Science is Dead to me

[The Barbarian]

As for the ontology of scientific theories, I think there is at least some minimal substance that our modern science(s) actually digs into, and it does so rather successfully with the current models it has, but with the exception that the interweaving of Ethics into it all has had a very hard go of it, despite all of the lip-service about "moral integrity" that has been expressed by all sides ...

You might as well be angry at plumbers for repairing the pipes in an office building where people are cheating on their taxes. Of course, if they know they are contributing to evil, then they'd be no different that a cabbie knowingly taking a felon to his intended crime.

One British scientist was approached in the 1800s, by military officer interested in the use of poison gases in combat. He replied that it was technically possible, but it was monstrously evil, and he would have no part of it.

 

[Fervent]

That's fine if Instrumentalism is your chosen point of view. It's not mine but I philosophically make allowance for many things since most of this sort of discussion breaks down more or less into various tracks that immediately step over into Philosophy of Science rather than remain in hard science itself.

I'm not here to pontificate over and against fellow Christians. I have my view about science that is mine, and without being contentious about it, I merely let folks know that I have my own scholarly sources and studies by which I've reached my own conclusions.

As for the ontology of scientific theories, I think there is at least some minimal substance that our modern science(s) actually digs into, and it does so rather successfully with the current models it has, but with the exception that the interweaving of Ethics into it all has had a very hard go of it, despite all of the lip-service about "moral integrity" that has been expressed by all sides ...

View attachment 339562

My concern primarily rests in the fact that a particular view within the philosophy of science is passed off as the only viable view within science classrooms that pushes a hard materialism. Which is more of an issue to me than the typical concerns over biology that seem to dominate the conversation. It's certainly true that intelligent design/creationism do not belong in a science classroom, but it would be much less of a problem if it weren't for the materialist philosophy that is interwoven into science beginning with physics that declares "everything is matter."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes. I usually explain how plumbing is also methodologically naturalistic, and that it's just a silly to expect a biologist to be concerned bout God and demons in his work as it would be for a plumber to seek out the demons of blockage. The thing is, creationists are scared of plumbing.

Maybe we need a better, more nuanced set of labels than merely "Creationist" to apply to fellow Christians who maintain a firmly literalistic appraisal of the ancient paradigm we find in the first several chapters of Genesis?

One reason of a couple I say this is that I've seen folks even over on Biologos claiming, however mildly, that they too consider themselves to be supporting a form of 'creationism.' I have a hard time seeing that that is the case, but that is what some of them have said. For example, and despite the seemingly downplayed language, we find the following:

How is Evolutionary Creation different from Evolutionism, Intelligent Design, and Creationism? - Common Question - BioLogos

We affirm that the Bible is the inspired and authoritative word of God. We also accept the science of evolution as the best description for how God brought about life on earth.

biologos.org

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You might as well be angry at plumbers for repairing the pipes in an office building where people are cheating on their taxes. Of course, if they know they are contributing to evil, then they'd be no different that a cabbie knowingly taking a felon to his intended crime.

One British scientist was approached in the 1800s, by military officer interested in the use of poison gases in combat. He replied that it was technically possible, but it was monstrously evil, and he would have no part of it.

Personally, I'm not angry. I know very well that there are all kinds of folks who have been in and out of the Sciences. Some have been veritable heroes; others could be seen as scoundrels. The same can be said of the various fields of Philosophy.

As a sort of philosopher myself, I am amused in a way at all of this unrelenting mudslinging that goes back and forth. At worst, I may find myself momentarily aghast at gross instances of where Pragmatism seems to have gone to seed in either society or in the government via the inroads of some bit of "scientism." But I'm not angry. Not yet, anyway. I guess one might say that where science and religion engage and where sparks might fly between them, Education helps me cope with the outcomes ...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My concern primarily rests in the fact that a particular view within the philosophy of science is passed off as the only viable view within science classrooms that pushes a hard materialism. Which is more of an issue to me than the typical concerns over biology that seem to dominate the conversation. It's certainly true that intelligent design/creationism do not belong in a science classroom, but it would be much less of a problem if it weren't for the materialist philosophy that is interwoven into science beginning with physics that declares "everything is matter."

Yes, there is sometimes a worldview that is promulgated by a Materialist Instructor who tags it along with the teaching of the Theory of Evolution, giving the appearance to impressionable students that one concept must be adjoined to the other, and that somehow, all of the various intricacies of Logic "dictate" that such be done. Or fail the test.

