The Problem with Science Vs Religion Debates

[chibiq]

Christianity, the Bible, (Christian) Theology, all of these are set in stone. The words of the Bible can't be changed (lol Jehovah Witnesses) because the Bible says they can't be, and this would be going against the word of God.

So what do Christians have to work with? The Old Testament books, handed down for a good few millennia, then the New Testament, added when the prophecies of the Old Testament were fulfilled, and closed the book that we now know as the Bible. The only thing Christians have to work with is interpretation of this one piece of data that is never going to change.

Science, philosophy, and things of that sort, on the other hand, are subject to change at a moment's notice. Any scientist will tell you that the very nature of science is unbound, able to shake the very foundation of everything we know with the findings of even an amateur, an elementary school student, who accidentally digs up a fossil with his plastic shovel and pail. Science, therefore, is also open to interpretation, but it is also free from the restraint of dogma.

So, if in a week or year or millennia, if science happens to find out that Christians were telling the truth the whole time, that our beliefs were indeed correct, science can't be faulted for being "wrong". It's the nature of science to change, so being wrong is only a part of its (good lord give me a better word..) evolution (doh. ).

So we have two sides. One that stands on a firm foundation, unchanging, and another that's like a bottle in the ocean, taking it whichever way the current or wind is going.

As a matter of fact, if you look at it in the technical aspect, you have numerous different sides, because scientists almost never agree 100% with each other's interpretations. So you have these many different sides that are able to morph into anything the latest tidbit of data throws to them versus the one lonesome side that must defend themselves with a book at was finished almost 2000 years ago. How fair does that really seem to you?

Atheists expect Christians to have the answers to every nitpicked fault they find in Christianity that pertains to science, and it's just plain unreasonable. Not only that, they expect the answers on the fly, or else they crank their insult machine up and go to town.

How fair are these arguments that science keeps bringing up, when they know themselves the facts they're arguing with can change at any minute?

[Rathpig]

For the record, I do not accept the contents of your physics books as evidence there is no god, but I do understand why you feel it is.

Desire for an alternate reality does not create such a reality. The nature of religion, even of Deism, is to place emotional wants over physical reality. You can reject science, but you can't replace science.

Your desires remain emotional constructs.

[chibiq]

Oh please. The nature of miracles are to be unexplainable in a naturalistic view.

"Nature of miracles" becomes an oxymoron in that sentence.

Not if you use the right definition of nature.

Someone needs to inform dictionary.com that Rathpig disagrees with their definition, and a committee needs to be formed to correct this injustice.

Being childish just robs you of credibility.

He started it. Anyway, I was just shining a light on a tactic that I'm getting tired of seeing. Let's not let this cause a crash to the discussion.

And those quacks from PETA would like to think harming animals for their sick videos is for the greater good.

It takes more courage than you can imagine to assume responsibility in the euthanization of all the poor animals that people abandon without regard for public health issues. I know who the cowards are...

Let's not get into that either.

[chibiq]

First, let me commend you on sticking your neck out here. We have a few too many members who may not lack information, but leave much to be desired in their presentation of it.

You picked one heck of a way to make a bang.

To cover the whole thing, this is what I will say:
The meaning of scripture has evolved as society has evolved. It is not so cut and dry anymore. Passages that were seen as literal (i.e. Cmass signature) are now seen more as a metaphor or they are ignored completely. Much is open to interpretation now.

Scientific knowledge evolves. The methodology of it doesn't. If a flaw was to be found in the methodology, it would effectively render science moot, much as the contradictions in scripture has done to Christianity.

Let me cut in. I'll admit that the realization that some scriptures are more poetic than literal, aaand the time it took for Christianity to realize it (thanks to science) does, admittedly, look.. bad. However, using common sense (that of today of course, although some would argue sense isn't all that common) and reading the Bible would make it obvious that they're more poetry than to be taken as fact.

The verse I like to point at is the one claiming the sun stood still in the sky; of course it's the earth that moves, but we still say "sunrise" and "sunset" when we know damn well that thing doesn't move at all in relation to us.

Of course one could argue the "Futurama Space Ship" argument, that the earth isn't the thing that's moving, it's the entire universe, lol.

