The Bible and Science

[The Tanager]

My intent here is more about general approaches to supposed scientific contributions in the Bible, not specific cases (although examples may be helpful to make one's points, of course). I'd love to know what approach you take when looking at the Bible and science. Which of these do you agree with and why?:

1. The Bible makes direct scientific claims so, when they conflict, either the Bible or our current scientific understanding is wrong (or both are).

2. The Bible is a completely metaphorical text, not making direct claims about physical reality

3. The Bible, is mainly concerned with X (teaching what is necessary for salvation or instructing us for next practical step in life of trust in God or whatever), and uses the linguistic and phenomenological understandings of the day to get that message across

4. Something else

[Miles]

Lets take a look at two examples that speak of the same thing but in different ways.

The Earth
There is metaphorical explanation in the Bible. Example: 1 Samuel 2:8 says, "For the pillars of the earth are Jehovah’s, and he has set the world upon them."
Then there are direct explanation in the Bible. Example: In Job 26:7 says, “[God] is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing."

So one says that the Earth is on pillars and the other says the Earth hangs on nothing. Context is important. In 1 Samuel 2:8 we see in context that it is speaking not really speaking about Earth or its creation but how He supports everything and everyone. It is through Him things thrive or not. The Earth itself is no exception. Yet in Job 26:7 it is directly speaking about the details of creation and how wondrous they are.

I definitely think context is important, but I’m not sure this is as clean as you are making it out to be. Job 26:11, just 4 verses later in the same context, speaks of the pillars of the heavens. Job 9:6, which seems to be in the same kind of context of the conversations between Job and his 3 friends, speaks of the Earth’s pillars trembling. In Job 37:18 the skies are said to be as hard as a bronze mirror.

Its clean if a one accepts both scientific discoveries and the Bible. If one reads the Bible expecting the Bible and science to conflict they will find it. Just like a person that thinks storms are made to punish the sinners. People see what they want to see and find what they want to find.

When I was first listening what the Bible had to say as a youngster I sure didn't expect it to contradict science, but there it was: I heard about some guy who survived in the belly of a fish for three days and three nights. I heard that Jesus fed five thousand men plus women and children with five loaves of bread and two fish. That an ass spoke to some guy. And a stick/staff/rod changed into a snake when thrown down. And I was expected to believe these stories were all true, which I did until I grew old enough to see them as the lies they were.----Why was the Bible telling lies?---- . . . .----Why does the Bible continue to tell lies?----

Pillars are supports. God made all the things that makes the sky/heavens possible. In science we know what those things are.

Please, what are they?

The Bible puts things in simple terms that all can understand. Its not meant to be taken literally.

Then why was I told they were literally true? That Jonah actually survived in the belly of a fish for three days and three nights? And that Jesus really did feed five thousand men plus women and children with five loaves of bread and two fish?

According to a Los Angeles Times article "A 79% majority [of Americans] said they believe the miracles detailed in the Bible actually occurred."
source

I don't go into the Bible looking to prove my own agenda. I don't use it to explain things to atheists who have no desire to understand spiritual things.

And until there's incontrovertible evidence that there's such a thing as a spiritual side of life why should they? Atheists shouldn't. Do you have incontrovertible evidence there's such a thing as a spiritual side of life? My bet is that you don't. Your belief in spiritual things is likely nothing more than faith: Believing something in spite of good reasons not to.

.

[theophile]

3 is probably closest to what I would say though. To put it otherwise, I would say that the bible is ultimately religion / fiction (it is a made up system), and as such is a different domain than science, even though it utilizes scientific things such as history and cosmology in its narratives. This doesn't make it science but it does make it vulnerable to scientific dispute...

That said, I don't think the bible should be dismissed on account of its scientific disparity. The maxims that the bible teaches are more important than the historical facts it gets wrong. And its concepts, although metaphorical and fictionally represented, still have reality to them. Concepts such as God. (I don't believe there was a God who actually created the world in the way that Genesis says, but I do think the God of Genesis is real, and that there is such a God out there...)

This lets me hold both the bible and science in the full regard appropriate to each.

Are you saying it is always wrong in its scientific and historical claims? If it is sometimes correct, wouldn’t those parts “make it science” for at least those parts?

I'm sure there are some things the bible gets right, especially from an historical perspective. As to whether the stuff it gets right is science, that depends on how we define science. Is science simply knowledge / truth? Some people have a more narrow definition as the knowledge that arises from a certain method, i.e., the scientific method. In this case the bible would only ever be pseudoscience, never science, even in the things it gets right.

I would tend towards this narrower definition and conclusion. I think we muddy the waters otherwise and will never be able to get past the disparity and appreciate the many non-scientific truths conveyed by the bible.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #10]

I think I misunderstood your first post, as I thought you were saying Job 26:7 was literal, while the things we know are scientifically wrong are metaphorical. But you seem to be speaking against determining literal/metaphorical by some outside agenda (philosophy, theology, science, etc.), reading those things into the text. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

[The Tanager]

I heard about some guy who survived in the belly of a fish for three days and three nights. I heard that Jesus fed five thousand men plus women and children with five loaves of bread and two fish. That an ass spoke to some guy. And a stick/staff/rod changed into a snake when thrown down. And I was expected to believe these stories were all true, which I did until I grew old enough to see them as the lies they were.

