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?

[brunumb]

It really amazes me when scientific atheists deny natural circumstance because of a connection to religion or the Bible. For example, sin, faith, gods, the soul, prophecy. It just indicates, quite clearly, a profound ignorance. There isn't anything supernatural or necessarily religious about any of these things.

There is nothing natural about any of those things. It is all just woo lapped up by the religiously indoctrinated.

[brunumb]

Faith is the expectation based on the prior record. We'll go over it one more time. What you are describing above is faith. From the dictionary: "complete trust or confidence in someone or something." Used in a sentence: "This restores one's faith in politicians." In this context it has nothing to do with any god.

And that use is also irrelevant. Religious faith does specifically relate to belief in gods. That faith is the fall back position when there is really no compelling evidence for the existence or action of any gods. If people have confidence or trust in scientific findings it is precisely because those findings are actually supported by evidence.

[brunumb]

It's funny when a "scientific" atheist attempts to prove impossibility with uninformed opinion because it demonstrates very effectively how important scientific methodology REALLY is.

Uninformed opinion is all we have when people push the alleged truth of the Bible. It demonstrates very effectively how powerful religious indoctrination really can be.

[brunumb]

Theism played no part in establishing modern day science. Theists may have practiced the scientific method, but that in no way means that any god belief was involved. It's actually quite contradictory. Sheesh.

Wrong again.

Your opinion is noted. In what way did theism establish modern day science?

[otseng]

Wrong again.

9. No unconstructive one-liners posts are allowed in debates.

Kindly refrain from making posts that contribute nothing to debate and/or simply express agreement / disagreement or make other frivolous remarks.

You can avoid breaking this rule in the future by explaining why you think it's wrong.

[DrNoGods]

Begs the question what problem should atheists have with theism?

I personally don't have any "problem" with theism. I don't believe that any gods exist myself, and don't understand why other people do in the 21st century, but have no problem with anyone practicing their religion and being a good theist. But if someone wants to debate issues relating to science and religion I'm happy to defend the science side, and since I'm an atheist I'd defend that view in a debate. But being an atheist does not automatically mean the person has a "problem" with theism. I think a lot of people simply need to believe that there is a superior being, or that their existence in the universe doesn't end at death, etc., and they should be allowed to practice the religion of their choice.

As for religion I didn't say anything about religion, I said intelligent design.

And you don't think the phrase "intelligent design" can be equated to the god of a religion? It certainly is the common interpretation. What would this intelligent designer be if not a god of some sort?

Also placing Galileo under house arrest, absolving sins for money, Burning William Tyndale and Joan of Arc, Terrorizing Jews and Muslims, child molestation and it's cover up, inquisitions, crusades, the immortal soul of Socrates, trinity of Plato, cross from Constantine, cakes with naked young boys popping out, meddling in politics ...

What does any of that have to do with my example of a religion accepting evolution? I was only giving an example of that situation, not claiming the Catholic church has never done anything wrong.

If Adam didn't exist he didn't sin and so what need of a savior? The entire meaning of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation can be summed up as the vindication of Jehovah God's name through the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus.

That is how the story goes, but the question is whether or not any of it is true. If Adam is a fictional character in a fictional tale, then the entire bible is just more fiction. You could make the same analogy for a character from Harry Potter.

Belief in evolution negates the Bible.

OK ... if that is your view. People having afterlives, living to 900+ years old, living inside the belly of a fish for longer than they can hold their breath, a global flood wiping out all air-breathing life that wasn't on a big boat only 4300 years ago, etc. etc. also pretty much negates the bible, or at least relegates it to the fiction section of the library.

Only if you discount the Bible.

It is a nice work of fiction, and well done for the time it was written.

It really amazes me when scientific atheists deny natural circumstance because of a connection to religion or the Bible. For example, sin, faith, gods, the soul, prophecy. It just indicates, quite clearly, a profound ignorance. There isn't anything supernatural or necessarily religious about any of these things. But you perceive it as such and so deny them. Now, I would hazard a guess that this sort of superstitious aversion didn't come from Darwin so I wonder if you've ever done any research on where exactly these bizarre sentiments originate? It must have been fairly recently.