Still, there are some parts of the Bible that would startle you if you read it deep enough, like Genesis 22:17. How did they know, when only about 3,000 stars are visible with the naked eye (the only instrument for viewing the stars available at the time), that the number of stars and the number of grains of sand on the earth's seashores are so close in number ? With the margin of error, it's even possible that the numbers are equal. Wouldn't that put a smile on your face ?

The comparison you are trying to make between debates about science and religion cannot be made because they do not exist. One can debate scientific knowledge, not methodology because the methodology has stood the test of time. Despite the advancement of knowledge and technology. Religious knowledge changes so often it is difficult for many to understand the newest interpretations.

Do you understand what I am trying to get across here?

YES! The scientific method v. scientific knowledge thing; thanks, that's the words I've been looking for. I don't believe it's possible to argue against the method, just the knowledge that's supposedly gained from it when a hypothesis has "problems" with it but is still considered the rule (see Objections to Evolution). Thank you thank you thank you.

By the way, I like your avatar.

[daedalus 2.0]

As a matter of fact, if you look at it in the technical aspect, you have numerous different sides, because scientists almost never agree 100% with each other's interpretations. So you have these many different sides that are able to morph into anything the latest tidbit of data throws to them versus the one lonesome side that must defend themselves with a book at was finished almost 2000 years ago. How fair does that really seem to you?

1. Perhaps you can tell us where the Bible and Science disagree, so we are on the same page? The Flood, Exodus, Flat Earth? Some people claim these as facts, others as mythology.
2. Seeking the truth isn't about fairness. It's not as if we are two teams that need fair refereeing. We are one group of humanity trying to make sense of the universe with competing claims.
3. You seem to be smuggling in all sorts of assumptions:
a. That Science does in fact contradict the Bible, since you claim that perhaps in the future... That is, it certainly doesn't agree with the Bible now. I agree.
b. That this future is likely. It isn't. In the 300 years or so of Modern Science we have discovered some things that would be unlikely overturned - and still contradict the Bible. Of course, you may not agree that they are Biblical (see #1)
c. That the Bible is true. Other than a hypothetical case of 'perhaps in the future' you have offered no reason to believe this is true. Is this the best reason we should believe the Bible - because 'perhaps in the future' it may be true? Perhaps it will ALL be proven false?
4. Your premise seems to rest on the static nature of the knowlege in the Bible. Not only has it changed over time, and continues to be reinterpretted in modern eras, you must admit that we grow further and further from discovering the truth of what actually happened back then.
5. Your premise also seems to assume that the Bible is interpreted equally: 30,000+ denominations and counting seems to argue against this.
6. There are some things in the Bible that are not in the realm of science.
7. Built into science is the testability and critique of claims. It is a strength of science. In the 300 years of modern science we have increased our knowledge of the universe dramatically. It has put to shame any other method of knowing. If a horse has won a million races, do you bet against it? I don't, though it may lose one or two, it has shown its value above all competitors. In every case that science and religion has had competing claims that are testable, religion has lost every time. Every time. Science continues on that impressive track record with very little change to the larger paradigm.
8. Built into your post is a very obvious animosity towards science. This is expected: see #7.
9. You assume Xianity is the only competitor. Not only are there other religions, but many other views. Science is a systematic way of obtaining knowledge. No offense, but it doesn't give a fu*k what religions say.
10. Please refer to my "Explanation" post and explain WHY your explanation of this 'possible' future, or that the "explanations" in the Bible are better than what science offers.
11. I realize your post is a hopeful hypothetical based on Faith. Is it any more than this, except a general critique of science?

[chibiq]

1. Perhaps you can tell us where the Bible and Science disagree, so we are on the same page? The Flood, Exodus, Flat Earth? Some people claim these as facts, others as mythology.

I don't think I understand your question, but it sounds loaded.

2. Seeking the truth isn't about fairness. It's not as if we are two teams that need fair refereeing. We are one group of humanity trying to make sense of the universe with competing claims.

That's very poetic, but opinionated. It's an outside perspective. We're inside.

3. You seem to be smuggling in all sorts of assumptions:
a. That Science does in fact contradict the Bible, since you claim that perhaps in the future... That is, it certainly doesn't agree with the Bible now. I agree.

