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?

[DrNoGods]

Response to DavidLeon post #37:

Explain how you can determine that 900 year old persons couldn't have existed based upon an estimate of a 6000 year old Biblical history.

Because this means that the people were anatomically modern humans, like us, as for the past 6000 or so years there have been no other living examples of members of the genus homo. Therefore, the biblical characters could not have lived to 900+ years because we know from biology that this is impossible for modern homo Sapiens, and the biblical characters would have to be modern homo Sapiens if they lived during the last 6000 or so years.

Demonstrate this, please.

Noah's flood has been debunked countless times and a simple Google search can lead you to thousands of resources which you can read to see why such a flood could not have happened a measly 4300 years ago. And there are many threads on this website with such discussions as you might imagine. It can be disproved from many angles, but a few obvious ones:

1) There is no source for that much water.

2) The current distribution and genetic diversity of animals and plants on this planet, including humans, could not have arisen over just 4300 years. In the case of humans, if the flood myth were true, you're starting with only 8 humans (Noah and his wife, his three sons and their wives) and ending up only 4300 years later with the genetic diversity we have today. This simply is not possible over such a short time period. There are many other examples in this category (eg. why are kangaroos only in Australia and how did they get there if the ark landed in the middle east somewhere, such as modern Turkey).

3) The geological and archeological implications of such a global flood would be very obvious, yet they don't exist. 4300 years ago there were civilizations in several parts of the world (China, India, Middle East) that would have been wiped out and there would be great evidence of that. But there is none.

Again, just do a Google search or search this website and you can find many resources and discussions of why this flood myth is just that. It did not happen as described in the bible. Here is a start:

https://ncse.ngo/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark

Well, I for one would be unimpressed if science claimed to prove that God existed. I've already proven to you that gods do exist.

You, nor anyone else, have ever proven that gods exist. Why do you think that you have proven such a thing? There is certainly no physical evidence that gods exist, and I can't find anything you've posted in this thread that could lead to the claim that you have proven that gods do exist.

[DrNoGods]

The Christian's faith is the evidence for God and things pertaining to God. That is all the evidence he needs. (Heb. 11:1) We don't have to fend off any thing.

This is a common response from the faithful but it misuses the definition of the word "evidence." The fact that someone believes something to be true is not evidence that it is true. A Christian's faith is their belief in something regardless of evidence for or against it. There are people who sincerely believe that the Earth is flat, but this can be investigated scientifically and shown to be false.

Gods and their existence is not as concrete because most gods are defined in such a way as to intentionally bypass scientific inquiry and hard evidence for their existence. So many religious people resort to statements such as yours above which is just another way to bypass the issue regarding hard evidence. Gods have never been shown to exist, and can't be proven scientifically to not exist, and that situation is ripe for positions on either side of the debate.

Don't you find it puzzling that not one of the many thousands of gods that humans have invented has ever decided to show itself, or in some way demonstrate that it is real? Given the sheer number of gods that humans have invented, you'd think that at least one of them would figure out a way to demonstrate its existence in a way that is unambiguous. Yet it has never happened.

[DavidLeon]

Because this means that the people were anatomically modern humans, like us, as for the past 6000 or so years there have been no other living examples of members of the genus homo. Therefore, the biblical characters could not have lived to 900+ years because we know from biology that this is impossible for modern homo Sapiens, and the biblical characters would have to be modern homo Sapiens if they lived during the last 6000 or so years.

Exactly how has biology determined that it is impossible? Have they considered the difference a canopy of water vapor surrounding the earth effectively blocking the harmful rays of the sun would make? (Genesis 1:6-7; 2 Peter 3:5-6) The age of people dramatically reduced after the global deluge.

Noah's flood has been debunked countless times and a simple Google search can lead you to thousands of resources which you can read to see why such a flood could not have happened a measly 4300 years ago. And there are many threads on this website with such discussions as you might imagine. It can be disproved from many angles, but a few obvious ones:

1) There is no source for that much water.

