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

[busterdog]

The fact is that science (today) does not concern itself with the supernatural. It cannot because the supernatural cannot be proven with observable, repeatable evidence.

Why can't it be proven? Who says?

Meaning, are you suggesting the matter has been decided before considering the evidence?

The Bible clearly says God proves his supernatural character by prophecy and healing. The Bible certainly seems to think such things can be proven.

This is the problem.

 

[Molal]

Why can't it be proven? Who says?

Meaning, are you suggesting the matter has been decided before considering the evidence?

The Bible clearly says God proves his supernatural character by prophecy and healing. The Bible certainly seems to think such things can be proven.

This is the problem.

Science is a methology, a mode of logical thought and deductive reasoning. The products of science must be refutable (gravity, atomic theory, evolution, etc.) Christianity is not refutable - you cannot refute it ot provide evidence against it (i know, poor argument).

It is not science, it is supernatural, beyond the physical world and reality.

This is what science is, it seeks out natural explanations because to postulate supernatural means the research ends immediately with God did it - end of story. With this reasoning you would not have computers, a space station, antibiotics, cars, etc. etc.

And sorry, I used the word proof/proven. I did not mean to. Nothing in science can be proven - proof is for mathematics and liquor. Everything in science is tentative (theory of gravity, germ theory, atomic theory). Nothing is absolute (except for vodka).

 

[Mallon]

Right - the book isn't science - it's theology. It contains theological truths.

Indeed. If, as Christians, we denounce scientism (that is, the philosophy that the only authentic knowledge is scientific knowlege), then the Bible's timely science is of no concern to us.
Besides, the Bible doesn't call itself Holy, anyway. That's a human artifact rooted in tradition.

 

[Molal]

Indeed. If, as Christians, we denounce scientism (that is, the philosophy that the only authentic knowledge is scientific knowlege), then the Bible's timely science is of no concern to us.
Besides, the Bible doesn't call itself Holy, anyway. That's a human artifact rooted in tradition.

Well said - thank you. I would rep you, but I have run out.

 

[juvenissun]

Right - the book isn't science - it's theology. It contains theological truths.

So, if some where in the Bible is "obviously" wrong, no matter it is science or not, how could you be sure that some other verses about faith are right ?

If something about fact is wrong, how could you trust something else in the same book, which is not even related to fact?

 

[Mallon]

So, if some where in the Bible is "obviously" wrong, no matter it is science or not, how could you be sure that some other verses about faith are right ?

Because the Bible tells us that its authors were inspired to speak truthfully about matters of the spirit, not matters of science. See 1 Cor 2:13:
“This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.”

If something about fact is wrong, how could you trust something else in the same book, which is not even related to fact?

Are you saying that spiritual matters are not related to fact? I beg to differ. If you're saying what I think you're saying, you are exemplifying the very scientism I spoke about in my last post.

 

[juvenissun]

I do not know what is wrong with you. Not I am trying to ignore you, but you usually expand my words to what I did not say, and it made me confused on how to respond.

For example:

I said: If something about fact is wrong, how could you trust something else in the same book, which is not even related to fact?

Then you replied: Are you saying that spiritual matters are not related to fact? I beg to differ.

I did not say that. What I said was:

"Some" matters (about faith) are not related to fact. But not:
"All" spiritual matters are not related to fact.

I am sorry that I do not have so much time to correct your logic error every time.

 

[Mallon]

I do not know what is wrong with you. Not I am trying to ignore you, but you usually expand my words to what I did not say, and it made me confused on how to respond.

For example:

I said: If something about fact is wrong, how could you trust something else in the same book, which is not even related to fact?

Then you replied: Are you saying that spiritual matters are not related to fact? I beg to differ.

I did not say that. What I said was:

"Some" matters (about faith) are not related to fact. But not:
"All" spiritual matters are not related to fact.

I am sorry that I do not have so much time to correct your logic error every time.

