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]

I'm very skeptical of the way in which unbelievers use and weaponize the term evidence. As if you have evidence of something it is proof of something, and faith can't consist of evidence. Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened. Evidence is obtained from documents, objects, or witnesses.

Faith is not evidence. Faith is strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. In other words, it is belief held regardless of the lack of evidence.

I didn't say faith was evidence, and your definition is misleading. There are 2 distinctly different definitions of faith, only one of which you have given.

1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

Used in a sentence: "I have faith in Jehovah God's promise of everlasting peace for mankind." Or "I have faith that science and technology will find solutions for the environment."

2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

Used in a sentence: "I belong to the Christian faith."

[brunumb]

Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?

Not even close.

[DrNoGods]

Agreed. David Berlinski quoted in the following video:

David Berlinski? Nothing he says is worthy of paying attention to so I won't bother to comment on his drivel. He is a well known anti-evolutionist and secular jew who regularly bashes atheism, and science results that he personally disagrees with offering up only his opinion as evidence.

First of all, science is often stated as truth, and accepted without question by unbelievers.

If this ever happens at all, it is certainly not common or how science actually works.. Science is never simply stated as truth and believed by anyone who is a scientist or understands the scientific method. Hypotheses are made, and these hypotheses are tested extensively via observations, measurements, theoretical analysis, etc. by anyone who is interested and capable. Everyone is allowed to throw darts at the hypothesis to try and disprove it, and to carry out experiments and observations to either support it, or disprove it. This process continues until the hypothesis is either shown to be false, or has sufficient supporting evidence to transition into something that is accepted to be true. It is a process.

Many issues can remain open scientific problems for decades or centuries, and may currently have no resolution (eg. origin of life, origin of the universe, explanations for dark matter and dark energy, etc.). So work continues until the problem is solved or a hypothesis is disproved. If there are people who blindly accept a hypothesis without it having been shown to be correct are not following the scientific method and are not scientists. The word "unbelievers" is not appropriate as science is not faith based. Why religious people who are anti-science constantly make this kind of comment is a mystery. Anyone who thinks science is faith-based is scientifically illiterate.

Yes, there is. For example, it's common for some new scientific finding that starts out with "we used to think [insert science here] was true, but now we know [insert some other science here]." The science vs. religion debate is a dog chasing it's tail. Each side insisting that the other take their faith seriously. I don't ask you to accept my faith, don't ask me to accept yours.

What is wrong with new discoveries or information supplanting older knowledge, and how does that relate in any way to the science vs. religion debate? New scienctific results replacing or refining older results happens all the time and is a perfectly normal part of scientific discovery and advancement, and has nothing to do with the science vs. religion debate. Not sure what your point was with the above comments. And again, science is not faith-based and never has been. If you think it is, the you clearly do not understand how science and the scientific method work. It if were faith based, it would be a religion of some sort because it would involve believing things without evidence. Science is exactly the opposite and requires evidence, and enough of it to either reach a conclusion as to the truth, or not, of a hypothesis or proposition, or to have the problem remain open for continued investigation. Faith has nothing to do with any part of the process.

Okay. Can anyone here tell me what the discovery of pim reveals regarding the Higher Criticism that the Bible was written post-exilic?

I expect there are plenty of people on this forum who can respond to that ... particulary those who participate in the Christianity and Apologetics subsection. Why don't you post the question there where it is more likely to be seen by the right people who may not hang out in this science and religion section? There are a lot of very knowledgeable blble scholars on this website.

[DavidLeon]

David Berlinski? Nothing he says is worthy of paying attention to so I won't bother to comment on his drivel. He is a well known anti-evolutionist and secular jew who regularly bashes atheism, and science results that he personally disagrees with offering up only his opinion as evidence.

That's the problem. Scientific atheism only responds to criticism of those whom they agree with. That pretty much confirms about 40% of what he said in the quote, so ... a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University.