It came from the canopy mentioned above. (Genesis 1:6-7; 2 Peter 3:5-6)

"The region above about 80 miles is very hot, over 100° F and possibly rising to 3000° F, and is in fact called the thermosphere for this reason. High temperature, of course, is the chief requisite for retaining a large quantity of water vapor. Furthermore, it is known that water vapor is substantially lighter than air and most of the other gases making up the atmosphere. There is thus nothing physically impossible about the concept of a vast thermal vapor blanket once existing in the upper atmosphere." - The Genesis Flood (1961), by John C. Whitcomb, Jr., and Henry M. Morris.

2) The current distribution and genetic diversity of animals and plants on this planet, including humans, could not have arisen over just 4300 years. In the case of humans, if the flood myth were true, you're starting with only 8 humans (Noah and his wife, his three sons and their wives) and ending up only 4300 years later with the genetic diversity we have today. This simply is not possible over such a short time period. There are many other examples in this category (eg. why are kangaroos only in Australia and how did they get there if the ark landed in the middle east somewhere, such as modern Turkey).

Again, how is this determined? A one time event, unprecedented in human history, is impossible by today's standards?

"The way fishes by the millions are entombed in the rocks of England, Scotland, Wales, Germany, Switzerland, the American Rockies; the way elephants and rhinoceroses are buried by the millions in Alaska, Siberia, England, Italy, Greece; the way hippopotami are buried by the thousands in Sicily; the way reptiles are buried by the millions in western Canada, the United States, South America, Africa, Australia, to mention only a portion of such instances, absolutely require the explanation of great catastrophes for their elucidation." - The Deluge Story in Stone, Byron C. Nelson.

"The list of animals that have been thawed out of this mess would cover several pages. . . . They are all in the muck. These facts indicated water as the agency which engulfed the creatures. . . . many of these animals were perfectly fresh, whole and undamaged, and still either standing or at least kneeling upright. . . .

"Here is a really shocking - to our previous way of thinking - picture. Vast herds of enormous, well fed beasts not specifically designed for extreme cold, placidly feeding in sunny pastures, delicately plucking flowering buttercups at a temperature in which we would probably not even have needed a coat. Suddenly they were all killed without any visible sign of violence and before they could so much as swallow a last mouthful of food, and then were quick frozen so rapidly that every cell of their bodies is perfectly preserved, despite their great bulk and their high temperature. What, we may well ask, could possibly do this?" - Riddle of the Frozen Giants, The Saturday Evening Post, January 16, 1960.

The geological and archeological implications of such a global flood would be very obvious, yet they don't exist. 4300 years ago there were civilizations in several parts of the world (China, India, Middle East) that would have been wiped out and there would be great evidence of that. But there is none.

And yet again, how is this determined? This canopy would act as a greenhouse, producing a milder climate earth wide. A tropical or sub-tropical climate with an abundance of vegetation. Like Antarctica used to be. The effect of tremendous forces of water would have caused mountains to form which would act as climatic barriers.

You, nor anyone else, have ever proven that gods exist. Why do you think that you have proven such a thing? There is certainly no physical evidence that gods exist, and I can't find anything you've posted in this thread that could lead to the claim that you have proven that gods do exist.

You stated no kinds of gods existed or has ever existed. I gave you several examples of gods that exist. An image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god; used as a conventional personification of fate, an adored, admired, or influential person; a thing accorded the supreme importance appropriate to a god, the gallery in a theater.

[Quantrill]

Faith is not evidence of anything. Faith is a necessity precisely because there is no evidence for any gods let alone the three of Christianity.

Sorry. But you don't decide what the Christian faith is. God does through His Word the Bible.

(Heb. 11:1) "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

You don't have to believe it, or like it. But that is the Christian faith. It is the evidence.

Quantrill

[DrNoGods]

Exactly how has biology determined that it is impossible? Have they considered the difference a canopy of water vapor surrounding the earth effectively blocking the harmful rays of the sun would make? (Genesis 1:6-7; 2 Peter 3:5-6) The age of people dramatically reduced after the global deluge.

