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

[shernren]

... just answer the question above, whatever your positions or presuppositions on the subject. Have fun!

 

[juvenissun]

... just answer the question above, whatever your positions or presuppositions on the subject. Have fun!

A Christian does not have to emphasize/recognize any relationship among the two.

But if one does, here is one of my special recognition:

Biblical descriptions are revelations to sciences, which are only contemporary understandings to our world.

 

[theFijian]

"All truth is God's truth"

 

[theFijian]

A Christian does not have to emphasize/recognize any relationship among the two.

I would disagree as the bible certainly does.

Biblical descriptions are revelations to sciences, which are only contemporary understandings to our world.

This is interesting although I'm afraid I don't really follow what you mean, could you expand?

 

[gluadys]

A few thoughts on the question in the OP.

Scripture tells us the natural world was made by God (creation), that it was made by God's Word, both in the sense of God speaking and in the sense of the second person of the Trinity, and that creation is a revelation and testimony to its creator.

Therefore, it is a commendable pursuit to study the natural world which God created and loves.

What God reveals is not so much answers about stuff as himself, his character, his love, his glory, his desire to be in fellowship with us. Thus Paul tells us that creation testifies to the power and glory of God. This testimony does not rely on particular facts about nature which can be revealed in the study of nature. Any and all facts about nature reveal the power and glory of God.

Therefore, we should never conclude that any truth discovered about nature robs God of his glory. All truth is God's truth and testifies to his glory.

The primary calling of Christianity is to bear witness to the love and saving power of God revealed in Christ. This witness is unaffected by current theories about nature. Whatever we know about nature does not change or deny the gospel.

Believers' in all ages have used images from nature to speak about God. The images have changed over time as our information about nature has increased, making former understandings obsolete.

We should not confuse these images with the truth they are used to illustrate. As long as the image is understandable, the truth is illustrated, even if the image is no longer scientifically accurate. An ancient depicted God's work of creation in terms of setting the earth on foundations. We depict the same work of creation in terms of the birth of galaxies, a concept unavailable to the ancient. An ancient depicted the creation of humankind in terms of a potter sculpting a human form. We depict the same work as the shaping of humankind by evolution.

This does not make the ancient stupid or wrong in his praise of the Creator. Nor does it mean that the birth of galaxies or the evolution of humanity is a denial of the Creator. The ancient praised the Creator for creation as he understood it. We praise the Creator for creation as we understand it, and our descendants, God willing, will praise the Creator for creation as they understand it. And in heaven we will all praise the Creator together, in full knowledge of all the wonders of creation, which none of us knew until then.

 

[crawfish]

How far would science have progressed if we were only allowed to study things that didn't challenge a literal bible interpretation? Even the strictest creationists hold many things as factually true that would have been heresy hundreds of years ago - and they do not affect their faith one iota.

Scientists should pursue their personal faith, no question. Science itself, though, should work from ignorance up - that is, evaluate the facts and evidence in a way that doesn't assume an outcome. To assume a particular outcome because your interpretation of the bible implies it does a disservice to the process, and could lead you down paths that God never intended.

 

[juvenissun]

I would disagree as the bible certainly does.


This is interesting although I'm afraid I don't really follow what you mean, could you expand?

In other words, the scientific message recorded in the Bible has no time limit. It was true then, it is true now and it will be true in the future. If you think about the definition of scientific knowledge as we know it today, this recognition is hard to swallow even by many Christians.

For example, the Bible says that the earth is hung in space. We did not understand it then. But we understand a little now. We could understand more in the future.
And the Bible also says there was a global flood. Nobody fully understands it YET.

 

[theFijian]

Well the difference is I guess that I don't believe that there is any specific 'scientific' message in the scripture but it is written in the language and terms of the people who were inspired to write it.

I'm not into this 'hidden' messages or codes in the Bible, isn't all scripture useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training? But what your suggesting is that some portions of scriptures were never intended for their original audience, only future audiences when they would have sufficient scientific knowledge to understand. eg. If the earth is 'hung' then what is it hung on? Isn't it orbitting the sun and rotating as it goes?

If the 'hung in space' is a scientific message then it meant nothing to the ancients (indeed the one who wrote it didn't know what he was saying) and it means nothing to us now, therefore if this portion of scripture is a scientific message then it is not useful for teaching rebuking etc. As for the global flood we'll not go there just now.

 

[juvenissun]

Well the difference is I guess that I don't believe that there is any specific 'scientific' message in the scripture but it is written in the language and terms of the people who were inspired to write it.

I'm not into this 'hidden' messages or codes in the Bible,

That is exactly my stand on the scientific message recorded in the Bible. I understand quite a few people in this forum do not think so. Yes, Biblical authors wrote those words without the modern understanding of sciences. They have their reasons and purposes of writing it. But just miraculously, it also implanted some scientific message in there, to be discovered and appreciated by later people. There is no "code" and there is nothing hidden in the Bible. It is just the same word and the same verse, which served for some purposes at the time of the author, and it serves today in terms of scientific meaning, and it will continuously be valid and revelational in the future no matter how much the science would advance. If you think about it, it is, in fact, more than miracle.

This is one of the major reason that I believe the Biblical record is inspired. No human being could write literature of this nature.

 

[Mallon]

In other words, the scientific message recorded in the Bible has no time limit.

