Science and Scripture

[hedrick]

Agreed. But there can be large movements within scientific disciplines that are unscientific.

The intent in the OP seemed to relate to how apologetics should deal with science. One approach is certainly to reject value-free science. There are versions of biology, archaeology, astronomy and psychology that use Christian principles as well as the usual scientific ones. That's a possible answer to the original question. Plenty of Christians think value free science is impossible, and scientists are use assumptions that are inherently biased. I don’t buy it, but it’s a well known apologetic approach.

But if that's the approach you're taking, be clear that it's what you are doing. If you're trying to deal with mainstream science, you have to deal with actual mainstream science, and not make your own judgements on which is scientific.

 

[Tree of Life]

The intent in the OP seemed to relate to how apologetics should deal with science. One approach is certainly to reject value-free science. There are versions of biology, archaeology, astronomy and psychology that use Christian principles as well as the usual scientific ones. That's a possible answer to the original question. Plenty of Christians think value free science is impossible, and scientists are use assumptions that are inherently biased. I don’t buy it, but it’s a well known apologetic approach.

But if that's the approach you're taking, be clear that it's what you are doing. If you're trying to deal with mainstream science, you have to deal with actual mainstream science, and not make your own judgements on which is scientific.

I am dealing with alleged and apparent conflicts between science and Scripture.

 

[hedrick]

I am dealing with alleged and apparent conflicts between science and Scripture.

Yup. And one approach is to say that mainstream science, across a variety of disciplines, misapplies scientific principles in areas where the conclusions differ from a traditional reading of Scripture.

the challenge with that is to convince people that you’re not engaged in special pleading.

 

[zippy2006]

The intent in the OP seemed to relate to how apologetics should deal with science. One approach is certainly to reject value-free science. There are versions of biology, archaeology, astronomy and psychology that use Christian principles as well as the usual scientific ones. That's a possible answer to the original question. Plenty of Christians think value free science is impossible, and scientists are use assumptions that are inherently biased. I don’t buy it, but it’s a well known apologetic approach.

But if that's the approach you're taking, be clear that it's what you are doing. If you're trying to deal with mainstream science, you have to deal with actual mainstream science, and not make your own judgements on which is scientific.

I tend to think that value-free science, while not impossible, is rare. Now that the universities are bound up in social activism and the government agencies are falling into partisanship, there aren't many places where scientists are funded in a value-free way.

Of course you should still be able to correct for this at a more general level by comparing the results from groups with different value biases. Agreement despite differences in values would be a signal of objective results. All the same, value-free science is becoming rarer by the day.

 

[Tree of Life]

I tend to think that value-free science, while not impossible, is rare. Now that the universities are bound up in social activism and the government agencies are falling into partisanship, there aren't many places where scientists are funded in a value-free way.

Of course you should still be able to correct for this at a more general level by comparing the results from groups with different value biases. Agreement despite differences in values would be a signal of objective results. All the same, value-free science is becoming rarer by the day.

There certain is no interest-free science. Somebody pays scientists. Those people have particular interests.

 

[zippy2006]

There certain is no interest-free science. Somebody pays scientists. Those people have particular interests.

In some ways, but in the past patronage of the sciences was more often based in the interest or value of truth, which is supposed to be science's guiding star.

"[The universities] have come to speak less and less about Truth and more and more about Growing the Economy and increasing their graduates’ earning power. The audit culture imposed neoliberal market standards on the evaluation of academic inquiry, offering an additional sign that science properly belonged in the market, driven by market concerns and evaluated by market criteria. The entanglement of science with business and statecraft historically tracked the disentanglement of science from the institutions of religion. That, too, was celebrated by scientific spokespersons as a great victory, but the difference here was that science and religion in past centuries were both in the Truth Business."

-Is There a Crisis of Truth?​

 

[Tree of Life]

In some ways, but in the past patronage of the sciences was more often based in the interest or value of truth, which is supposed to be science's guiding star.

"[The universities] have come to speak less and less about Truth and more and more about Growing the Economy and increasing their graduates’ earning power. The audit culture imposed neoliberal market standards on the evaluation of academic inquiry, offering an additional sign that science properly belonged in the market, driven by market concerns and evaluated by market criteria. The entanglement of science with business and statecraft historically tracked the disentanglement of science from the institutions of religion. That, too, was celebrated by scientific spokespersons as a great victory, but the difference here was that science and religion in past centuries were both in the Truth Business."