Why would they consider that such a canopy of water exists, when we can directly observe that it does not? You can't use the bible itself as a reference to support a claim (per the rules of this forum), and there is no reason to believe that this "canopy of water" has ever existed. It certainly does not now. The total amount of water in the atmosphere, if condensed into liquid on the Earth at any point in time, would create a surface covering with a depth measured in mm or less (this is generally referred to as "precipitable microns"). But this has nothing to do with the age of humans. Roughly 6000 years is the total time period under consideration if the bible is taken literally, and written history extends back to about 5500 years. No human being has ever lived anywhere near 200 years, much less 900+, during that time. Human life spans have increased over time, and the current oldest living humans are under 120 years old (122 years is the oldest confirmed age of a human). The biblical tall tales of people living hundreds of years is just myth ... it is not biologically possible now, or 6000 years ago.

It came from the canopy mentioned above. (Genesis 1:6-7; 2 Peter 3:5-6).

There is no such canopy. Again, the bible cannot be used as a reference to support a scientific claim, so what other evidence do you have that such a canopy of water existed? You can't invoke the existence of such a canopy for any reason without first demonstrating that it existed, and we know that no such thing exists now. The total water in the atmosphere is entirely negligible compared to the amount of water needed to cover the Earth to the tops of the highest mountains. If all the polar ice and glaciers melted it would only raise sea levels by about 60 meters. There is simply no source for the amount of water needed for Noah's flood. The Whitcomb quote is not quantitative (probably on purpose). When you consider the total pressure in the thermosphere, and assume it were saturated with water vapor, the total amount of water it could contain is negligible. The thermosphere begins at about 85 km, and the temperatures there based on the kinetic energy of moving gas molecules can be very high (2000C or more), but it you stuck a thermometer there it would read below freezing because of the very low gas density. The total gas mass in the thermosphere is only about 0.002% of the total atmospheric gas mass, and even if all of the molecules in the thermosphere were water it is nothing compared to what would be needed for Noah's flood, or to support any other biblical stories.

Again, how is this determined? A one time event, unprecedented in human history, is impossible by today's standards?

By simple genetics and biology. First, you can't assume the flood happened when the discussion is about whether it did or not, so this "one time event" is not a given. But even if it did and it killed all but the 8 humans mentioned, do you really believe that this genetic base of humans could produce, in 4300 years, the genetic diversity we see today in 7.5 billion people spread across the globe? Modern genetics tells us that this could not have happened. As for kangaroos being in Australia and nowhere else, how can that be explained if the ark landed in, say, Turkey? Why aren't there kangaroos in between the landing spot and Australia? How did they get to Australia in the first place? The whole story is just nonsense when examined scientifically, and can only be explained using miracles and god magic. But this debate has been carried out so many times on this website, and in society in general, that there is no point is dredging it up again in another thread. The flood supporters lost the battle long ago to legitimate scientific analysis, and it was an easy win for science. Just search this website if you want to read up on the many similar debates concerning Noah's flood ... there are plenty of examples.

And yet again, how is this determined? This canopy would act as a greenhouse, producing a milder climate earth wide. A tropical or sub-tropical climate with an abundance of vegetation. Like Antarctica used to be. The effect of tremendous forces of water would have caused mountains to form which would act as climatic barriers.

This is just handwaving speculation, based on an assumption that this magic canopy existed, and is not at all quantitative.

You stated no kinds of gods existed or has ever existed. I gave you several examples of gods that exist. An image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god; used as a conventional personification of fate, an adored, admired, or influential person; a thing accorded the supreme importance appropriate to a god, the gallery in a theater.

An image, idol, animal or other object that symbolizes a god is not a god. If such an object were worshiped as a god directly then by definition I suppose it could be categorized as a "god." But I'm referring to the most common use of the word "god" as a deity or supernatural being of some sort, superior to humans, and not to an animal or human that is worshiped directly as a god. I'll use a word you used earlier and suggest that you are being disingenuous if you are now arguing that an animal, human or idol that is worshipped directly as a god is a counter to my claim that no gods have ever been shown to exist. So to clarify, I am referring to gods that are a deity and worshipped as the godhead of a religion such as Christianity, Islam, etc., or one of many gods in polytheist religions such as the Greek and Roman gods (Zeus, etc.). These are (by far) the most common gods humans have invented and not one of them has ever made itself visible, or in some other way shown unambiguously that it exists.