First of all, science is often stated as truth, and accepted without question by unbelievers.

If this ever happens at all, it is certainly not common or how science actually works. Science is never simply stated as truth and believed by anyone who is a scientist or understands the scientific method. Hypotheses are made, and these hypotheses are tested extensively via observations, measurements, theoretical analysis, etc. by anyone who is interested and capable. Everyone is allowed to throw darts at the hypothesis to try and disprove it, and to carry out experiments and observations to either support it, or disprove it. This process continues until the hypothesis is either shown to be false, or has sufficient supporting evidence to transition into something that is accepted to be true. It is a process.

Yeah, I know how the methodology supposedly works but in reality it's practical use flies in the face of reason. Some of that was mentioned in the Berlinski quote. I've been debating atheists for a quarter of a century and I know that if I allow it, I would spend the majority of my time arguing with scientific atheists who always chant that methodology as if by rote while insisting that current science is absolute disproof of
the Bible and the only real source of knowledge. In their mind the only thing that can criticize science is science. But it isn't science I'm talking about, it's scientific atheists who misrepresent it. Me - I point to that sort of confirmation bias in Christianity, Christendom, Theology, the Watchtower etc. and say "No! That isn't right. Here's why." They (scientific atheists) wouldn't dream of doing that. Impervious, it seems, to any criticism. Dogmatic.

Many issues can remain open scientific problems for decades or centuries, and may currently have no resolution (eg. origin of life, origin of the universe, explanations for dark matter and dark energy, etc.). So work continues until the problem is solved or a hypothesis is disproved. If there are people who blindly accept a hypothesis without it having been shown to be correct are not following the scientific method and are not scientists. The word "unbelievers" is not appropriate as science is not faith based. Why religious people who are anti-science constantly make this kind of comment is a mystery. Anyone who thinks science is faith-based is scientifically illiterate.

Everything is faith based. You contradict yourself. (See bold) That's faith. When someone shows you a photograph of a collection of ape skulls as an alleged indication of evolution, that's faith. When it is suggested that evolution will continue as it always has, that's faith. When someone says this is scientific fact and it changes 20 years later it wasn't scientific fact it was faith. It's the argument that the Bible is wrong so you shouldn't have faith in it while doing the same thing with science. Science says the Bible is wrong. Science says science is wrong. It's blatant frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt. A failed metaphysical experiment.

Yes, there is. For example, it's common for some new scientific finding that starts out with "we used to think [insert science here] was true, but now we know [insert some other science here]." The science vs. religion debate is a dog chasing it's tail. Each side insisting that the other take their faith seriously. I don't ask you to accept my faith, don't ask me to accept yours.

What is wrong with new discoveries or information supplanting older knowledge, and how does that relate in any way to the science vs. religion debate?

There's nothing wrong with new discoveries and supplanting older knowledge. There's nothing wrong with being wrong. Unless they (scientific atheism) claims to be the arbiter of absolute knowledge while they are doing it. So they laugh at the religious and the real innovators in science because they don't adhere to their scientific tyrannical monopolization. They laugh until they are usurped or they figure out where they screwed up and change. I don't trust them. I don't like the way they think. I'm not interested in what they say. They have no more relevance to me than the weather man.

The need for publishing, tenure, peer review, all scream potential abuse. It doesn't matter what they say anyway. Just come back in 40 years and it will all be rubbish. Science is a method of investigation not a belief system.

[Difflugia]

Scientific atheism only responds to criticism of those whom they agree with.

No, scientific atheism only responds to criticism if it accurately represents the science and deals with evidence in a scientific way. It's far too easy to turn "the scientists won't acknowledge my arguments" into a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy because there are too many critiques, whether honestly offered or not, that sound scientific, but just aren't. A few egregious, but common creationist claims are:

• Evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics
• There are no mechanisms for new genetic information
• The odds of a protein evolving are the same as a particular protein spontaneously assembling
• If humans evolved from apes (or, better yet, monkeys), then why are there still apes (or monkeys)?