-Is There a Crisis of Truth?​

Who can afford truth anymore?

 

[BNR32FAN]

We are at the point in our apologetics course where we are examining the claim that science and Scripture are in conflict. The most famous example of this is Darwinism and evolution. Can you think of other instances wherein science and Scripture are in an apparent conflict?

Yeah, Christ’s resurrection. God is not limited to work within the boundaries of what we know according to science. If we think He is then we don’t believe in His omnipotence.

 

[Tree of Life]

Yeah, Christ’s resurrection. God is not limited to work within the boundaries of what we know according to science. If we think He is then we don’t believe in His omnipotence.

I did a special unit on the resurrection.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I did a special unit on the resurrection.

I haven’t seen it brother.

 

[Larniavc]

It makes sense to ask whether anything is scientific or unscientific if you don't already know the answer to that question.

Fair enough. Odd that in the field of psychology you’ve focussed on that one area when the entire output of Freud and Jung is entirely unscientific.

 

[Larniavc]

There certain is no interest-free science. Somebody pays scientists. Those people have particular interests.

That is probably true. But it’s also true of vicars and priests. They get paid to do their jobs (and let’s not get into American Pastors with private jets or Italian priest falling over the gold in the Vatican).

Point is: if you allude to scientists not being fully trustable because of financial reasons the same can be said of the Clergy.

 

[Tree of Life]

Fair enough. Odd that in the field of psychology you’ve focussed on that one area when the entire output of Freud and Jung is entirely unscientific.

And out of vogue. Transgenderism is not.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I haven’t seen it brother.

I believe he's referring to a series of classes he's teaching at his church.

 

[( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)]

Some would say that teaching young earth creationism is a latent stumblingblock to students in colleges and universities since the professors in these institutions use the science against them and end up overturning the faith of many.

 

[essentialsaltes]

We are at the point in our apologetics course where we are examining the claim that science and Scripture are in conflict. The most famous example of this is Darwinism and evolution. Can you think of other instances wherein science and Scripture are in an apparent conflict?

If your Biblical interpretation is very literal, it will be in conflict with science.
If your Biblical interpretation is very figurative, it will not be in conflict with science.

Science does not really have literal and figurative interpretations. There's just science. It's the same whether you're in Kansas or Kathmundu. The same if you're a Mormon or a Muslim.

 

[Tree of Life]

If your Biblical interpretation is very literal, it will be in conflict with science.
If your Biblical interpretation is very figurative, it will not be in conflict with science.

Science does not really have literal and figurative interpretations. There's just science. It's the same whether you're in Kansas or Kathmundu. The same if you're a Mormon or a Muslim.

Could you be more specific about where the conflicts lie?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Could you be more specific about where the conflicts lie?

A literal reading would mean there is literally a firmament, a solid dome over a flat earth in which the stars are fixed. This is literally what the ancient Hebrews believed, and what they literally meant when they wrote about it.

A literal reading would mean there was literally a flood that killed all terrestrial life on earth, apart from the contents of a wooden ark with a small family, and small numbers of every type of animal.

These things do not correspond to reality. But some people do interpret the Bible that way.

 

[Larniavc]

Could you be more specific about where the conflicts lie?

I pointed out the issue with pi not equalling 3. Will you address it?

 

[Tree of Life]

I pointed out the issue with pi not equalling 3. Will you address it?

I'm not sure what there is to address. The Bible is the word of God but it's also a human work. It was written by humans living in a particular place at a particular time and written to humans living in a particular place at a particular time. This means that it's going to have some distinctively human elements. For example, the Bible is phenomenological. It speaks of the sun rising and setting. Of course we know that the sun does not actually rise and set. But from our vantage point it appears as if the sun rises and sets. Phenomenological language condescends to human understanding. I don't believe it poses a serious threat to the veracity of the text. The same is true with number approximations. It was not necessary for the authors of Scripture to be so precise that they would specify pi, when they could approximate without any serious consequences.