Why do YE Creationists insist on a simplistic literal reading of the bible?

[BrianJK]

yet you are the ones who are so very sure of yourselves, that's obviously not true is it? and you know you're not.

You confuse me with this post... what is it that you think "I know I'm not"?

 

[BrianJK]

I am stating what is rational and logical, not what I agree or disagree with. I think you would agree, that science has made many discoveries since the time of Jesus and science has a method which it uses that has proven to be reliable, when it comes to verifying each discovery. You wouldn't be using your computer right now, be able to drive a car, have lights in your house, have healthcare that can prevent disease, cure disease etc, if it were not for the discoveries of science.

If you choose to disregard science wherever it disagrees with a book written by men centuries ago, who had zero knowledge of what we have today, then I personally would have a fundamental problem with how you choose to form your opinions, because I believe they are seriously flawed. You have chosen to remove proven objective methods from the equation and replace them with a book that even most christian historians and scholars, don't claim to be a credible historically accurate document, as opposed to a book of theology.

With that said, that is your choice and I would imagine, you make your choice of disregarding science when it conflicts with the bible, on pure faith that you are making the right choice.

You think that it is rational and logical to deny religion if science doesn't point you there. I disagree. This is not just a disagreement on what we believe, but what you call "irrational" and "illogical".

Just because science has furthered society doesn't mean everything it claims is true.

Just as you think my beliefs are seriously flawed, I would think the same way about people who deny religion because science tells them to. This is a mere disagreement between two people of different beliefs. Your belief is higher in your mind; mine is higher in mine.

I don't know which Christian historians and scholars you are consulting, but "most' is a big claim...

 

[bhsmte]

The problem isn't with science, it's with "internet scientists" who really don't have a clue what they're talking about. Science is the study of the physical world around us. It can make theories about how these things originated, but since those theories cannot be conclusively proven or disproven they are still merely works in progress. Evolution is not a proven law of science. Those who claim it's a proven fact only demonstrate that they have no clue what they're talking about.

We can see a star that is a billion light years away. We can conclude that since the light we see is a billion years old, that scientifically speaking it must be at least a billion years old. Could God have created that star three days ago? Absolutely. What the internet scientists can't comprehend is that the laws of physics only apply to things that they govern; the natural workings of the physical world. If a supernatural entity intervenes and does things which are contrary to natural law, it doesn't eradicate that law or invalidate it. Natural law doesn't apply to God.

Could God have created a mature planet? Absolutely. He could make one exactly like this one tomorrow. Scientists would still look at that one day old planet and conclude it must be billions of years old because that's what geology tells us. Science takes the measurable and extrapolates it into the immeasurable. It uses inductive reasoning. Sometimes it is provably way off base and it makes corrections. Sometimes, however, there are things that it just can't measure. A yardstick can't measure the temperature. A thermometer can't measure distance. Both of these tools can be used to measure certain things, but neither can make any determination about the things they can't measure.

Science can make no determination about the supernatural. There is no proven reliable tool to measure it. It can't say that God exists or that He doesn't. It can't account for the creation of anything that didn't follow natural processes. It can make claims about the age of the earth, but it can't disprove a single thing written in the Bible. It comes down to where you put your faith. You can be confident that God is real and the Scriptures are real while maintaining faith in the provable laws of science. As for the unprovable? That's a matter of faith as well.

It would be nice of the "internet scientists" understood any of that. Without knowing the limitations of science they will never know the glory of God. Such a loss.

Internet scientists?

Why is it KW, that approx. 90% of scientists who are with the National Academy of Science don't believe in a God? Are they internet scientists?

If you actually think the information in the bible is more reliable as true compared to how science works, I would simply state that I disagree in the strongest way possible with you.

If you want to believe that, than go ahead if it works for you. Just don't attack science, because it's discoveries may go against what you choose to believe.

I know plenty of christians who I get along swimmingly with, because they choose to believe because of personal reasons that they feel gives them hope or it may make them a better person in their own mind. What they don't do, is stand up and attack much more objective evidence compared to what rational people would consider the bible and claim science has it wrong, they simply state; they believe based on faith.