Argh!!! What "scientific message"???
If you're reading the Bible for kernels of science, then I suggest you aren't going to find any there. The God who inspired the book of Genesis is the same God who inspired Paul to write, "Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness." So according to the Bible itself, the Scriptures were written so that we might know righteousness -- a very spiritual matter -- not science, which is a very earthly matter.
To say the Bible speaks of science is wrong because:
(a) The Bible does not claim to speak on issues of science;
(b) It subjects the Bible to the rigors of science, giving atheists an unwarranted excuse to reject the Bible, not on its message of salvation, but on its scientific merit (or lack thereof);
(c) Subjecting the Bible to science subjects God to scientific testing, and God does not want to be tested in that way (Deut 6:16).

 

[juvenissun]

Argh!!! What "scientific message"???
If you're reading the Bible for kernels of science, then I suggest you aren't going to find any there. The God who inspired the book of Genesis is the same God who inspired Paul to write, "Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness." So according to the Bible itself, the Scriptures were written so that we might know righteousness -- a very spiritual matter -- not science, which is a very earthly matter.
To say the Bible speaks of science is wrong because:
(a) The Bible does not claim to speak on issues of science;
(b) It subjects the Bible to the rigors of science, giving atheists an unwarranted excuse to reject the Bible, not on its message of salvation, but on its scientific merit (or lack thereof);
(c) Subjecting the Bible to science subjects God to scientific testing, and God does not want to be tested in that way (Deut 6:16).

Regardless, I can read A LOT science messages in the Scripture. And I am truly amazed on how true they are, and how could Biblical authors write such accurate descriptions on modern scientific understanding.

You may close your eyes to that (no problem). But I read them. And I am not forcing you to understand them. Nevertheless, in case your are interested, I guarantee that you would be amazed too.

 

[Mallon]

Regardless, I can read A LOT science messages in the Scripture. And I am truly amazed on how true they are, and how could Biblical authors write such accurate descriptions on modern scientific understanding.

You may close your eyes to that (no problem). But I read them. And I am not forcing you to understand them. Nevertheless, in case your are interested, I guarantee that you would be amazed too.

For every bit of science that the Bible got right, I can point to many bits that it got wrong. And you will tell me that I am simply misreading the Scriptures, interpreting poetry/metaphor too literally or whatever (something ECs are often accused of). So it seems we are at an impasse. In fact, I might just as easily accuse you of closing your eyes to the subject.
Despit that, I still stand my following three points, which I think make a strong case for not using the Bible as a science text, regardless of how well you personally think it stacks up scientifically:
(a) The Bible does not claim to speak on issues of science;
(b) It subjects the Bible to the rigors of science, giving atheists an unwarranted excuse to reject the Bible, not on its message of salvation, but on its scientific merit (or lack thereof);
(c) Subjecting the Bible to science subjects God to scientific testing, and God does not want to be tested in that way (Deut 6:16).

 

[juvenissun]

For every bit of science that the Bible got right, I can point to many bits that it got wrong. And you will tell me that I am simply misreading the Scriptures, interpreting poetry/metaphor too literally or whatever (something CEs are often accused of). So it seems we are at an impasse. In fact, I might just as easily accuse you of closing your eyes to the subject.

There is no point to solve this difference of view in a general sense. One has to go to specifics to make argument.

Despit that, I still stand my following three points, which I think make a strong case for not using the Bible as a science text, regardless of how well you personally think it stacks up scientifically:
(a) The Bible does not claim to speak on issues of science;
(b) It subjects the Bible to the rigors of science, giving atheists an unwarranted excuse to reject the Bible, not on its message of salvation, but on its scientific merit (or lack thereof);
(c) Subjecting the Bible to science subjects God to scientific testing, and God does not want to be tested in that way (Deut 6:16).

I can agree with you on that. That is why the Bible is never used as a science textbook or science literature. And it should not be.

 

[Mallon]

I can agree with you on that. That is why the Bible is never used as a science textbook or science literature. And it should not be.

Just to be sure: Why do you think the Bible should not be used as a science text?

 

[theFijian]

Regardless, I can read A LOT science messages in the Scripture. And I am truly amazed on how true they are, and how could Biblical authors write such accurate descriptions on modern scientific understanding.

I can agree with you on that. That is why the Bible is never used as a science textbook or science literature. And it should not be.

Ok i'm getting mixed messages here. However I suppose regarding the discussion on another thread, this is another element of post-modernism, interpretation is of the reader, or death of the author as they call it.

 

[shernren]

So a book with a lot of science messages shouldn't be used as a science textbook?

(You're almost on to something, juv, I'm just hoping you'll push just that little bit harder! =))

 

[juvenissun]

Just to be sure: Why do you think the Bible should not be used as a science text?

Because the Bible does NOT explain its scientific messages by logic and evidence. It reveals.

 

[Mallon]

Because the Bible does explain its scientific messages by logic and evidence. It reveals.

So... you think the Bible should not be read as a science textbook because it explains its scientific messages by logic and evidence? I don't understand. Did you mean to say the Bible does not explain its scientific messages by logic and evidence? What "scientific messages" are you referring to?

 

[juvenissun]

So a book with a lot of science messages shouldn't be used as a science textbook?

(You're almost on to something, juv, I'm just hoping you'll push just that little bit harder! =))

Ha ha... So you have something in your mind.
Why don't you push me a little so I will go toward the direction you like to see?

I have replied Mallon a little. But here is a view from another angle:

A science text needs to show scientific method. Bible has none in it. Scientific methods are used to gain knowledge. The words (include scientific messages) in the Bible are wisdom.

 

[juvenissun]

So... you think the Bible should not be read as a science textbook because it explains its scientific messages by logic and evidence? I don't understand. Did you mean to say the Bible does not explain its scientific messages by logic and evidence? What "scientific messages" are you referring to?

Sorry, I missed the single most important word in my last reply. I corrected it.

I posted a new thread to give the first example. It is called "Science in Bible 01". Please go there.