That, as we both know, is a fallacy, one that is pushed by and large by Philosophical Naturalists.

 

[Fervent]

Yes, there is sometimes a worldview that is promulgated by a Materialist Instructor who tags it along with the teaching of the Theory of Evolution, giving the appearance to impressionable students that one concept must be adjoined to the other, and that somehow, all of the various intricacies of Logic "dictate" that such be done. Or fail the test.

That, as we both know, is a fallacy, one that is pushed by and large by Philosophical Naturalists.

There certainly are egregious cases, but it seems to me that it is far more widespread than simply being propagated by those who adhere to philosophical naturalism. While the battlegrounds tend to be over evolutionary theory, materialist philosophy is the natural result of a lack of philosohpical education in the classroom and instead beginning and focusing nearly exclusively on science education. I abandoned a degree in chemical engineering because I wouldn't give in to the pressure to conform to materialist philosophies that were expected to be accepted uncritically among my peers and instructors despite finding the material fascinating and having some aptitude for the mathematics and modeling. Biology is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There certainly are egregious cases, but it seems to me that it is far more widespread than simply being propagated by those who adhere to philosophical naturalism. While the battlegrounds tend to be over evolutionary theory, materialist philosophy is the natural result of a lack of philosohpical education in the classroom and instead beginning and focusing nearly exclusively on science education.

Yes, there is something true and substantive to what you're saying here. But "philosophy" isn't monolithic, and there is the fact that these days, a majority of practicing, professional philosophers are atheists or hard agnostics. Few are Christian or even have a theistic bent. So, I don't know how far we can stretch the idea, however amenable it sounds to me, that more philosophy education will provide a convenient fix for those who are epistemically challenged and just don't see that the bible is either true or relevant.

As in Star Wars or Lord of the Rings, there's something "elusive" at work in the Shadows. And, in taking a cue from the Epistemology in the New Testament, we know there are some things that only the Holy Spirit can transcend. Secular Philosophy will only take a person just so far and won't by any necessity take a person to Christ. And Science is too much of a Gestalt to offer any assurance one way or the other where religion (or the bible) are concerned.

I abandoned a degree in chemical engineering because I wouldn't give in to the pressure to conform to materialist philosophies that were expected to be accepted uncritically among my peers and instructors despite finding the material fascinating and having some aptitude for the mathematics and modeling. Biology is just the tip of the iceberg.

I'm sorry to hear you abandoned a chemical engineering degree due to pressures to conform to the status quo materialists. I'm sure, though, you're in a more useful place now for the Kingdom.

 

[Fervent]

Yes, there is something true and substantive to what you're saying here. But "philosophy" isn't monolithic, and there is the fact that these days, a majority of practicing, professional philosophers are atheists or hard agnostics. Few are Christian or even have a theistic bent. So, I don't know how far we can stretch the idea, however amenable it sounds to me, that more philosophy education will provide a convenient fix for those who are epistemically challenged and just don't see that the bible is either true or relevant.

As in Star Wars or Lord of the Rings, there's something "elusive" at work in the Shadows. And, in taking a cue from the Epistemology in the New Testament, we know there are some things that only the Holy Spirit can transcend. Secular Philosophy will only take a person just so far and won't by any necessity take a person to Christ. And Science is too much of a Gestalt to offer any assurance one way or the other where religion (or the bible) are concerned.

I agree with you here in substance, and perhaps that's what's important. My contention with scientific philosophy is more to do with believers than non-believers, anyhow. The notion that we must somehow justify our position before the "overwhelming" scientific evidence to the contrary, or to provide an equivalent scientific theory to compete in order to have faith in an epistemically responsible manner. The chasm is far too wide to produce any sort of sensible discussion when we allow for a God that not only is capable of creating everything we know but also intervenes within His creation as He sees fit. There's simply no common ground with those who take the "laws" of science as fundamental.

I'm sorry to hear you abandoned a chemical engineering degree due to pressures to conform to the status quo materialists. I'm sure, though, you're in a more useful place now for the Kingdom.

It's a chapter in my life I am more than satisfied with what God has provided instead. I would have been miserable dedicating 18+ hours a day to overseeing the production of some useless product.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I agree with you here in substance, and perhaps that's what's important. My contention with scientific philosophy is more to do with believers than non-believers, anyhow.