[bluegreenearth]

I don't even know what that means. I must confess, science minded atheists baffle me. There's very little that you can prove in life. You can't even prove what you had for lunch. Atheists act as if they use a concrete world view as a crutch much the same as they claim the religious use religion as a crutch. Just take a good look at the reasons militant atheists protest faith. They hate myth and religiosity? Okay, do they celebrate holidays like Christmas and Easter because it's adorable to deceive their children with myth and religiosity and materialism? In the most crucial time of the child's development? C'mon. The more people reason the more they don't make sense.

I like challenging science before atheists because it's so interesting to watch their dogmatic reaction. The more they deny it the more obvious it is. You have to take that into account with both atheists and theists.

The approach I'm recommending here neither demands verifiable proof for faith-based religious claims nor dogmatically defends science as an infallible doctrine. So, I can only presume your response above was motivated by a need to vent some frustrations that appear to transpire from your perception of atheists. Meanwhile, please recognize that the atheist you are currently interacting with (me) doesn't necessarily match the stereotype you've described (at least not intentionally).

Why even do that? If there is doubt that the Gospels are true because there is a 40-60 year period of time after the events before they were allegedly committed to writing how can you seriously look at anything Sidhartha Gautama said when it wasn't committed to writing until 500 - 1000 years later? You can, to some degree, trace the mixing of mythologies and religious belief but it takes on a life of it's own. Even the relatively brief history of the USA, 243 years, is steeped in myth and legend. How are you going to falsify that? Historians agree? Historians only repeat lies agreed upon; the victor writes the history. In religious beliefs are you going to go with the majority who usually know very little or the scholars who are always a reflection of the traditions which are primarily myth and legends just as history is? Abraham Lincoln allegedly said that you can easily convince anyone of something is true but once they believe something it is nearly impossible to get them to change their mind. Add passion to a belief as is found in the atheist / theist debate or politics and you can forget about any real notions of falsification.

As I've said here many times, demanding verifiable evidence in matters of faith is, not only disingenuous but also as nonsensical as demanding scriptural support of scientific theory.

Once again, the approach I'm recommending here does not demand verifiable evidence for faith-based beliefs. Instead, it is designed to facilitate critical thinking about the reasons theists give for their high level of confidence in a religious belief regardless of whether that belief can be proved with verifiable evidence or not.

I'm not sure it can work that way. I don't think it should work that way. Sidhartha Gautama said that there was no God and if there was he wouldn't be concerned with the lives of men. Are you going to judge that by Jesus' teachings? The beliefs of everyone should be respected. The problem with religion is that when it appeals to the masses or is sponsored by the state (state religion) the original teachings are transmogrified for the benefit of leaders, either of the state or the religion or both. Religion should be allowed to keep it's integrity and they shouldn't have to provide verifiable evidence, or proof or be scrutinized from anyone unless they are bringing real harm.

In America the atheist criticize the beliefs of others for social and political reasons and to justify or for affirmation of their own warped sense of reality.

Firstly, people certainly deserve respect but beliefs do not. All beliefs must compete in the marketplace of ideas if we value the intellectually honest pursuit of a functional knowledge base.

Secondly, if you doubt the approach I'm recommending, we could test it and allow the results to determine whether the method succeeds or fails at facilitating a more productive dialogue between theists and atheists. Worst case scenario is we determine that a theist's specified reason for having a high level of confidence in a religious belief is unreliable, but this wouldn't imply the belief is false. It would only mean that the theist should identify a more reliable reason. Best case scenario is we determine that a theist's specified reason is sufficiently reliable to support a high level of confidence in a religious belief regardless of whether the belief was actually true or not.

[brunumb]

Faith is not evidence of anything. Faith is a necessity precisely because there is no evidence for any gods let alone the three of Christianity.

Sorry. But you don't decide what the Christian faith is. God does through His Word the Bible.

(Heb. 11:1) "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

You don't have to believe it, or like it. But that is the Christian faith. It is the evidence.

Quantrill

You can call it whatever you like but it is not evidence of anything. It is merely the expression of an opinion.

[Difflugia]

The Christian's faith is the evidence for God and things pertaining to God. That is all the evidence he needs. (Heb. 11:1) We don't have to fend off any thing.

Sorry. But you don't decide what the Christian faith is. God does through His Word the Bible.

