Science And The Bible

[DavidLeon]

The clash between science and religion began in the sixth century B.C.E. with the Greek mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras, whose geocentric view of the universe influenced ancient Greeks like Aristotle and Ptolemy. Aristotle's geocentric concept as a philosophy would have an influence in on the powerful Church of Rome. It was adopted by the church due to the scientist Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) who had great respect for Aristotle.

Galileo's heliocentric concept challenged Aquinas' geocentric philosophy, and Galileo had the nerve to suggest that his heliocentric concept was in harmony with Scripture, a direct challenge to the Church itself, and so bringing about the Inquisition in 1633. It was Galileo's figurative, and accurate, interpretation of Scripture against Aquinas' and the Catholic Church's literal and inaccurate interpretation. For being right Galileo stood condemned until 1992 when the Catholic Church officially admitted to their error in their judgment of Galileo.

So the static between religion and science was caused by philosophy and religion wrongly opposed to science and the Bible.

For debate, what significance does modern science bear upon an accurate understanding of the Bible? How important is science to the modern day Bible believer and where is there a conflict between the two?

[bluegreenearth]

Collection of extraordinary events that aren't uncommon? I point this apparent contradiction out but I know what you mean and that you didn't mean it in that way and you are absolutely right. I take it the event of which you speak is the allegedly answered prayer. This was just a beginning. I still had much work to do. I could have been deceived by by demons. I know that isn't acceptable to you but it is a possibility I needed to consider. I could have been deceiving myself. It could have been a coincidence, I could have been deluded, it could have been some sort of illusion caused by some previously unknown illness.

Yes, I noticed the apparent contradiction when writing that statement and initially intended to acknowledge it but ultimately decided it wasn't necessary. As for your answered prayer, I wasn't specifically targeting that claim but all the evidence you might have in support of the belief.

If you are inclined to do so, yes. That doesn't mean get out the prayer beads and head down to the airport, but why should you feel compelled to dismiss it with some logical answer that might not apply or at the least might not be the only explanation. No need to forget the airport and schedule a lobotomy or Thorazine either. Keeping in mind that the person asked for it so, it could be a self induced illusion but if the person hadn't asked for it in prayer they would have a choice to ignore it. Choosing to go no further and if necessary keeping an eye out for any other possible indications they may need medical or psychiatric attention.

I neither recall stating that your claim should be dismissed nor recall offering a logical answer as a possible explanation. My only intention thus far has been to ask critical thinking questions and examine your responses to them. To be fully transparent, I'm trying to assess if you are doxastically open or closed with respect to the religious belief you endorse.

There are many possible reasons for that, some of them mentioned above, as well as the possible choices one has in responding or not responding. Before becoming a believer I had three such events, all of which baffled me but I chose to ignore. Those weren't so easy to explain or wave away. I could give you examples of how the Bible indicates those sorts of delusions happen and what to do or not do about them, but I don't think you would be interested in hearing that, but you are absolutely right. Those sorts of events, real or perceived, are not and should not be immediately given into.

I appreciate your candor in acknowledging where extraordinary claims should not be immediately accepted. At the same time, I have the impression from your response that my question requires some clarifying. To ask it another way, when people from a different religious "faith" describe almost identical accounts of having experienced a series of extraordinary coincidences or other perceived miraculous events, are those people equally justified in attributing the cause of those claimed events to divine intervention by the god or gods of their religion?

[brunumb]

Certainly, but keeping in mind that both are simply data to interpret. Both are eyewitness testimony which is notoriously unreliable.

We do not know that the Bible is eyewitness testimony. All we really know is that it is a collection of stories refined over many centuries. To me that makes it doubly unreliable.

[DavidLeon]

Yes, I noticed the apparent contradiction when writing that statement and initially intended to acknowledge it but ultimately decided it wasn't necessary. As for your answered prayer, I wasn't specifically targeting that claim but all the evidence you might have in support of the belief.