Since you're positing here a contention that is apparently directed more toward fellow believers than to non-believers, I'm feeling a little puzzled. Is this comment meant to include myself? I hope not. I'm not here to push fellow Christians to accept Evolution. As an Existentialist, I don't really care if fellow Christians want to take one of several approaches in Hermeneutics by which to interpret the substance of either Origens or Creationistic issues. It doesn't bother me that they hold another position, unless........................ those fellow Christians start bothering me by prodding me [usually with prophetic aplomb] and implying that I'm somehow deficient, and guilty of heresy, in my own viewpoint.

I'm hoping that that isn't what you're also implying here.

The notion that we must somehow justify our position before the "overwhelming" scientific evidence to the contrary, or to provide an equivalent scientific theory to compete in order to have faith in an epistemically responsible manner. The chasm is far too wide to produce any sort of sensible discussion when we allow for a God that not only is capable of creating everything we know but also intervenes within His creation as He sees fit. There's simply no common ground with those who take the "laws" of science as fundamental.

True. But on some level where both theology and/or metaphysics are at play, we either utilize concepts with real substance that can be demonstrated on some level other than just asserting some apparent dictates of Logic(s), or we're merely playing epistemic dress up with religious words as the Logical Positivists have averred we do.

As for myself, and as you've heard me say a while back, I'm an Existentialist because ... (whatever I wrote back then). At best, I can only affirm the very thinnest appearances of teleological and/or ontological or cosmological inferences where God is said to be in the mix, which in my case is to admit that I don't think I see all that much direct evidence of "God" on the Cosmic Canvas. No, I instead come by God through and out of the epistemic basement, so to speak. I start with Jesus and work backwards on a historical level rather than infusing and confusing things with a top-down approach attuned to the Classical Theology and an Inerrant Bible.

It's a chapter in my life I am more than satisfied with what God has provided instead. I would have been miserable dedicating 18+ hours a day to overseeing the production of some useless product.

Oh, I hear you. I've always wanted to do something other than what I've been doing in my current employment. Hopefully, it all works out for you.

 

[Fervent]

Since you're positing here a contention that is apparently directed more toward fellow believers than to non-believers, I'm feeling a little puzzled. Is this comment meant to include myself? I hope not. I'm not here to push fellow Christians to accept Evolution. As an Existentialist, I don't really care if fellow Christians want to take one of several approaches in Hermeneutics by which to interpret the substance of either Origens or Creationistic issues. It doesn't bother me that they hold another position, unless........................ those fellow Christians start bothering me by prodding me [usually with prophetic aplomb] and implying that I'm somehow deficient, and guilty of heresy, in my own viewpoint.

I'm hoping that that isn't what you're also implying here.

No, I don't think there's any issue between you and I. My issue lies more with the self-conscious believer who thinks they can justify their creationistic belief using pseudo-science and in doing so discredit the intellectual merit of belief. The AIG's and the like.

True. But on some level where both theology and/or metaphysics are at play, we either utize concepts with real substance that can be demonstrated on some level other than just asserting some apparent dictates of Logic(s), or we're merely playing epistemic dress up with religious words as the Logical Positivists have averred we do.

And many seem to do that very thing, in misguided attempts to justify belief epistemically. There seems to be an acceptance of the premise that faith is in itself irrational, even among some of the faithful.

As for myself, and as you've heard me say a while back, I'm an Existentialist because ... (whatever I wrote back then). At best, I can only affirm the very thinnest appearances of teleological and/or cosmological inferences, which in my case is to admit that I don't think I see all that much direct evidence of "God" on the Cosmic Canvas. No, I instead come by God through and out of the epistemic basement, so to speak. I start with Jesus and work backwords on a historical level rather than infusing and confusing things with a top-down approach attuned to the Classical Theology.

I respect and admire you for this.

Oh, I hear you. I've always wanted to do something other than what I've been doing in my current employment. Hopefully, it all works out for you.

So long as God is in it, it will be successful. Even if I end up miserable, poor, and dejected. His will be done, and all that jazz.

 

[The Barbarian]

Personally, I'm not angry. I know very well that there are all kinds of folks who have been in and out of the Sciences. Some have been veritable heroes; others could be seen as scoundrels. The same can be said of the various fields of Philosophy.