A significant part of a scientist's job is to think of ways that her hypotheses might be wrong. She has already dealt with the easy, obvious, low-hanging fruit before she started even collecting data, let alone got around to publishing. If she did miss something, that's one of the things peer-reviewers are supposed to look for. It's not impossible that something easy got missed, but it's very, very unlikely. If the killer critique relies on scientists having missed something simple, it's almost certainly wrong. Scientists generally expect that those offering criticism have at least done their own homework. If it's obvious they haven't, they won't get a response.

[DavidLeon]

scientific atheism only responds to criticism if it accurately represents the science and deals with evidence in a scientific way.

Right. If someone comes around and bothers to demonstrate where they were obviously wrong. After the three stages of denial they jump real quick on the bandwagon and claim what a wonderful thing science has done. Like the Wright Brothers, Jane Goodall, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, etc.

[Difflugia]

Right. If someone comes around and bothers to demonstrate where they were obviously wrong. After the three stages of denial they jump real quick on the bandwagon and claim what a wonderful thing science has done. Like the Wright Brothers, Jane Goodall, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, etc.

What?

[DrNoGods]

Yeah, I know how the methodology supposedly works but in reality it's practical use flies in the face of reason.

In reality it is how we understand nature and develop new technology, find cures for diseases, etc. Science via the scientific method has proven itself to be incredibly valuable in virtually area of human endeavor. If you think it "flies in the face of reason" you must have a very wrong understanding of what science is and how it works.

Everything is faith based. You contradict yourself. (See bold) That's faith. When someone shows you a photograph of a collection of ape skulls as an alleged indication of evolution, that's faith. When it is suggested that evolution will continue as it always has, that's faith. When someone says this is scientific fact and it changes 20 years later it wasn't scientific fact it was faith. It's the argument that the Bible is wrong so you shouldn't have faith in it while doing the same thing with science. Science says the Bible is wrong. Science says science is wrong. It's blatant frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt. A failed metaphysical experiment.

Not everything is faith based unless you have a very strange definition of faith. Do you think that the axioms underlying mathematics are faith based? Do you think that the fundamental laws of physics are faith based? These things have no dependence on anyone's faith or whether or not they believe them to be true or false. The bolded statement does not contradict anything I've said ... it is simply a statement that there are open scientific problems that are still being worked on. How does that in any way contradict anything I've said previously? It is a simple statement of fact. I've never made a claim that all scientific problems have been solved, or that refinements don't happen, or that theories are not modified based on new evidence and observations, etc. This happens all the time and is a normal part of science.

You seem to be suggesting that a scientific understanding of something at one point in time can never be changed as a result of new information, and if it is that is somehow a problem. Science does not use the word "fact" (although there are many things that have been proven to a level that they can be said to be facts, such as the heliocentric theory of our solar system for just one example). It isn't faith if new evidence requires changes to a theory in some way.

A photograph of a collection of ape skulls is just a tiny, miniscule part of the gigantic body of evidence that supports evolution as a correct theory. That body of evidence is there for anyone to examine and interpret, and most religious people I know reject it primarily because it contradicts the biblical creation story, not because the evidence and its interpertation dont' hold up to scrutiny. The biblical creation story is mythical just like the dozens or hundreds of other creation myths from other religions (most have one). If evolution did not contradict the biblical creation story in any way, I doubt there would be any opposition to it by religious groups. Organizations like Answers in Genesis, for example, only attack science issues that contradict the bible, and they seem happy to accept anything science produces that does not specifically contradict biblical stories. That says a lot about their real motives, and others who use the same tactics, or try to argue that science is faith based or even a religion itself.

They have no more relevance to me than the weather man.