The denial is because of lack of evidence, not that there is a connection to religion, or a holy book. You've made that connection because, apparently, you want to think that is the reason. I don't believe in gods because none have ever been demonstrated to exist ... exactly the same reason I don't believe in Big Foot, the Loch Ness monster, or leprechauns. It is as simple as that. Sin is a human concept so by defintion it exists as a concept, and the soul would fall into the same category as gods in that no such thing has ever been shown to exist in the real world. The "21 grams experiment" tried to measure soul as a physical thing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_grams_experiment

and other attempts to demonstrate that such a thing exists have all had similar results. There is no evidence for it. What you call "superstitous aversion" and "bizarre sentiments" are simply a lack of belief in these things because there is no evidence for them. It is very simple. When a Big Foot is captured I'll change my opinion on the existence of Big Foot. Until then, it is fiction.

Not that you know that, but just out of curiosity how could it be in your opinion? Namely demonstrated to actually work. What would be the requirements expected for it to work, how do you know it hasn't, and how would such a demonstration be conducted?

Since I don't believe that gods exist, it follows that I would not believe that prayer works because prayer involves attempted communication with a god. But same answer as above ... prayer has never been demonstrated to work any better than random chance, and lots of people have tried to show that prayer works in various ways:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficacy_of_prayer

It is just another concept religion has produced for which there is no evidence that it works.

For the first two simply replace science with theology and the same applies. For the third all I would have to do is show you the evolution I was taught as fact and truth in school and you would find it to be laughable. These are only descriptions of the self correction which you will confidently admit is a part of science so why do you suppose I find them problematic? Why do you seem defensive? Do you project this upon me? Do you think that if I were wrong I wouldn't change my thinking? I have many times and will, hopefully, continue to do so. I've explained this repeatedly.

I think you're missing the point. If evolution as you were taught it in school were refined over the years since and now is substantially different (although I doubt that the basics have changed unless you are very old), why is that a problem? The picture of human ancestors as I was taught it in 1976 when I started college is very different now due to discovery of many more fossils, and the genetics work of the last 40 years or so. You seem to think that refinements like this somehow invalidate science, or make it less reliable ("come back in 40 years and it is all rubbish"). I'm not projecting this onto you ... I'm interpreting your direct comments which suggest that you have a problem with scientific refinements over time.

Genealogy only points to the creation of Adam. The Bible doesn't imply nor can the age of the heavens and earth be determined through scripture.

There are a lot of people who disagree with that view. A literal interpretation of the creation story in Genesis describes creation of "everything" (ie. the universe) in 7 days. So putting a time frame on when that happened by working backwards, as Ussher and many others have done, via biblical geneology and chronology, suggests a time for the age of the "heavens and earth." So it can indeed be derived in this way ... if the biblical stories are taken literally. AIG and other creationist websites do this sort of thing all the time, eg.:

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-time ... the-flood/

What I can do is define the word soul as is commonly used; provide an etymology; present the Hebrew and Greek interpretation; demonstrate how the word was used by Bible writers and compare that to Greek philosophers and the superstitious; trace the historically documented adoption of Greek philosophy by the Jews in 332 BCE and the Christians in 325 CE; and then submit to public debate.

What I can't do is state as fact that the immortal soul is not real. Even if I defined real. Specifically I can't determine, even having done all of the above, that it isn't real and I wonder how you are so bold to do that without having taken any of the aforementioned steps. Science?

Again, I'll believe that soul is real when there is some actual, physical evidence for it, some experiment that shows that it is real, etc. The ancient Greeks (or anyone else) believing it is real has no bearing on whether or not it actually is real. It is a concept, sort of like consciousness, that can be investigated by the characteristics assigned to it and observations as to whether these characteristics are consistent with the description. I believe that conscioiusness is purely a manifestation of normal brain activity and nothing else. When someone dies their consciousness appears to vanish simultaneously. If their brain is severly damaged they may fall into a coma and lose certain aspects of consciousness. These are just two indications that the brain may be responsible for consciousness, and of course many studies have been carried out to try and understand consciousness better, books written, etc. and it is an open area of research. But just because it isn't completely understood yet at the molecular level does not mean it must be explained as some special, magical thing that is beyond a naturalistic description. There are lots of debates on this website on the subject and I don't want to start a tangent here. A recent new thread was started on exactly this topic today by Thomas123:

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=37466

[DavidLeon]

The same problem doctors have with homeopathy, geological engineers have water dowsing, and physicists have with perpetual motion.

