juvenissun]

The problem is that you can just as easy find also 100 sentences that appear to contradict a today's scientific observation or mathematical fact, such as the value of Pi.

What is wrong with the pi? The Bible suggests 3. That is a "correct" figure.

I would be amazed to see even up to 2 examples (in fact, 1 is too many) that demonstrate the science in Bible is proven wrong. You may initiate a new thread for the debate.

 

[theFijian]

What is wrong with the pi? The Bible suggests 3. That is a "correct" figure.

I would be amazed to see even up to 2 examples (in fact, 1 is too many) that demonstrate the science in Bible is proven wrong. You may initiate a new thread for the debate.

Insects do not have four legs.

 

[Mallon]

I would be amazed to see even up to 2 examples (in fact, 1 is too many) that demonstrate the science in Bible is proven wrong. You may initiate a new thread for the debate.

There are lists of biblical absurdities and contractions, compiled by an unbeliever, here (some of which I agree with; some of which I don't):
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/absurd.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions.html

 

[juvenissun]

There are lists of biblical absurdities and contractions, compiled by an unbeliever, here (some of which I agree with; some of which I don't):
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/absurd.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions.html

Please try one you do agree.