As a sort of philosopher myself, I am amused in a way at all of this unrelenting mudslinging that goes back and forth. At worst, I may find myself momentarily aghast at gross instances of where Pragmatism seems to have gone to seed in either society or in the government via the inroads of some bit of "scientism." But I'm not angry. Not yet, anyway. I guess one might say that where science and religion engage and where sparks might fly between them, Education helps me cope with the outcomes ...

If Newton was a bigoted and vindictive man (he was) his contributions to science stand entirely apart from the kind of man he was. Galileo was an arrogant jerk, but he was right about almost everything, and could show that he was. And to science, that's what matters.

If you want to research the interface of faith and science, you might want to check Biologos. It was founded by Francis Collins, a devout Christian who headed the Human Genome Project. Worth a look. There are men and women of all sorts of faiths involved

I see the term "creationist" has come to be defined by a particular group of ideas which rule out evolution. It's sort of the way "democrat" defines a particular political party. This is not to say that there aren't people who accept God as Creator, who don't agree with "creationists", just as there are people of other political parties who agree with the concept of democracy.

 

[The Barbarian]

My concern primarily rests in the fact that a particular view within the philosophy of science is passed off as the only viable view within science classrooms that pushes a hard materialism.

No, that's false. I've never seen that in high school, university, or post graduate classrooms.

How would science even be able to comment on what caused the universe to be? By its very methodology, it is limited to the physical universe. You might as well expect plumbing to "push a hard materialism." Might seem that way, but if God cursed your kitchen sink, your plumber would have no way of determining that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If Newton was a bigoted and vindictive man (he was) his contributions to science stand entirely apart from the kind of man he was. Galileo was an arrogant jerk, but he was right about almost everything, and could show that he was. And to science, that's what matters.

Science AND Ethics AND Epistemology matter, among a whole bunch of other academic and sub-field considerations. But yes, I understand what you're saying about Newton and Galileo. Sometimes, though, the attitudes expressed by brilliant minds can make or break the respect that any of us can have of their respective scholarship and acumen. Richard Dawkins comes to mind, but while we all know he's a brilliant chap, I'd much rather listen to someone like Kenneth Miller if I had the choice.

If you want to research the interface of faith and science, you might want to check Biologos. It was founded by Francis Collins, a devout Christian who headed the Human Genome Project. Worth a look. There are men and women of all sorts of faiths involved

I see the term "creationist" has come to be defined by a particular group of ideas which rule out evolution. It's sort of the way "democrat" defines a particular political party. This is not to say that there aren't people who accept God as Creator, who don't agree with "creationists", just as there are people of other political parties who agree with the concept of democracy.

I'm way ahead of you there, Mr. B! I've been fully aware of Francis Collins and Biologos for years ............................... and my Masters Degree thesis was on the interface of Science (specifically the Theory of Evolution) and Worldviews in Science Education. So, thanks anyway for the attempt at providing additional info to me. I know it'll be handy for someone here, just not me.

Also, you may have me confused with some other person here.

 

[Fervent]

No, that's false. I've never seen that in high school, university, or post graduate classrooms.

How would science even be able to comment on what caused the universe to be? By its very methodology, it is limited to the physical universe. You might as well expect plumbing to "push a hard materialism." Might seem that way, but if God cursed your kitchen sink, your plumber would have no way of determining that.

You may not have seen it, but that's been my experience in science classrooms. Theoretically, science makes no comment on such ontological questions, but in practice science educators do. Plumbers don't attempt to comment on universal questions, but it is not unusual for a physics instructor to declare that everything that exists is matter(even if they don't go into what exactly matter is).

 

[The Barbarian]

Richard Dawkins comes to mind, but while we all know he's a brilliant chap, I'd much rather listen to someone like Kenneth Miller if I had the choice.

I don't particularly care for his take on God (whom he admits might exist), but it's his hyperselectionist ideas that I find unlikely. If he was a theologian, that would be different. He's a biologist, and his ideas on biology are what matter.

I'm way ahead of you there, Mr. B!

I see that, now.

 

[The Barbarian]

You may not have seen it, but that's been my experience in science classrooms.

I've spent a lot of time in science classrooms. I've taught science. I've reviewed science texts. Where did you go to school?

Theoretically, science makes no comment on such ontological questions, but in practice science educators do.

Of course. We just don't teach that sort of thing as science.

