Science and religion...

Zarathustra · Post by **Zarathustra** » Sun Feb 06, 2005 11:30 pm

Christianity and Science have been rivals for quite some time. But why? Science is exploring the fabric of our reality: the reality that was created by God. Whether the astronomers that are exploring space and the wonders of the Heavens (God probably didn't just put them because he had created humans and just wanted to pass the time) or Mathematicians/Biologists/General Scientists that are exploring the beautiful patterns that make our reality tick.

Sure, science isn't necessarily doing things in the name of God; however, Religion has been antagonizing Science for quite some time. God took a lot of time (6 days, which is a lot of time for a being that exists beyond time

) to prepare this Universe for us. The religious are saying "I'm sorry that you took so much time to make this for me, I'm obviously not worthy to be part of it". But, if God thought enough of us to put us in this beautiful universe, should we not enjoy it while we can?

Wouldn't it please God to see his subjects exploring the environment that had been prepared for them, and appreciating the intricacy of reality, as opposed to asking for forgiveness for simply being created by Him?

hannahjoy · Post by **hannahjoy** » Fri Feb 11, 2005 10:56 pm

So, hannah, are you saying (or, implying, rather) that science is a useless endeavor and that everything scientist discover, theorize, and invent is all wrong because it doesn't mention "Quantum Mechanics" "Astrophysics" "Black holes" "Amoebas" or anything like that?

By no means. I'm only saying that the Bible is trustworthy when it does mention science. Scientists have discovered a great deal of useful information that isn't mentioned in the Bible because it wasn't necessary to the Bible's purpose. I don't in any way oppose science - it is a very useful endeavor.

I'm not talking about salvation purposes - for that, the Bible is a guide which must be presumed infallible. . .
Can't we all just appreciate the Bible for what it really is - an amalgamation of beautiful Hebrew and Greek literary works that has become the basis for a great religion?

If it never claimed to be anything more we could.

II Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

II Timothy 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

"Pasa graphe theopveustos" - literally, "Every Scripture - God-breathed."

That's the strongest claim that could be made about any writing. If that is true, it has to be infallible, because God is omniscient. If that is not true, it's one of the most deceptive and dangerous books ever written, and has no authority on any subject. It cannot be infallible in spiritual matters without being infallible in every other matter, because it all claims to be from the same infallible source.

With that consideration, the canon of the Bible is not a matter to be taken lightly, and it was seriously and prayerfully considered by the Councils of the early Christians. They were not infallible, but they took great care in their decisions - that's why there were debates. They recognized how serious a matter it was.

A kind of Christianity without the Bible would be closer to that of the apostles. None of them had access to a Bible.

They had the Old Testament, and they wrote most of the New Testament - you can't get much closer than that.

It will be interesting to see, in another 1000 years or so, what new theories will be cited as "proof" against the Bible

.

Hannah Joy

MagusYanam · Post by **MagusYanam** » Fri Feb 11, 2005 11:50 pm

"Pasa graphe theopveustos" [sic] - literally, "Every Scripture - God-breathed."

That's the strongest claim that could be made about any writing. If that is true, it hasto be infallible, because God is omniscient. If that is not true, it's one of the most deceptive and dangerous books ever written, and has no authority on any subject. It cannot be infallible in spiritual matters without being infallible in every other matter, because it all claims to be from the same infallible source.

There's the gratuitous literalism again. 'God-breathed' does not mean infallible, and I note that you had to do some logical and metaphysical manoeuvring to get there. Scripture may be breathed by God, but fallible human ears still had to pick up the breath and listen, fallible human brains had to understand it and fallible human hands still had to write it down. Fallible human minds with fallible human agenda still had to decide what was 'God-breathed' and what was not. Don't get me wrong - I think that working under the inspiration of God has led many of the Bible's authors (and others in more recent times and other areas of the world) to write some of the most beautiful pieces of literature known. But to say that they were infallible is a horse of a different colour.

