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

[artybloke]

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.

If the Bible has more in common with a myth like the Enuma Elish than with a science, geography, music, art, maths, or logic book, in what way would it matter if it "got things wrong" in these things?

The Bible is not a "Bumper Book of Facts", nor was it ever intended as such. It's a book of stories which tell great spiritual truths about God, the universe, and humanity. To read it as such is to interpret it in a scientistic, post-Enlightenment manner; and to get the whole thrust of the Bible wrong.

 

[juvenissun]

If the Bible has more in common with a myth like the Enuma Elish than with a science, geography, music, art, maths, or logic book, in what way would it matter if it "got things wrong" in these things?

The Bible is not a "Bumper Book of Facts", nor was it ever intended as such. It's a book of stories which tell great spiritual truths about God, the universe, and humanity. To read it as such is to interpret it in a scientistic, post-Enlightenment manner; and to get the whole thrust of the Bible wrong.

Story book does not tell truth.

OK, we are getting into the faith problem and the discussion (with you, Artybloke) stops here.

 

[theFijian]

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.

Ok so you've given up trying to defend your position that insects walk on four legs, is this because you are unwilling to admit that there is a scientific 'error' in this passage?

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.

i think any query we bring up alleging scientific 'inaccuracy' in the bible is going to be dealt with in likewise manner by yourself, you are simply going to dismiss it as a 'stupid question' then divert attention elsewhere. Ironically what you have done here is what I've tried to get you to do on other threads, you've decided to address the context and over-arching message of the passage rather than focus on specific details. Just like I tried to get you to look at the context and overarching message of Jeremiah 33, but you weren't that interested.

All we need to do is try to understand it, not to question it.

How can we understand something without asking questions?

 

[artybloke]

Story book does not tell truth.

There's a million and one poets, storytellers, artists and musicians who are now shouting "YES WE DO!!!" in your ears.

But then I guess when you've been blinded by enlightenment era scientism so thoroughly that you can't see truth in poetry and story-telling; well, you're mostly to be pitied.

And I don't honestly see the difference between your position and that of Dawkins' atheism. Both of you insist that truth can only be explained scientifically.

 

[Mallon]

Story book does not tell truth.

Ouch! So much for Jesus' unscientific, non-historical parables, then. If only he had glorified science the way you do, he might have done a better job at conveying the truth!

Stories can and do speak truth, regardless of their scientific grounding.

 

[juvenissun]

How can we understand something without asking questions?

I am going to be messy once for a change:

This questioning is not that questioning.

 

[Molal]

I am going to be messy once for a change:

This questioning is not that questioning.

I have to agree with everyone here, the bible is a book of theological truths. It is theologically inerrant.

To reiterate, it is not a book of science, but a book of theology.

 

[juvenissun]

I have to agree with everyone here, the bible is a book of theological truths. It is theologically inerrant.

To reiterate, it is not a book of science, but a book of theology.

You are avoiding hard questions and challenges.

I guess you think all people of YEC, OEC and TE in this forum are simply stupid, and debating on issues of vanity.

 

[Molal]

You are avoiding hard questions and challenges.

I guess you think all people of YEC, OEC and TE in this forum are simply stupid, and debating on issues of vanity.

You haven't asked any hard questions or challenges.

If you have some, ask them. But please state explicitly what you are asking and not cloud your question/challenge.

You guess incorrectly. Please keep your insinuations to yourself. Let us discuss the reality of the situation.

 

[theFijian]

I am going to be messy once for a change:

This questioning is not that questioning.

So you've given up trying to defend that insects walk on 'all four legs'?

 

[Scotishfury09]

So you've given up trying to defend that insects walk on 'all four legs'?

I hate to do this, but the emphasis on "all" isn't really valid. It's supplemented to create an idiom. This happens a lot in translating the Bible.

 

[juvenissun]

You haven't asked any hard questions or challenges.

If you have some, ask them. But please state explicitly what you are asking and not cloud your question/challenge.

You guess incorrectly. Please keep your insinuations to yourself. Let us discuss the reality of the situation.

Are YEC and TE people Christians? (Yes)
Are their faith based on the Bible? (Yes)
Are the debates among them related to the Bible? (Yes)
Are their debates related to issues of science?

If yes, and if the Bible is not "a book of science" (quote your words), then what are they debating about?
If they are debating about science, and science is not an issue in the Bible, are they stupid?

 

[Scotishfury09]

Are YEC and TE people Christians? (Yes)
Are their faith based on the Bible? (Yes)
Are the debates among them related to the Bible? (Yes)
Are their debates related to issues of science?

If yes, and if the Bible is not "a book of science" (quote your words), then what are they debating about?

We're still trying to prove to you it's not a book of science, aren't we?

If they are debating about science, and science is not an issue in the Bible, are they stupid?

We have to prove to you, with science, that it's not accurate science in the Bible. Is that clear?

 

[juvenissun]

We're still trying to prove to you it's not a book of science, aren't we?

We have to prove to you, with science, that it's not accurate science in the Bible. Is that clear?

No, you do not have to prove to me that the Bible is not a book of science. I know it is not. And this is not the argument.

So far, we talked about two cases: the 4-legs/6-legs issue, and the number of sacrifice issue. Both issues are not able to convince people that the Bible contains science error.

Care to go for the third one? Count this as a challenge. Which one is the next most promising one on the list quoted by Mallon?

 

[Scotishfury09]

No, you do not have to prove to me that the Bible is not a book of science. I know it is not. And this is not the argument.

So far, we talked about two cases: the 4-legs/6-legs issue, and the number of sacrifice issue. Both issues are not able to convince people that the Bible contains science error.

Care to go for the third one? Count this as a challenge. Which one is the next most promising one on the list quoted by Mallon?

First, before anything else, are those two cases considered scientifically inaccurate by you?

 

[juvenissun]

First, before anything else, are those two cases considered scientifically inaccurate by you?

Of course not.

The first one (4 legs - 6 legs) is very interesting. But it said to me that the Bible is correct (accurate) in amazing detail. I am not a biologist or a computer scientist. Otherwise, I will collect it into my Science in Bible series.

The second one is not related to science.

 

[Mallon]

We have to prove to you, with science, that it's not accurate science in the Bible.

Do you honestly think it's worth the effort? I can tell you the outcome, if you haven't already figured it out for yourself.

 

[Scotishfury09]

Do you honestly think it's worth the effort? I can tell you the outcome, if you haven't already figured it out for yourself.

I shall not be bested!

 

[artybloke]

You won't be bested, Scottish, you'll just be frustrated. YEC's have so far swallowed the scientistic lie that all truth has to be factual truth, that they'll go on stubbornly refusing to see sense from now till Doomsday.

There's none so blind as those who will not see.

 

[Molal]

Are YEC and TE people Christians? (Yes)
Are their faith based on the Bible? (Yes)
Are the debates among them related to the Bible? (Yes)
Are their debates related to issues of science?

If yes, and if the Bible is not "a book of science" (quote your words), then what are they debating about?
If they are debating about science, and science is not an issue in the Bible, are they stupid?

YECs and TEs are Christians,
Their faith is based upon the Bible, and
The debates among them are related to science and an interpretation of the bible.

We are debating about biblical interpretations. For instance, YECs interpret genesis literally - this contradicts the observed world.