Plumbers don't attempt to comment on universal questions

Of course they do. They just don't use those things in plumbing. Science and plumbing can't consider God.

But scientists and plumbers can. If this puzzles you, you're on the path to enlightenment.

but it is not unusual for a physics instructor to declare that everything that exists is matter(even if they don't go into what exactly matter is).

It would be highly unusual, since physics is based on the existence of both matter and energy. I've yet to see a physics instructor who announces to a class that there is no such thing beyond the physical universe. Do you have a checkable exception?

Probably happened somewhere, but not part of any physics curriculum or textbook. There are arrogant and ignorant physics teachers just as there are arrogant and ignorant creationists. But not as many as you seem to think.

 

[Fervent]

I've spent a lot of time in science classrooms. I've taught science. I've reviewed science texts. Where did you go to school?

Southern California, and my middle school and high school teachers inadvertantly taught materialism. It wasn't until college physics that I encountered teachers that didn't. I don't think any of them did so intentionally, nor do I think many of my instructors were materialists themselves, but the simplified explanations in effect were materialistic.

Of course. We just don't teach that sort of thing as science.

More often than not the line is blurred and the philosophical notions are not distinguished from the science.

Of course they do. They just don't use those things in plumbing. Science and plumbing can't consider God.

I'm well aware of this, and have no issue with it as such. My issue comes more from a lack of philosophical education than what is taught in science classrooms.

But scientists and plumbers can. If this puzzles you, you're on the path to enlightenment.

Your condescension is appreciate.

It would be highly unusual, since physics is based on the existence of both matter and energy. I've yet to see a physics instructor who announces to a class that there is no such thing beyond the physical universe. Do you have a checkable exception?

Probably happened somewhere, but not part of any physics curriculum or textbook. There are arrogant and ignorant physics teachers just as there are arrogant and ignorant creationists. But not as many as you seem to think.

Functionally, energy and matter are treated as the same thing in different forms within most physics classrooms. It's been my experience that physics classrooms are the least problematic, though, because the philosophical elements tend to be brought to the fore more often. Chemistry and biology classes, where there's more insulation from the philosophical issues, tend to be where more of the bias is found.

 

[The Barbarian]

Southern California, and my middle school and high school teachers inadvertantly taught materialism. It wasn't until college physics that I encountered teachers that didn't. I don't think any of them did so intentionally, nor do I think many of my instructors were materialists themselves, but the simplified explanations in effect were materialistic.

Inadvertently? You do realize that science is methodologically materialistic, right? Plumbing is methodologically materialistic, too.

Functionally, energy and matter are treated as the same thing in different forms within most physics classrooms. It's been my experience that physics classrooms are the least problematic, though, because the philosophical elements tend to be brought to the fore more often. Chemistry and biology classes, where there's more insulation from the philosophical issues, tend to be where more of the bias is found

It seems to me that one would encounter philosophical issues more often in physics. Chemistry is pretty much about atoms and their behaviors. Biology is about living things and their behaviors.

 

[Fervent]

Inadvertently? You do realize that science is methodologically materialistic, right? Plumbing is methodologically materialistic, too.

I do, and that's why I take issue with it being pushed as the primary or even exclusive epistemic paradigm.

It seems to me that one would encounter philosophical issues more often in physics. Chemistry is pretty much about atoms and their behaviors. Biology is about living things and their behaviors.

There are more philosophical issues in physics, but typically physics instructors recognize them and handle them delicately. Chemistry instructors, being insulated from the philosophical issues, tend to push a particular philosophical perspective unchallenged. It is the abstraction from the deeper issues that makes them more likely to push materialistic philosophies uncritically.

 

[Job 33:6]

Science AND Ethics AND Epistemology matter, among a whole bunch of other academic and sub-field considerations. But yes, I understand what you're saying about Newton and Galileo. Sometimes, though, the attitudes expressed by brilliant minds can make or break the respect that any of us can have of their respective scholarship and acumen. Richard Dawkins comes to mind, but while we all know he's a brilliant chap, I'd much rather listen to someone like Kenneth Miller if I had the choice.


I'm way ahead of you there, Mr. B! I've been fully aware of Francis Collins and Biologos for years ............................... and my Masters Degree thesis was on the interface of Science (specifically the Theory of Evolution) and Worldviews in Science Education. So, thanks anyway for the attempt at providing additional info to me. I know it'll be handy for someone here, just not me.