 

[bhsmte]

You think that it is rational and logical to deny religion if science doesn't point you there. I disagree. This is not just a disagreement on what we believe, but what you call "irrational" and "illogical".

Just because science has furthered society doesn't mean everything it claims is true.

Just as you think my beliefs are seriously flawed, I would think the same way about people who deny religion because science tells them to. This is a mere disagreement between two people of different beliefs. Your belief is higher in your mind; mine is higher in mine.

I don't know which Christian historians and scholars you are consulting, but "most' is a big claim...

Brian,

I have done extensive reading on NT scholars/historians in regards to the reliability of what is found in the NT and it is very interesting reading to say the least.

And yes, I do believe it is rational and very logical to state that religion is man made, the bible was man made and the evidence points strongly in this direction. I have seen those who believe in religion use their belief in very negative ways, just as some on this board claim science can be used in negative ways.

At the end of the day, personal psychological needs play a huge role in the discussion we are having here, which is another area that has intrigued me and I have explored quite extensively. Exploring this board, seeing the comments and reasoning behind certain beliefs, is like a living breathing examination of human psychology.

 

[AV1611VET]

I know plenty of christians who I get along swimmingly with, because they choose to believe because of personal reasons that they feel gives them hope or it may make them a better person in their own mind. What they don't do, is stand up and attack much more objective evidence compared to what rational people would consider the bible and claim science has it wrong, they simply state; they believe based on faith.

If they did, you wouldn't "get along swimmingly" with them, would you?

In other words, as long as they don't step on science's toes, you'll swim with them ... right?

 

[BrianJK]

Brian,

I have done extensive reading on NT scholars/historians in regards to the reliability of what is found in the NT and it is very interesting reading to say the least.

And yes, I do believe it is rational and very logical to state that religion is man made, the bible was man made and the evidence points strongly in this direction. I have seen those who believe in religion use their belief in very negative ways, just as some on this board claim science can be used in negative ways.

At the end of the day, personal psychological needs play a huge role in the discussion we are having here, which is another area that has intrigued me and I have explored quite extensively. Exploring this board, seeing the comments and reasoning behind certain beliefs, is like a living breathing examination of human psychology.

I guess we'll just have to disagree. I have seen people use religion in very good ways... but people forget about that when it's more convenient to point out how they misuse it.

 

[bhsmte]

If they did, you wouldn't "get along swimmingly" with them, would you?

In other words, as long as they don't step on science's toes, you'll swim with them ... right?

As long as they don't claim to have something they can't back up with a wee bit of logic and reason, I get along peachy with them and have no issue what so ever with what they choose to personally believe.

 

[lasthero]

It comes down to where you put your faith. You can be confident that God is real and the Scriptures are real while maintaining faith in the provable laws of science.

There are no 'provable laws' of science. Nothing is science is ever claimed to be 'proven'. A theory is the highest level of understanding you can get in science, outside of mathematics. Everything in science is theory. Theories do not graduate to facts - they are composed of facts.

 

[bhsmte]

I guess we'll just have to disagree. I have seen people use religion in very good ways... but people forget about that when it's more convenient to point out how they misuse it.

I have seen believers use their faith in positive ways as well and is the reason I always say; if your belief makes you a better person, than don't stop believing.

When I played baseball in college, I used to never step on the chalk lines when I went on the field. When I came to the batters box, I always went through a routine every single time to settle my mind. If I didn't do these things, something about me wouldn't feel right, even though to an outsider, they would look at me (or other players doing their own routine) and not understand how the routine could objectively be of any benefit.

I used to feel the same way about belief in God and after further investigation into the bible and looking at the world we live in, the desire to follow the "routine" was overwhelmed by what I would call; objectivity, reason and logic and a strong desire to not needing to fool myself any longer.

Thus, the reason personal psychological needs (IMO) plays a huge role in all of this.

 

[AV1611VET]

As long as they don't claim to have something they can't back up with a wee bit of logic and reason, I get along peachy with them and have no issue what so ever with what they choose to personally believe.

