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?

[Clownboat]

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."

Faith, like sin is an invented religious concept. Neither are things that can be shown to exist in reality outside of the imagination of humans.
Feel free to use it how you would like within your religion, but it is not fair to foist such a term on to the rest of humanity and expect them to accept it as something more than what it is. Again, that being a religious concept and not something real outside of the religion itself.

[Clownboat]

The Bible starts off with "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth", and this was said back when no one (religious, or otherwise) was thinking about a finite universe.

Fast forward thousands of years later, we now have scientific confirmation that the universe had a beginning, which is what the Bible was on the record for saying all along.

So, science caught up with religion..and must/will continue to do so.

The way you just conducted your thinking here, it is no suprise that you have arrived at a religious conclusion.
Like they say, you cannot reason people out of something they were not reasoned into.

[Clownboat]

Let me see if I understand you. Because I think you need to expand your understanding of the Bible in criticizing it. It seems to me you are saying that the Bible says the sun moves and so the Bible is scientifically inaccurate, is that correct? If you expand your understanding of the Bible you might see it more like a newspaper than a scientific paper. The Bible is like a newspaper and criticism is like a scientific paper. A newspaper reports what people say. What appears to them to be going on. A scientific paper shares your own original research work or reviews the research conducted by others.

So, the Bible says that serpents talk, an ass talks, the sun moves etc. but serpents and asses don't talk and the sun doesn't move. The Bible doesn't mean to imply that they do, only that this is what appears to Eve, Balaam, Joshua, etc.

Got it! Bodies dead for 3 days also do not reanimate and return to life. Thank you for settling that one.

[We_Are_VENOM]

The way you just conducted your thinking here, it is no suprise that you have arrived at a religious conclusion.

I go where the evidence takes me. Plain and simple.

Like they say, you cannot reason people out of something they were not reasoned into.

Sure, and you also can't drag people by the collar and force them to eternal life.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Got it! Bodies dead for 3 days also do not reanimate and return to life.

And physical matter that has been inanimate for billions of years do not become animated (living) and begin to think, talk, and have sex.

Got it!

[Tcg]

Got it! Bodies dead for 3 days also do not reanimate and return to life.

And physical matter that has been inanimate for billions of years do not become animated (living) and begin to think, talk, and have sex.

You're partially correct here. Inanimate matter does not become animated. Humans, and in fact all living beings, consist of inanimate matter. Inanimate matter somehow becomes organized into something we call a living being and some forms of life do begin to think, talk, and have sex.

Alas, the matter we are made up of remains inanimate and after we die will likely return to some more mundane existence. Pushing up daisies perhaps. I don't know, maybe that's an improvement.


Tcg

[We_Are_VENOM]

You're partially correct here. Inanimate matter does not become animated. Humans, and in fact all living beings, consist of inanimate matter.

When I say "inanimate", I am specifically speaking of the sentience (consciousness) that makes us animate.

The distinction is simple; plants are considered "living", but plants are not sentient entities.

In other words, as this physical matter was floating around, it somehow became sentient...and where did this consciousness come from; that is the question.

Inanimate matter somehow becomes organized into something we call a living being and some forms of life do begin to think, talk, and have sex.

Tell us something we don't know.

Alas, the matter we are made up of remains inanimate and after we die will likely return to some more mundane existence. Pushing up daisies perhaps. I don't know, maybe that's an improvement.

Sentience!!!

[brunumb]

When I say "inanimate", I am specifically speaking of the sentience (consciousness) that makes us animate.

Where does it go when you get a severe blow to the head or a general anaesthetic?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #147]

In other words, as this physical matter was floating around, it somehow became sentient...and where did this consciousness come from; that is the question.

And it has a simple answer. When brains evolved to a certaiin level of complexity their physical components (neurons, memory elements, synapses, and the electrical and chemical interactions between them) were able to produce certain things as a system that were not possible from the individual components alone. By all observation, consciousness is one of those things that the brain produces. There are many examples of systems that have far more capability than the components that make up the system, and the brain is no different. Consciousness appears to be nothing more than an emergent property of a working brain. A complicated thing to be sure, but no justification yet to assign it to anything magical or special.

Where do you draw the line on sensitience though? Worms have brains, very simple ones compared to ours, and they can interact with their environment. They don't have eyes but they have light sensitive receptors to sense the presence of light and dark. They have mouths, and at a simple level they are aware of their environment via their brain and senses and can react subjectively. Are they sentient? What about dogs? They are far more intelligent than worms, but far less intelligent than humans, and clearly are conscious as far as being aware of their surroundings and interacting with it. They can feel, perceive, and experience subjectively, so by definition they are sentient.

If you follow how animals evolved over time you can see a gradual increase in brain structure and complexity, and with this the transition from just a simple sensor and control system as in worms, to an 80% neocortex brain structure in humans, came higher intelligence and (in humans), the ability to ponder abstract ideas like gods and afterlives, and whether or not consciousness is some magic thing bordering on the supernatural, or just an emergent property of a working brain which explains observations better than anything else. Humans have a higher level of intelligence than any other animal, but we can see that this developed in parallel with brain development and can follow this all the way back to simple brains in worms to ganglia in lobsters to no coordinated nervous system in sponges, but sponges have the genetic information for synapses:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scie ... us-system/

Evolutions explains all of this stuff far better than an invisible god does, and has actual evidence to support its conclusions.

[Clownboat]

The way you just conducted your thinking here, it is no suprise that you have arrived at a religious conclusion.

I go where the evidence takes me. Plain and simple.

You can say this all you want, but your reasoning (or lack there of) was there for all of us to see.

Like they say, you cannot reason people out of something they were not reasoned into.

Sure, and you also can't drag people by the collar and force them to eternal life.

Since eternal life cannot be shown to be anything more than human imagination, it is no wonder that you cannot drag people to such a place. It would be like trying to drag someone to smurf land!