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]

If I interpret this correctly, the fact that you are stating is that Christians who try to reconcile evolution with the bible are "appealing to academia." Evolution is a scientific theory, and if someone hasn't taken the time to understand it themselves, who better to appeal to than academia? It makes perfect sense to accept the scientific consensus on a subject if someone isn't an expert themselves, specifically for a scientific topic. I don't see the problem with an appeal to academia in this case, but you seem to think it is somehow wrong ("Do they know any better?").

In the past if you were not instructed in and didn't adhere to the teachings of astrology you were uneducated and unsophisticated. A believer in such a time would choose God over education and sophistication. Nothing has changed in that regard. Some believers think that they can appeal to the authority of academia in order to appear educated and sophisticated so they compromise God's teachings. Believe it or not some Christians are Christians in name only. They go through the motions, maybe for cultural, traditional, familial reasons. For example, I'm homosexual. I could try and convince myself that that's okay with God and continue practicing homosexuality. I don't do that. I don't wish to do that.

You could make the argument that it's okay to accept evolution but it isn't and when one truly wishes to live by God's standards instead of man's they don't compromise to fit in or be politically correct.

[brunumb]

You could make the argument that it's okay to accept evolution but it isn't and when one truly wishes to live by God's standards instead of man's they don't compromise to fit in or be politically correct.

Living by God's alleged standards and the truth of evolution are completely independent of each other.

[DavidLeon]

Living by God's alleged standards and the truth of evolution are completely independent of each other.

Right. They don't mix. The teaching of evolution isn't going to and shouldn't be compromised for the sake of God's teachings and God's teachings isn't and shouldn't be compromised for the teaching of evolution. If someone doesn't care about one or the other they can try to mix them as has been done many times in the past. What emerges is something polluted. Transmogrified.

I'm pretty sure you don't want God in your science teachings and I know I don't want science in God's teachings.

[bluegreenearth]

Living by God's alleged standards and the truth of evolution are completely independent of each other.

Right. They don't mix. The teaching of evolution isn't going to and shouldn't be compromised for the sake of God's teachings and God's teachings isn't and shouldn't be compromised for the teaching of evolution. If someone doesn't care about one or the other they can try to mix them as has been done many times in the past. What emerges is something polluted. Transmogrified.

I'm pretty sure you don't want God in your science teachings and I know I don't want science in God's teachings.

If I may ask a clarifying question, does your comment above intend to imply that you reject any demonstrable scientific knowledge which contradicts what you perceive to be God's teachings?

[DavidLeon]

Living by God's alleged standards and the truth of evolution are completely independent of each other.

Right. They don't mix. The teaching of evolution isn't going to and shouldn't be compromised for the sake of God's teachings and God's teachings isn't and shouldn't be compromised for the teaching of evolution. If someone doesn't care about one or the other they can try to mix them as has been done many times in the past. What emerges is something polluted. Transmogrified.

I'm pretty sure you don't want God in your science teachings and I know I don't want science in God's teachings.

If I may ask a clarifying question, does your comment above intend to imply that you reject any demonstrable scientific knowledge which contradicts what you perceive to be God's teachings?

I don't think that I would be in a position to answer that in the affirmative because I have no interest in science. If, for example, science came to some astonishing conclusion that God existed tomorrow I wouldn't be interested in such a conclusion. I can't reject something I take no interest in and am ignorant of. I question - no - I seriously doubt the demonstrable scientific knowledge just from a sort of disinterested distance. You can demonstrate something to be true that is completely false or something false that is true. Your demonstration is as fallible as you are.

[bluegreenearth]

I don't think that I would be in a position to answer that in the affirmative because I have no interest in science. If, for example, science came to some astonishing conclusion that God existed tomorrow I wouldn't be interested in such a conclusion. I can't reject something I take no interest in and am ignorant of. I question - no - I seriously doubt the demonstrable scientific knowledge just from a sort of disinterested distance. You can demonstrate something to be true that is completely false or something false that is true. You demonstration is as fallible as you are.

That is an interesting but puzzling response. I'm interested in learn how something false could be demonstrably true and how something true could be demonstrably false. Given that perspective, how could you acquire knowledge of any kind? Would you mind elaborating on that concept?

[brunumb]

That is an interesting but puzzling response.

Ditto. How is someone uninterested in science and presumably lacking in some knowledge in that regard, able to make informed criticism of scientific concepts and theories? I sense nothing more than science denial at work simply because it challenges biblical faith.

[DavidLeon]

That is an interesting but puzzling response.

Ditto. How is someone uninterested in science and presumably lacking in some knowledge in that regard, able to make informed criticism of scientific concepts and theories? I sense nothing more than science denial at work simply because it challenges biblical faith.

I don't think that it does challenge biblical faith, in fact, quite the contrary. If I thought that it challenged biblical faith I would educate myself on it. I don't think it's worth the consideration. What fascinates me about the science vs. religion debate is the religiosity of the "scientific" atheist.

[brunumb]

I don't think that it does challenge biblical faith, in fact, quite the contrary. If I thought that it challenged biblical faith I would educate myself on it. I don't think it's worth the consideration.

You are uneducated in it but you don't think it challenges biblical faith. How does that work?

[DavidLeon]

I don't think that it does challenge biblical faith, in fact, quite the contrary. If I thought that it challenged biblical faith I would educate myself on it. I don't think it's worth the consideration.

You are uneducated in it but you don't think it challenges biblical faith. How does that work?

Is it really that difficult to understand? You can't, in any way, relate to that? There's nothing that you are uneducated in because you have no interest in it? You don't trust it? You think it's nonsense? Nothing at all. In this, the Science And The Bible thread. Nothing. It just doesn't work that way? C'mon.