All you had to do is agree with me.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have seen believers use their faith in positive ways as well and is the reason I always say; if your belief makes you a better person, than don't stop believing.

Better in what way?

He can run faster? jump higher? score higher on science tests?

What, exactly?

 

[BrianJK]

I have seen believers use their faith in positive ways as well and is the reason I always say; if your belief makes you a better person, than don't stop believing.

When I played baseball in college, I used to never step on the chalk lines when I went on the field. When I came to the batters box, I always went through a routine every single time to settle my mind. If I didn't do these things, something about me wouldn't feel right, even though to an outsider, they would look at me (or other players doing their own routine) and not understand how the routine could objectively be of any benefit.

I used to feel the same way about belief in God and after further investigation into the bible and looking at the world we live in, the desire to follow the "routine" was overwhelmed by what I would call; objectivity, reason and logic and a strong desire to not needing to fool myself any longer.

Thus, the reason personal psychological needs (IMO) plays a huge role in all of this.

Fair enough. For me it isn't a psychological thing, and having faith without demanding irrefutable proof each time isn't unreasonable or illogical IMO

 

[bhsmte]

Better in what way?

He can run faster? jump higher? score higher on science tests?

What, exactly?

Simply being a better person.

 

[bhsmte]

Fair enough. For me it isn't a psychological thing, and having faith without demanding irrefutable proof each time isn't unreasonable or illogical IMO

IMO, it is deeply psychological and there have been psychological studies done on this very topic.

We all have psychological needs that are unique to each of us and they can be fluid and may change over time.

 

[BrianJK]

IMO, it is deeply psychological and there have been psychological studies done on this very topic.

We all have psychological needs that are unique to each of us and they can be fluid and may change over time.

I guess if people want to try and explain why others believe something they don't, that's as good an explanation as any...

 

[bhsmte]

I guess if people want to try and explain why others believe something they don't, that's as good an explanation as any...

All our behaviors have a psychological root in them.

I have psychological reasons why I believe what I do and you do as well.

 

[KWCrazy]

Why is it KW, that approx. 90% of scientists who are with the National Academy of Science don't believe in a God? Are they internet scientists?

Why is that over 90% of the graduates from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary believe in God? Could it be that if you spend many years studying something you tend to believe what you've been taught?

Here's an exercise in logic.
According to the Scriptures, "The fool has said in his heart 'there is no God.' "
Approximately 90% of scientists say "there is no God."
Therefore, approximately 90% of scientists are fools.
Or, perhaps, in learning what science can study they have lost sight of what it cannot; in learning theories of origination they have forgotten that there is no way to test those theories.

If you actually think the information in the bible is more reliable as true compared to how science works, I would simply state that I disagree in the strongest way possible with you.

You are talking about two completely different items. Science is the study of the physical world. In cannot validate or invalidate anything written in the Bible. It can say that things like a man walking on water is impossible according to natural law. It can't prove that there exists no force capable of suspending natural law. The unprovable claims of scientists may contradict the Bible, but that means nothing. The Bible never said that any of its 333 miracles CONFORMED with natural law. Unprovable theories of natural origination are no more provable than special creation.

What they don't do, is stand up and attack much more objective evidence compared to what rational people would consider the bible and claim science has it wrong.

I'm sorry if you have no understanding of science and faith; and that you don't realize that your faith in theories such as evolution and planet several billion years old require every bit as much faith as the belief in God. Your god is the rocks; ours is the Creator of the rocks.

 

[lasthero]

and that you don't realize that your faith in theories such as evolution and planet several billion years old require every bit as much faith as the belief in God

Do you understand what a scientific theory is?

 

[BrianJK]

Do enlighten...

 

[bhsmte]

Do you understand what a scientific theory is?

He may or may not, but the practice of christians to claim people who require objective evidence before believing in something is the same as having faith in God, is a common practice.

It really comes down to this; if what you believe in is based on faith and not objective evidence, then simply bring non-believers to your same level and claim they also don't believe based on faith.

To them, it brings comfort even though it has no logic.