Also, you seem to be turning God into the argument and the problem. I have no quarrel with the idea that God is omniscient and infallible, or even that Scripture was inspired by a human understanding of God, but to follow that by saying the work of human hands - which was lent inspiration by an omniscience - is infallible is the disconnect. And there is further disconnect in saying that because it claims to be 'God-breathed', if it's not infallible, it all has to be a dangerous lie. This argument is far too generalised, too one-dimensional, draws too many simple contrasts over a book of many shades of meaning to be of value. This 'all-or-nothing' argument has to be discarded, as it can be of no value to an increasingly complex religious tradition.

bernee51 · Post by **bernee51** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 12:08 am

hannahjoy wrote: II Timothy 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.[/color]

"Pasa graphe theopveustos" - literally, "Every Scripture - God-breathed."

That's the strongest claim that could be made about any writing. If that is true, it has to be infallible, because God is omniscient.

HannaHJoy - do yo not see the circularity of this argument. The bible is the word of god because it says it is the word of god. You are using the bible to support it's own veracity. To take and accept that route is to open the possibility that ALL scripture of ALL religions that claim divinity are equally valid.

hannahjoy wrote: If that is not true, it's one of the most deceptive and dangerous books ever written, and has no authority on any subject.

Now you might be getting closer to the truth - although it is not the book that is dangerous it is the way it is interpreted and the exclusion this interpretation encourages to other philosophies.

hannahjoy wrote: It cannot be infallible in spiritual matters without being infallible in every other matter, because it all claims to be from the same infallible source.

It claims to be - there is no proof it is and this is still a circular argument.

hannahjoy wrote:. They were not infallible, but they took great care in their decisions - that's why there were debates. They recognized how serious a matter it was.

so men decided, in an agrarian age, with agrarian considerations all that is of value in the world for all time?

hannahjoy wrote:
It will be interesting to see, in another 1000 years or so, what new theories will be cited as "proof" against the Bible .

It is my hope that humans will by then have evolved spiritually to a point where the mythic gods of an agrarian age have gone the way of the power gods...ii.e nothing more than intersesting historical context

MagusYanam · Post by **MagusYanam** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 12:26 am

Also, there should be taken into consideration the alternative theory that William Ellery Channing made: that the Bible is not the revealed Word of God, but is rather the written record of the revealed Word of God. It's worth some thought, anyway.

One of my issues also with inerrancy doctrine is that it makes an idol of the Bible. Putting complete and exclusive trust in the Bible, a work that was demonstrably written by humans can lead to Bible-worship, which is tantamount to idolatry. True, authority does rest with scripture, but no more so than it does with church tradition and one's own powers of reasoning and conscience (all of which can be said to be inspired by God). Each of these is authoritative, but no one with any sense of history would claim that church tradition is infallible, and no one with any sanity would claim that their own reasoning is infallible. So by logical extension how is scripture (which is in truth a reflection of certain aspects of church tradition) any different?

Dilettante · Post by **Dilettante** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:39 pm

hannahjoy wrote:

Quote:
A kind of Christianity without the Bible would be closer to that of the apostles. None of them had access to a Bible.
They had the Old Testament, and they wrote most of the New Testament - you can't get much closer than that.

They had some books of the Old Testament, not all. It also depends on what canon you are using. Did the apostles really write most of the New Testament? Please quote sources so I can check that. Are you including Paul in the group?
Anyway, my point was that the apostles did not need a Bible. Having Jesus in person, why would they need one? Think about it.

Zarathustra · Post by **Zarathustra** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 11:31 pm

I just want to remind everyone: this thread is about the relationship between science and religion, not the place of the Bible as the Word of God or otherwise.

hannahjoy · Post by **hannahjoy** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 11:35 pm

Sorry about that

. That's why I started another thread.

Zarathustra · Post by **Zarathustra** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 11:56 pm

Don't worry about it, it was bound to happen, and we all contributed.