(Heb. 11:1) "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

You don't have to believe it, or like it. But that is the Christian faith. It is the evidence.

You're missing the point that the author of Hebrews (or God, if you want) is trying to make. The "evidence" that a Christian's faith provides isn't evidence to the Christian him- or herself, but to everyone else that the "unseen things" are real. The rest of the chapter is a list of examples that explain that very point. Hebrews 11:1 is saying that your faith as a Christian is two things. First, it is what causes God to accept you into heaven; it is the one thing that assures your salvation. Second, it is evidence of the reality of God, not to you, but to the rest of us. Each example offered in the rest of the chapter is an illustration from the Old Testament that is split into two parts. The first part is that the faith of an OT character was deemed acceptable to God and the second is that the rest of us can treat the character's faith as a reason to have faith ourselves.

The author of Hebrews is just making an argument from popularity.

Science and higher criticism can attack the Bible all it wants, but it cannot affect it. It is like throwing an egg at the rock of Gibraltar.

It's not "the Bible" that's unchangeable, but the faith of the Christians that's unaffected. Some see that as a good thing, but it looks to me just like stubbornness. Instead of "throwing an egg at the rock of Gibraltar," it's more like giving a math book to a bunch of cats. You don't get cats that can add and subtract, you just get a scratched-up math book that smells like cat pee. It's what Jesus described as giving holy things to dogs and casting pearls before swine. "Don't even bother," Jesus was saying. "They won't get it, anyway."

Personally, I think Jesus was being too pessimistic and it's worth a few pearls being trampled to occasionally find someone that will consider the evidence rather than "turn and rend you."

[Quantrill]

You can call it whatever you like but it is not evidence of anything. It is merely the expression of an opinion.

No, I can call it as the Bible describes it. It is the evidence of God for the Christian.

Again, you don't define the Christian faith. You don't have to like it. You can disagree with it. But, you don't define it.

Quantrill

[Quantrill]

You're missing the point that the author of Hebrews (or God, if you want) is trying to make. The "evidence" that a Christian's faith provides isn't evidence to the Christian him- or herself, but to everyone else that the "unseen things" are real. The rest of the chapter is a list of examples that explain that very point. Hebrews 11:1 is saying that your faith as a Christian is two things. First, it is what causes God to accept you into heaven; it is the one thing that assures your salvation. Second, it is evidence of the reality of God, not to you, but to the rest of us. Each example offered in the rest of the chapter is an illustration from the Old Testament that is split into two parts. The first part is that the faith of an OT character was deemed acceptable to God and the second is that the rest of us can treat the character's faith as a reason to have faith ourselves.

The author of Hebrews is just making an argument from popularity.


It's not "the Bible" that's unchangeable, but the faith of the Christians that's unaffected. Some see that as a good thing, but it looks to me just like stubbornness. Instead of "throwing an egg at the rock of Gibraltar," it's more like giving a math book to a bunch of cats. You don't get cats that can add and subtract, you just get a scratched-up math book that smells like cat pee. It's what Jesus described as giving holy things to dogs and casting pearls before swine. "Don't even bother," Jesus was saying. "They won't get it, anyway."

Personally, I think Jesus was being too pessimistic and it's worth a few pearls being trampled to occasionally find someone that will consider the evidence rather than "turn and rend you."

No, you have missed the point.

Paul in the book of Hebrews is saying that faith itself is the evidence to the believer of things not seen.

The faith of the Christian doesn't prove the reality of God to anyone outside. Just listen to you and others on this forum. Does my faith prove to you that God and Christ and the Bible are true?

No. It is the evidence for the believer. He has it. He knows it. Just as John says. (1 John 5:10) "He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself...."

If you want to see what the believers faith produces in the opinion of those outside. Read (Heb. 11:35-38). Or, you can just read the opinions of those on this forum. Yours included.

You equate our faith with stubbornness. I suppose from the outside that it can be seen as stubborn. Yet it is more than stubborn. Stubbornness is the human trait reacting to something. The faith of the believer, of the Christian, is something he has that does not originate with him. Because he knows he has it, he is stubborn in refusing any who attempt to deny it.

Quantrill