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?

[DavidLeon]

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.

The question was intended to establish the relevance of proof in matters of faith. One can only prove the faith they have in their spouse is warranted upon the death of one of them. They can only prove the faith they have in their God upon the death of both the believer and unbeliever. You can't possibly not know this and this is why theists get upset when atheists demand proof, verifiable evidence. If that demand isn't disingenuous I don't know what is.

[brunumb]

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

I guess that means belief in the Bible is as fickle and ultimately as trivial as any of them.

[bluegreenearth]

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.

The question was intended to establish the relevance of proof in matters of faith. One can only prove the faith they have in their spouse is warranted upon the death of one of them. They can only prove the faith they have in their God upon the death of both the believer and unbeliever. You can't possibly not know this and this is why theists get upset when atheists demand proof, verifiable evidence. If that demand isn't disingenuous I don't know what is.

If I understand this objection correctly, it could potentially be resolved by having both atheists and theists acknowledge where no quantity or quality of evidence will ever demonstrate that an unfalsifiable religious belief is true or false. Instead, the focus of the discussion should be on the method the theists used to justify their high level of confidence (i.e. faith) in a specified unfalsifiable religious belief. If the method the theists used doesn't produce competing or contradictory results when consistently applied to all similar claims, then they will at least be able to claim that their methodology is sufficiently reliable to justify a high level of confidence in the specified unfalsifiable religious belief. However, it should be acknowledged that having a perceived justification for an unfalsifiable religious belief will never be universally acceptable as a justification for taking an action informed by that belief when the objective consequences are reliably predicted to cause negative impacts on everyone's collective well-being. In other words, the reason many atheists concern themselves with the unfalsifiable beliefs of other people is because those beliefs occasionally inform actions with objective consequences that negatively impact everyone's quality of life.

[DavidLeon]

If I understand this objection correctly, it could potentially be resolved by having both atheists and theists acknowledge where no quantity or quality of evidence will ever demonstrate that an unfalsifiable religious belief is true or false.

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.

Instead, the focus of the discussion should be on the method the theists used to justify their high level of confidence (i.e. faith) in a specified unfalsifiable religious belief.

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.

If the method the theists used doesn't produce competing or contradictory results when consistently applied to all similar claims, then they will at least be able to claim that their methodology is sufficiently reliable to justify a high level of confidence in the specified unfalsifiable religious belief.

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.

[DavidLeon]

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

I guess that means belief in the Bible is as fickle and ultimately as trivial as any of them.

Fickle? Obviously. Trivial? Far from it or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[DrNoGods]

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.

This wording suggests that all atheists criticize the religious beliefs of others. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods, and it implies nothing about the atheist's opinion of anything else (including the religious beliefs of others). I'm an atheist because I have never seen any convincing evidence that gods of any kind exist now, or ever did, and came to the conclusion several decades ago that they most likely do not exist. But most of my friends and all of my extended family are Christians of one kind or another, and I have no problems with anything they do or think and don't criticize them for their religious beliefs. Some of us are also scientists and carry on with those activities indpendent of religion entirely.

I do think it is reasonable, however, to look into certain religious claims from a scientific perspective when questions are asked as to whether something claimed in a holy book (the Christian Bible, for example) is actually true, and that question can in fact be addressed using scientific inquiry. For example, we can roughly date biblical events to occuring within the last 6000 years or so. This means we can say with absolute certainty that the human beings described in the Old Testament as reaching ages exceeding 900 years did not exist (or at least did not reach these kinds of ages). A global flood covering the entire Earth to a height covering the tallest mountain, some 4300 years ago, and killing all but 8 humans, positively did not happen. This can be proven scientifically without any doubt. There are many other examples and these are the kinds of stories that are amenable to scientific inquiry.

But science cannot prove that gods don't exist, and asking for science to prove that would be disingenuous.

[DavidLeon]

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.

This wording suggests that all atheists criticize the religious beliefs of others. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods, and it implies nothing about the atheist's opinion of anything else (including the religious beliefs of others).

It wasn't meant to. I used the term militant atheist, a small faction of atheists who are socially and politically motivated. Most atheists by far are uninterested in the social and political aspect of atheism. They aren't marching in parades, putting up billboards, bumper stickers, posting on forums. They don't care about the nativity scene or first commandments at the courthouse, don't care about evolution and prayer in the schools, etc.

I'm an atheist because I have never seen any convincing evidence that gods of any kind exist now, or ever did, and came to the conclusion several decades ago that they most likely do not exist.

Here are some definitions.

Atheism: Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Disbelief: Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real; lack of faith.

Gods: 1. (In Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

2. (In certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity; an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god; used as a conventional personification of fate.

3. An adored, admired, or influential person; a thing accorded the supreme importance appropriate to a god.

4. The gallery in a theater.

You said: "I have never seen any convincing evidence that gods of any kind exist now, or ever did."

Now you have.

But most of my friends and all of my extended family are Christians of one kind or another, and I have no problems with anything they do or think and don't criticize them for their religious beliefs. Some of us are also scientists and carry on with those activities independent of religion entirely. I do think it is reasonable, however, to look into certain religious claims from a scientific perspective when questions are asked as to whether something claimed in a holy book (the Christian Bible, for example) is actually true, and that question can in fact be addressed using scientific inquiry. For example, we can roughly date biblical events to occurring within the last 6000 years or so. This means we can say with absolute certainty that the human beings described in the Old Testament as reaching ages exceeding 900 years did not exist (or at least did not reach these kinds of ages).

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.

A global flood covering the entire Earth to a height covering the tallest mountain, some 4300 years ago, and killing all but 8 humans, positively did not happen. This can be proven scientifically without any doubt.

Demonstrate this, please.

There are many other examples and these are the kinds of stories that are amenable to scientific inquiry.

That remains to be seen, and I don't think it particularly significant. There are many things that we know exist that science can't explain.

But science cannot prove that gods don't exist, and asking for science to prove that would be disingenuous.

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.

[brunumb]

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.

One should always avoid asking for evidence in matters of faith because there just isn't any. Religious faith is akin to gullibility. Once you have drunk the Kool-Aid it becomes a matter of endlessly fending off the existing evidence that actually contradicts what the Bible says.

[Quantrill]

One should always avoid asking for evidence in matters of faith because there just isn't any. Religious faith is akin to gullibility. Once you have drunk the Kool-Aid it becomes a matter of endlessly fending off the existing evidence that actually contradicts what the Bible says.

Actually, no. As far as other 'religious faiths' go, they can answer for themselves. As far as the Christian faith goes, you don't understand it.

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.

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.

Quantrill

[brunumb]

The Christian's faith is the evidence for God and things pertaining to God.

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.