It's all the same. I looked at it all the same. I didn't believe this stuff at the time. I thought it wise to be critical in evaluating all evidence for or against. Fairness is crucial to me. Always has been.

I neither recall stating that your claim should be dismissed nor recall offering a logical answer as a possible explanation.

You didn't. I did. Those should be considered. I set out as an irreligious unbeliever. I didn't want to be a part of that. I wanted nothing to do with it or whatever it appeared to be promising. Even if I became a believer I didn't necessarily want that. I could have made the choice to reject it even though it had convinced me of it's possible validity. It's also quite possible that my claim should have been dismissed for a myriad of reasons. At that point I'm floating downstream to see where it takes me with the possible alternative of removing myself from it. There certainly isn't anything wrong with that.

My only intention thus far has been to ask critical thinking questions and examine your responses to them. To be fully transparent, I'm trying to assess if you are doxastically open or closed with respect to the religious belief you endorse.

You're doing fine.

I appreciate your candor in acknowledging where extraordinary claims should not be immediately accepted.

I don't think any claims should be immediately accepted.

At the same time, I have the impression from your response that my question requires some clarifying. To ask it another way, when people from a different religious "faith" describe almost identical accounts of having experienced a series of extraordinary coincidences or other perceived miraculous events, are those people equally justified in attributing the cause of those claimed events to divine intervention by the god or gods of their religion?

Justified has both a secular and theological meaning that are quite different. I don't know if you intended to use the term in application to both but it sure is interesting to do that. I suspect you meant the secular meaning of having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason rather than the theological declared or made righteous in the sight of God.

In my personal case the theological had no application that I was aware of at that time and I think it would be presumptuous of me at this time to entertain such a possibility, but I can give you an example of a young man who I met in jail who that applied to. This man, he was 20 at the time but had been 18 when a drug deal went horribly wrong and he was gutted like a fish. He watched his intestines spill out and was in hospital for a long time. Part of which was spent suspended from the ceiling for some reason. In that state he had hallucinations which apparently convinced him that God had put him through this event in order for him to straighten out his life and start a ministry in which he organized raves for Jesus.

I had to explain to him that God didn't work that way, that everything about the type of raves he organized were against his will and purpose. What he did from there was between him and God.

To answer your question about people of different "faiths" i.e. religious beliefs, the answer is probably not for a variety of reason. The Bible isn't the only sacred text I've studied. I've studied many. And I've studied the other religions enough to know that nearly all of them don't make those sorts of arrangements.

[DavidLeon]

We do not know that the Bible is eyewitness testimony. All we really know is that it is a collection of stories refined over many centuries. To me that makes it doubly unreliable.

Okay, then, what is a reliable source for the lack of belief in the Gods of the very book you deny the authority of? It seems to me this forum would be a veritable playground for atheists to justify their lack of belief, which is all well and good but what is the accepted authority by which you accomplish this?

[bluegreenearth]

To answer your question about people of different "faiths" i.e. religious beliefs, the answer is probably not for a variety of reason. The Bible isn't the only sacred text I've studied. I've studied many. And I've studied the other religions enough to know that nearly all of them don't make those sorts of arrangements.

Please clarify what you meant by "those sorts of arrangements." I've conversed with numerous people from non-Christian religious traditions who claimed they had personal experiences with extraordinary coincidences or other perceived miraculous events that subsequently confirmed their faith. How does comparing the content of other sacred texts with that of the Bible invalidate the justification those people from different religious backgrounds have for attributing the cause of their extraordinary experiences to a different god? How would you respond to people from a competing religion who compared the Bible to their sacred texts and concluded that you aren't justified in attributing the cause of the miraculous occurrences you've experienced to the Christian God?

[bluegreenearth]

We do not know that the Bible is eyewitness testimony. All we really know is that it is a collection of stories refined over many centuries. To me that makes it doubly unreliable.