Right. So nothing other than an inferiority complex. That's something, at least. It's only a symptom, but it is something.

The "sin inherited from Adam" thing is just something Paul came up with and the rest of "Genesis to Revelation" wouldn't be affected much by a metaphorical Adam. John describes the sacrifice of Jesus as taking away sin, but that has nothing to do with Adam. When any other New Testament author describes Jesus as a sacrifice, it's not for sin as such, but as the Passover sacrifice which signifies deliverance. A metaphorical Adam only means explaining away a few verses in Romans and 1 Corinthians and even those aren't that explicit. That should be child's play for any apologist.

Belief in evolution negates the Bible.

It's no worse than reconciling a spherical Earth with Isaiah's "four corners."

That's easy for you to say. Much more difficult to substantiate. For example, reading Genesis 3:15-Revelation 22:17.

[Difflugia]

The same problem doctors have with homeopathy, geological engineers have water dowsing, and physicists have with perpetual motion.

Right. So nothing other than an inferiority complex. That's something, at least. It's only a symptom, but it is something.

What, you mean like "those mean ol' scientists are just jealous of our controlled studies and robust data?"

That's easy for you to say. Much more difficult to substantiate. For example, reading Genesis 3:15-Revelation 22:17.

Are you saying it's hard to substantiate that evolution doesn't negate the entire Bible? After you merely claimed without justification that it does? Are you seriously offering the entirety of Genesis 3:15 through the end of the Bible as your evidence? Are you saying that evolution negates, say, God's world-famous recipe for poo-smoked biscuits in Ezekiel 4:9-12?

How about you make your claim without hyperbole and give us something concrete to respond to?

[DavidLeon]

The same problem doctors have with homeopathy, geological engineers have water dowsing, and physicists have with perpetual motion.

Right. So nothing other than an inferiority complex. That's something, at least. It's only a symptom, but it is something.

What, you mean like "those mean ol' scientists are just jealous of our controlled studies and robust data?"

Oh, look. You've done it again. More than a little predictable, but still it's something. So yes. Let's say that is my argument. What is your response?

Are you saying it's hard to substantiate that evolution doesn't negate the entire Bible? After you merely claimed without justification that it does? Are you seriously offering the entirety of Genesis 3:15 through the end of the Bible as your evidence? Are you saying that evolution negates, say, God's world-famous recipe for poo-smoked biscuits in Ezekiel 4:9-12?

[looks at watch]

How about you make your claim without hyperbole and give us something concrete to respond to?

Okay, what are we talking about now? Amidst your clever responses, a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt, we seem to have haphazardly arrived at the proposition that evolution negates the entire meaning of the Bible. Why? Because Christians who try to reconcile the two are just appealing to academia. Do they know any better? Do they care? Who knows? Who cares? Not me. I'm just stating the facts.

So. You said that Paul had made up the idea that Jesus was a savior from sin. You know, I could get sucked into an argument like that if I were in the mood for it but what would be the point. You say Christians are buying into evolution. Christians believe Jesus is a savior from our sins. You don't see a problem there?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to DavidLeon in post #89]

... we seem to have haphazardly arrived at the proposition that evolution negates the entire meaning of the Bible.

Haphazardly? Your statement from post #74 looks like a pretty direct path to this proposition (underline mine):

"The entire meaning of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation can be summed up as the vindication of Jehovah God's name through the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus. Belief in evolution negates the Bible."

Why? Because Christians who try to reconcile the two are just appealing to academia. Do they know any better? Do they care? Who knows? Who cares? Not me. I'm just stating the facts.

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?").