What is considered scientific knowledge today is what I consider wrong. Again, big thanks to Confused for pointing that out (hope everyone sees the irony, hehe). That's not to say I believe everything naturalistic scientists have came up with is wrong, but there are loads of things that are questionable. But when I say I don't agree with evolution, I mean the evolutionary model that Darwinists hold to. I know animals evolve. It would be really stupid to claim otherwise.

b. That this future is likely. It isn't. In the 300 years or so of Modern Science we have discovered some things that would be unlikely overturned - and still contradict the Bible. Of course, you may not agree that they are Biblical (see #1)

I disagree, and I point to the fact that scientists before the Big Bang Theory believed the universe to be infinite. Now they're trying to say that if you go down deep enough into the "PLANCK SCALE" then it will explain it, but hey, we can't do that can we? Of course, they've already ruled out God because they can't prove his existence, so why are they holding to this new theory that can't be proven?

Anyway, before scientists realized the implications of a finite universe, they were calling the Big Bang a beginning. Now that they realize what it implies, they're frantically searching for a way to kill their own creation, and they're trying to use faith (in something they can't see or detect) to explain it.

c. That the Bible is true. Other than a hypothetical case of 'perhaps in the future' you have offered no reason to believe this is true. Is this the best reason we should believe the Bible - because 'perhaps in the future' it may be true? Perhaps it will ALL be proven false?

Perhaps, but it's more likely, considering the past, that science will be the one in the crosshairs instead.

4. Your premise seems to rest on the static nature of the knowlege in the Bible. Not only has it changed over time, and continues to be reinterpretted in modern eras, you must admit that we grow further and further from discovering the truth of what actually happened back then.

It doesn't change over time. Our understanding of it changes over time, and in every "era", we're satisfied with it. There's no reason not to be.

5. Your premise also seems to assume that the Bible is interpreted equally: 30,000+ denominations and counting seems to argue against this.

Is this not true of science? And where exactly did you get that number??? Anyway, Christianity as a whole (Protestants, Evangelicals, Baptists, etc etc), all of those who claim Christianity (minus a few, namely Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, etc) agree on the way to get to Heaven (acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Savior). They all agree on the way fellowship with God should take place (prayer).

How they worship is a matter of preference. It's like choosing between a country club and a disco club; either way, you're there to dance.

6. There are some things in the Bible that are not in the realm of science.

SERIOUSLY!?

7. Built into science is the testability and critique of claims. It is a strength of science. In the 300 years of modern science we have increased our knowledge of the universe dramatically. It has put to shame any other method of knowing. If a horse has won a million races, do you bet against it? I don't, though it may lose one or two, it has shown its value above all competitors. In every case that science and religion has had competing claims that are testable, religion has lost every time. Every time. Science continues on that impressive track record with very little change to the larger paradigm.

"Though it may lose one or two" in other words, it MAY be wrong in its interpretation of data. And that's just great, pat yourself on the back and get off the soapbox before you fall and hurt yourself.

8. Built into your post is a very obvious animosity towards science. This is expected: see #7.

I don't have animosity towards science, I have animosity towards those who call themselves practicing it when they're really just picking and choosing their way through it to hurt Christians.

9. You assume Xianity is the only competitor. Not only are there other religions, but many other views. Science is a systematic way of obtaining knowledge. No offense, but it doesn't give a fu*k what religions say.

And he says I have animosity..

By the way, "Xians" were the one that came up with the "X". I'm sure you're trying to use it as an insult considering the overall feel of the point you were trying to make.

10. Please refer to my "Explanation" post and explain WHY your explanation of this 'possible' future, or that the "explanations" in the Bible are better than what science offers.

[...]

11. I realize your post is a hopeful hypothetical based on Faith. Is it any more than this, except a general critique of science?

Post a link to said "Explanation" post. I'm done with this reply.

[daedalus 2.0]

I gave a civil response to your post and you took it as offensive. I am sorry if a direct response is an offense to you.

Perhaps we can try again?

1. I simply asked what you feel is correct in the Bible that science has shown to be wrong.

For example, do you believe that putting a striped stick in a goat's drinking water will turn the goat striped? Do you think that science will some day discover the truth of this?

I think not, and I have specific reasons based on a careful collection of observations of our universe. These observations are upheld by testing and multiple lines of data.


But, as I said, maybe you don't believe ALL the claims in the Bible will be shown to be true.


I simply asked which ones you feel are wrong today, but may be right in the future? I don't like fighting Straw Men.