I might have an easier time understanding you if you phrased yourself less ambiguously, juvenissun.
With that out of the way, when you say "some" matters of faith are not related to fact, what do you mean? Which matters of faith are you referring to? Please be explicit, because this is how misunderstandings come about.

 

[theFijian]

Right so the error might not be 'obvious' as you put it but it is inaccurate, insects don't have 4 legs they have 6, they don't walk on 4 legs they walk on 6.

So why do you think the bible says 4 and not 6?

I'm still interested in you answer to this question juvenissun.

 

[juvenissun]

I might have an easier time understanding you if you phrased yourself less ambiguously, juvenissun.
With that out of the way, when you say "some" matters of faith are not related to fact, what do you mean? Which matters of faith are you referring to? Please be explicit, because this is how misunderstandings come about.

example: we are sinners.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm still interested in you answer to this question juvenissun.

6 legs, but only 4 are used at any time in walking.

Why do I have to repeat this?

 

[Mallon]

example: we are sinners.

So, are you saying "we are sinners" is not a fact?

 

[juvenissun]

So, are you saying "we are sinners" is not a fact?

not a science fact.

You are really hopeless.

 

[Mallon]

not a science fact.

Aha! And there we have it. We have come full circle, and you have exemplified the very scientism I spoke of earlier. That is, you have erroneously equated "fact" with "science", as per your earlier statement:

If something about fact is wrong, how could you trust something else in the same book, which is not even related to fact?

Is it any wonder you seek 21st century science hidden in the Scriptures, given your conflation of reality with what is scientifically verifiable? I think things are really starting to click into place. I think I understand you more now than ever!
Do away with scientism, and you take away the foundation of anti-evolutionary creationism.

You are really hopeless.

 

[Scotishfury09]

You are really hopeless.

Fijian should be proud. Calvinism at its finest!

 

[theFijian]

6 legs, but only 4 are used at any time in walking.

Why do I have to repeat this?

Because I don't think you're quite getting the verse. Look at what it says:
Leviticus 11:20
KJV - going upon all four (legs)
NIV - that walk on all fours
ESV - that go on all fours

*all fours*. All meaning all of the legs, all four of them. Are you going to tell us that 'all' means something different here?

 

[artybloke]

So you do not mind if people said that your Holy Book is full of scientific errors. Right?

I couldn't care less. I don't expect science in the Enuma Elish, and the Bible has more in common with the Enuma Elish than it does with Darwin's Origin of the Species.

 

[juvenissun]

I couldn't care less. I don't expect science in the Enuma Elish, and the Bible has more in common with the Enuma Elish than it does with Darwin's Origin of the Species.

So, it is the same question:

If the Book of your faith has science errors, how can you be sure there are no other errors, such as geographic errors, music errors, art errors, math errors, logic errors, etc. ?

An honest answer is that you can not be sure, and the content of the Book becomes debatable. Then the foundation of faith is destroyed.

 

[juvenissun]

Because I don't think you're quite getting the verse. Look at what it says:
Leviticus 11:20
KJV - going upon all four (legs)
NIV - that walk on all fours
ESV - that go on all fours

*all fours*. All meaning all of the legs, all four of them. Are you going to tell us that 'all' means something different here?

Don't ask me. Ask a Rabbi. It is their food and I do not eat insect. Ask him why dare they eat grasshopper which has more than 4 legs. Or ask him why don't Jews eat all insects since all of them has 6 legs.

To me, this is a stupid question used to argue about science error in Bible. Four legs or six legs is very easy to observe, and it was a number 1 concern (food) for Jews at that time. This fact must have been considered by millions of Jews already. It is not likely that an error would happen here. All we need to do is try to understand it, not to question it.

 

[gluadys]

So, it is the same question:

If the Book of your faith has science errors, how can you be sure there are no other errors, such as geographic errors, music errors, art errors, math errors, logic errors, etc. ?

An honest answer is that you can not be sure, and the content of the Book becomes debatable. Then the foundation of faith is destroyed.

Only a false foundation that ought to be destroyed. The proper foundation of Christian faith is not the bible. The proper foundation is Christ.