You said the approach you take to finding the truths of existence is a “consistent, testable, honest, systematic, analytical, factual, specialized, methodical, cumulative, provisional, verifiable, and open approach.” You seem to think that is how you came to believe all claims of miracles are untrue. Can you show the process on how this specifically disproves miracles?

[2timothy316]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #10]

I think I misunderstood your first post, as I thought you were saying Job 26:7 was literal, while the things we know are scientifically wrong are metaphorical. But you seem to be speaking against determining literal/metaphorical by some outside agenda (philosophy, theology, science, etc.), reading those things into the text. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I speak against being all one way or another because of tradition or just plainly being stubborn. When it comes to the Bible and science that one really must make up their own mind what they want to get out of both. I want truth.

Others don't really want truth they want their personal ideas proven right or made to look true. The Bible and/or science is a tool to them to prove their point. Science can answer how but it doesn't answer the why. The Bible answers the why but doesn't address the how but only a few times. I think its a real shame when a person rejects the Bible or rejects scientific discoveries. I think those that ignore one or the other are more afraid of being wrong, having their beliefs tested than concerned what is true. Personally, I love my beliefs to be tested. It's one of the reasons I come to this forum. To reaffirm what I have found so far to be reasonably sound vs other ideas.

[Miles]

I heard about some guy who survived in the belly of a fish for three days and three nights. I heard that Jesus fed five thousand men plus women and children with five loaves of bread and two fish. That an ass spoke to some guy. And a stick/staff/rod changed into a snake when thrown down. And I was expected to believe these stories were all true, which I did until I grew old enough to see them as the lies they were.

You said the approach you take to finding the truths of existence is a “consistent, testable, honest, systematic, analytical, factual, specialized, methodical, cumulative, provisional, verifiable, and open approach.” You seem to think that is how you came to believe all claims of miracles are untrue. Can you show the process on how this specifically disproves miracles?

No, I said "I expect science to be a consistent, testable, honest, systematic, analytical, factual, specialized, methodical, cumulative, provisional, verifiable, and open approach to finding the truths of existence." I am not science.

.

[The Tanager]

No, I said "I expect science to be a consistent, testable, honest, systematic, analytical, factual, specialized, methodical, cumulative, provisional, verifiable, and open approach to finding the truths of existence." I am not science.

I didn't say you were that, I said the approach you take to finding truths about existence was that. I thought you were claiming (in post 3) that science disproves miracles. So, you don't think science disproves miracles? If so, then is it "common sense" (the other option you named in post 3) that disproves miracles? If so, can you explain that more?

[Miles]

No, I said "I expect science to be a consistent, testable, honest, systematic, analytical, factual, specialized, methodical, cumulative, provisional, verifiable, and open approach to finding the truths of existence." I am not science.

I thought you were claiming (in post 3) that science disproves miracles. So, you don't think science disproves miracles?

Not at all. Science doesn't even recognize miracles as actual events, but more as fables, fantasies, folklore, legends, myths, yarns, and tall tales, which is why it doesn't have anything to do with them.

.

[The Tanager]

No, I said "I expect science to be a consistent, testable, honest, systematic, analytical, factual, specialized, methodical, cumulative, provisional, verifiable, and open approach to finding the truths of existence." I am not science.

I thought you were claiming (in post 3) that science disproves miracles. So, you don't think science disproves miracles?

Not at all. Science doesn't even recognize miracles as actual events, but more as fables, fantasies, folklore, legends, myths, yarns, and tall tales, which is why it doesn't have anything to do with them.

Recognizing them as such is doing something with them. How does science "recognize" miracles as fables, fantasies, folklore, legends, myths, yarns, and tall tales? Is it through the "consistent, testable, honest, systematic, analytical, factual, specialized, methodical, cumulative, provisional, verifiable, and open approach to finding the truths of existence"? Or is it merely by assumption (and therefore doesn't meet your expectations of science)? I'm going to guess the former rather than the latter. If I'm right in that guess, can you please lay out the consistent, testable, honest, systematic, analytical, etc. argument against miracles for me to consider?

[Miles]

No, I said "I expect science to be a consistent, testable, honest, systematic, analytical, factual, specialized, methodical, cumulative, provisional, verifiable, and open approach to finding the truths of existence." I am not science.

I thought you were claiming (in post 3) that science disproves miracles. So, you don't think science disproves miracles?

Not at all. Science doesn't even recognize miracles as actual events, but more as fables, fantasies, folklore, legends, myths, yarns, and tall tales, which is why it doesn't have anything to do with them.

Recognizing them as such is doing something with them. How does science "recognize" miracles as fables, fantasies, folklore, legends, myths, yarns, and tall tales? Is it through the "consistent, testable, honest, systematic, analytical, factual, specialized, methodical, cumulative, provisional, verifiable, and open approach to finding the truths of existence"? Or is it merely by assumption (and therefore doesn't meet your expectations of science)? I'm going to guess the former rather than the latter. If I'm right in that guess, can you please lay out the consistent, testable, honest, systematic, analytical, etc. argument against miracles for me to consider?

So, are fables, fantasies, folklore, legends, myths, yarns, and tall tales events? No. They're fictitious stories. A fictitious story is not an event.

actual being defined as: "existing in fact or reality."
event being defined as: "a thing that happens."
fictitious being defined as: "something that is false or does not exist."
story being defined as: "an account of incidents or events."

Have a good day.

.