Also, you may have me confused with some other person here.

Have you spent time analyzing ancient near east cosmology in Genesis?

And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”
Genesis 1:6

God made the dome, and separated the waters which were below the dome from the waters which were above the dome; and it was so. God called the dome heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
Genesis 1:7‭-‬8

And God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years,
Genesis 1:14

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.
Genesis 7:11

the fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained,
Genesis 8:2

And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the dome of the sky.”
Genesis 1:20

And he dreamed that there was a ladder set up on the earth, the top of it reaching to heaven; and the angels of God were ascending and descending on it. And the Lord stood beside him [or stood above it] and said, “I am the Lord, the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac; the land on which you lie I will give to you and to your offspring;
Genesis 28:12‭-‬13

“You shall not make for yourself a divine image with any form that is in the heavens above or that is in the earth below or that is in the water below the earth.
Exodus 20:4

and they saw the God of Israel. Under his feet there was something like a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness.
Exodus 24:10

Thick clouds enwrap him, so that he does not see, and he walks on the dome of heaven.’
Job 22:14

He has described a circle [earths shape] on the face of the water between light and darkness. “The pillars of heaven tremble, and they are astounded at his rebuke.
Job 26:10‭-‬11

Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a molten mirror?
Job 37:18

Hast thou with him spread out the sky, Which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?
Job 37:18

can you join him in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?
Job 37:18

Have you entered the storehouse of the snow, or seen the armory of the hail,
Job 38:22
God stores his weapons and mana in storehouses to help the isrealites in battle, and to give gifts to His people.

So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
Joshua 10:13

‭‭Ecclesiastes‬ ‭1:5‬ ‭
The sun rises, and the sun goes down; to its place it hurries, and there it rises again.

Yet in all the world their line goes out, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has pitched a tent for the sun,
Psalms 19:4

The tree that you saw, which grew great and strong, so that its top reached to heaven and was visible to the end of the whole earth,
Daniel 4:20

The Lord sits enthroned over the flood; the Lord sits enthroned as king forever.
Psalms 29:10

Yet he commanded the skies above and opened the doors of heaven,
Psalm 78:23

you set the beams of your chambers on the waters, you make the clouds your chariot, you ride on the wings of the wind,
Psalms 104:3

He causes the clouds to arise from the end of the earth, makes lightning bolts accompany the rain, and brings the wind out of his storehouses.
Psalms 135:7

To him who spread out the earth above the waters, for his loyal love endures forever.
Psalms 136:6

Praise him, highest heavens, and waters above the heavens. Let them praise the name of Yahweh, because he commanded and they were created. And he put them in place *forever and ever*, by a decree he gave that will not pass away.
Psalms 148:4‭-‬6

Praise Yah. Praise God in his sanctuary; praise him in his mighty firmament.
Psalms 150:1

and all the host of heaven shall rot. And the skies shall roll up like a scroll, and all their host shall wither like the withering of a leaf from a vine, or like the withering from a fig tree.
Isaiah 34:4

It is he who sits above the *circle* of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to live in;
Isaiah 40:22

Over the heads of the angels there was something like a dome, shining like crystal, spread out above their heads.
Ezekiel 1:22

And above the dome over their heads there was something like a throne, in appearance like sapphire stone; and seated above the likeness of a throne was something that seemed like a human form.
Ezekiel 1:26

And I looked, and look! On the dome that was above the head of the cherubim something like a stone of sapphire, and like the appearance of the shape of a throne it appeared above them.
Ezekiel 10:1

He made strong the skies above, When the springs of the deep became fixed, When He set for the sea its boundary So that the water would not transgress His command, When He marked out the foundations of the earth;
Proverbs 8:28-‬29

The sky vanished like a scroll rolling itself up, and every mountain and island was why removed from its place.
Revelation 6:14

After this I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven! And the first voice, which I had heard speaking to me like a trumpet, said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.”
Revelation 4:1

“Where were you at my laying the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you possess understanding. Who determined its measurement? Yes, you do know. Or who stretched the measuring line upon it? On what were its bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone,
Job 38:4‭-‬6

The earth and all its inhabitants are shaking; I steady its columns. Selah
Psalms 75:3

For the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, And he hath set the world upon them.
1 Samuel 2:8