Okay, then, what is a reliable source for the lack of belief in the Gods of the very book you deny the authority of? It seems to me this forum would be a veritable playground for atheists to justify their lack of belief, which is all well and good but what is the accepted authority by which you accomplish this?

Is this an attempt to shift the burden of proof or am I confused?

[DavidLeon]

We do not know that the Bible is eyewitness testimony. All we really know is that it is a collection of stories refined over many centuries. To me that makes it doubly unreliable.

Okay, then, what is a reliable source for the lack of belief in the Gods of the very book you deny the authority of? It seems to me this forum would be a veritable playground for atheists to justify their lack of belief, which is all well and good but what is the accepted authority by which you accomplish this?

Is this an attempt to shift the burden of proof or am I confused?

How could the burden of proof, that is, the obligation to prove one's assertion, possibly be relevant in faith?

[brunumb]

Okay, then, what is a reliable source for the lack of belief in the Gods of the very book you deny the authority of? It seems to me this forum would be a veritable playground for atheists to justify their lack of belief, which is all well and good but what is the accepted authority by which you accomplish this?

Well, I don't need a book to tell me what to believe or not believe. Theists themselves are the best source for coming to a position of lacking belief in gods. There are thousands of flavours of religions and gods, all claimed to be the truth. Beliefs are distributed geographically in such a way as to suggest that it is communal indoctrination that is the key factor rather than any reasoned approach to finding the one true god. Studying religions in depth only tells you what they are about, not whether they represent reality or not. Studying religions with assistance and guidance only serves to have particular interpretations inculcated. Lack of knowledge and understanding of the workings of the universe makes it easier for people to accept falsehoods and miracles in the absence of satisfying answers to their questions. It is the failure of theists to justify their belief in gods that serves as justification for me to not accept any of them.

[bluegreenearth]

We do not know that the Bible is eyewitness testimony. All we really know is that it is a collection of stories refined over many centuries. To me that makes it doubly unreliable.

Okay, then, what is a reliable source for the lack of belief in the Gods of the very book you deny the authority of? It seems to me this forum would be a veritable playground for atheists to justify their lack of belief, which is all well and good but what is the accepted authority by which you accomplish this?

Is this an attempt to shift the burden of proof or am I confused?

How could the burden of proof, that is, the obligation to prove one's assertion, possibly be relevant in faith?

Having an absence of belief in a specified claim is not a faith position or a positive belief that a specified claim is false. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to require someone to provide a reliable source for an absence of belief in a specified claim.

[DavidLeon]

Well, I don't need a book to tell me what to believe or not believe.

You don't? What do you base your belief or disbelief upon? Make it up as you go along?

Theists themselves are the best source for coming to a position of lacking belief in gods.

No, theist themselves are the best source for coming to a position on theists.

There are thousands of flavours of religions and gods, all claimed to be the truth.

And none of them, including my own, are. It isn't a pop quiz, it's a lifetime commitment. Anyway, would you expect them to claim to be false?

Beliefs are distributed geographically in such a way as to suggest that it is communal indoctrination that is the key factor rather than any reasoned approach to finding the one true god.

The same as your politics, fashion, entertainment, art, music, history, education, disbelief . . . life and death.

Studying religions in depth only tells you what they are about, not whether they represent reality or not.

That are part of reality they don't represent it.

Studying religions with assistance and guidance only serves to have particular interpretations inculcated.

As with science and anything else you are educated on.

Lack of knowledge and understanding of the workings of the universe makes it easier for people to accept falsehoods and miracles in the absence of satisfying answers to their questions.

Lack of knowledge and understanding of the working of the universe only makes it easier for people to accept the current indoctrination on the working of the universe. Nothing more. The working of the universe have nothing to do with satisfying answers to questions of anything except the working of the universe as it is currently understood. It is devious to suggest answers to the question of faith can be achieved through understanding the working of the universe.

It is the failure of theists to justify their belief in gods that serves as justification for me to not accept any of them.

It most certainly is not. That's your own responsiblity.