Probably mutual, although I don't know any weather men or women. You seem to have this idea that all scientists who are atheists are somehow evil and have as their goal to discredit the bible, or religious people and institutions in general. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods ... it does not have any mission to attack the bible or religious people. There are certainly militant atheists who do that sort of thing, but that is not what atheism is and there are plenty of atheists who are not scientists, and plenty of scientists who are not atheists. I would guess that your obvious disdain for scientists who happen to also be atheists is that they often speak up when someone makes a claim as to the scientific validity of a biblical story or event. When these stories are shown to be false, scientifically, the most common response seems to be (as you are doing here) to claim that science is also faith based with the idea that this somehow renders it unreliable. That approach has never worked because it is wrong.

Just come back in 40 years and it will all be rubbish.

There are countless examples of science from 40 years ago and long before that are perfectly valid today.

Science is a method of investigation not a belief system.

Bravo! But how can you finally make a valid statement like that when you've been basically arguing so far that it is some evil, faith-based enterprise aimed at the destruction of society and religion. Talk about contradicting yourself!

[DrNoGods]

Right. If someone comes around and bothers to demonstrate where they were obviously wrong. After the three stages of denial they jump real quick on the bandwagon and claim what a wonderful thing science has done. Like the Wright Brothers, Jane Goodall, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, etc.

I'll second Difflugia's "what" response. Care to elaborate on what this was supposed to mean?

[DavidLeon]

Right. If someone comes around and bothers to demonstrate where they were obviously wrong. After the three stages of denial they jump real quick on the bandwagon and claim what a wonderful thing science has done. Like the Wright Brothers, Jane Goodall, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, etc.

What?

I'll second Difflugia's "what" response. Care to elaborate on what this was supposed to mean?

People tend to be dogmatic whether they are scientists or fundamentalist. Have you ever heard a scientific atheist demean a believer for using technology to criticize science? That's textbook confirmation bias. Science, being naturally dogmatic, laughs at what they deem impossible, until someone outside of science makes it possible, then science claims the scientific method was used in making it rather than discovering it after the fact. Science is always wrong until it's not science anymore.

"You can predict absolutely everything they're going to say. Once you know the algorithmic substructure of their political ideology which is usually predicated on 5 or 6 axioms, you can use the axioms to automatically generate speech content. You don't even have to hear the person. You can just predict what they're going to say. And, so that alleviates any responsibility whatsoever they have for thinking, and it also allows them to believe that they not only have full control and full knowledge about the entire world but also the capacity to distinguish without a moment's thought between those who are on the side of the good and those who are not. And that is where the danger really comes." Jordan Peterson on the ideologically possessed.

Let's review my take on things.

1. I'm a theist. I think that is reasonable.
2. I think disagreement with theism, i.e. atheism, is also a reasonable position.
3. Contrast between science and religion is primarily due to ideological possession on both sides. I think Jordan Peterson coined the term.
4. In the past "religion" was most profoundly guilty of this. Today it's "science."
5. Religion and science are tools of mankind subject to use, misuse, abuse, neglect and corruption.
6. Demanding evidence for faith is like demanding scriptural support for science. Faith comes before evidence. Evidence isn't faith but you have faith in evidence.
7. Science is a method of investigation, not a belief system.
8. Atheist have beliefs (trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.)
9. Militant atheism is a worldview (a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world).
10. The clash between militant atheism and theism in the USA is more a product of the valid sociopolitical frustration of a irreligious minority in a theocratic / democratic majority.
11. The Bible is fallible.
12. Religion never remains true even to itself. Religion doesn't control people, people control religion.
13. If you refuse to see the faults of your own belief paradigm you are blind to the world.
14. Ideological possession is prevalent in religion, politics, nationalism, art, music, literature, entertainment, sports, history, education, science and any other human endeavor.
15. A god can be anything or anyone which is attributed might or venerated.
16. Spirituality is a personal responsibility. It is the attempt to acknowledge the powerful unseen forces in our lives. Tradition, culture, belief, etc. Spirituality is self awareness and observation.

Science, by definition, is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment; a particular area of science; a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.