Next, maybe we can talk about what you feel science has been wrong about. You mentioned the Static State universe vs. the BB. I agree this was a big change in our understanding, but the underlying science that led us to this discovery has held true.

As you said about the Bible, the Universe is what it is, we just interpret it differently as we have better tools and knowledge. Many theists interpret the Bible to fit the science, others don't (you, for example?).

Perhaps, though, you can give reasons WHY your opinion on the veracity of the Bible is valid? Since you distrust science, I'm sure you don't use science to validate the Bible.

Do you use the Bible to validate the Bible? How does that work? Why enter into that circular reasoning willingly?



It seems you have a conundrum: in order to verify the Bible, you must use the scientific method - which you reject....




Link to "Explanation" thread.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=7297

I will use this to explain any of my beliefs. Do you have a similar list that you refer to in order to make sure you aren't straying from what the Bible means?

[McCulloch]

What is considered scientific knowledge today is what I consider wrong. Again, big thanks to Confused for pointing that out (hope everyone sees the irony, hehe). That's not to say I believe everything naturalistic scientists have came up with is wrong, but there are loads of things that are questionable. But when I say I don't agree with evolution, I mean the evolutionary model that Darwinists hold to. I know animals evolve. It would be really stupid to claim otherwise.

Scientific knowledge grows and changes. It would be stupid to assume that the current state of scientific knowledge will remain static. You state that you disagree with modern science. Please provide one or two examples. What in modern science do you disagree with. What is the correct view? What qualifies you to be taken seriously? What evidence do you have? Have the scientists been presented with your viewpoint? How have they reacted?

[chibiq]

What is considered scientific knowledge today is what I consider wrong. Again, big thanks to Confused for pointing that out (hope everyone sees the irony, hehe). That's not to say I believe everything naturalistic scientists have came up with is wrong, but there are loads of things that are questionable. But when I say I don't agree with evolution, I mean the evolutionary model that Darwinists hold to. I know animals evolve. It would be really stupid to claim otherwise.

Scientific knowledge grows and changes. It would be stupid to assume that the current state of scientific knowledge will remain static. You state that you disagree with modern science. Please provide one or two examples. What in modern science do you disagree with. What is the correct view? What qualifies you to be taken seriously? What evidence do you have? Have the scientists been presented with your viewpoint? How have they reacted?

I've never said scientific knowledge will remain static. It's even possible that scientific knowledge (status quo) will eventually lead to the realization that there is a creator. As a matter of fact, some scientists already have; of course, admitting this, they're shunned from the community (see Francis Collins, leader of the Human Genome Project).

I've also never submitted to a scientist an alternate theory on anything, so I dare not claim any.. "claims" to be my own. However, I could direct you to a couple of sites and a few books, including Francis Collins' own "The Language of God". I'm sure you've heard of a lot of them though, and this thread isn't about specifics. We're getting off the topic.

[chibiq]

I gave a civil response to your post and you took it as offensive. I am sorry if a direct response is an offense to you.

Nah, using language like "No offense, but it doesn't give a fu*k what religions say." isn't offensive at all. I hear scientists saying that all the time. And I didn't notice you said "No offense" at the beginning, that makes it all better .

Perhaps we can try again?

1. I simply asked what you feel is correct in the Bible that science has shown to be wrong.

For example, do you believe that putting a striped stick in a goat's drinking water will turn the goat striped? Do you think that science will some day discover the truth of this?

Of course I don't believe that would naturally happen. There are quite a few possible explanations for this. One is, the stick thing was a superstition in those days, and Jacob tried it and probability was on his side. But, the one I like best is that God was with Jacob in those days, helping him whenever he needed it, and I believe in this case he did just that. So I consider it a miracle.

I think not, and I have specific reasons based on a careful collection of observations of our universe. These observations are upheld by testing and multiple lines of data.

Multiple lines of data? Are you trying to be funny? Anyway, we all know the sun stopping in the middle of the day happens all the time. And seas part constantly. And burning bushes talk to everyone. The Bible is just a science book, isn't it?

But, as I said, maybe you don't believe ALL the claims in the Bible will be shown to be true.

I simply asked which ones you feel are wrong today, but may be right in the future? I don't like fighting Straw Men.

Next, maybe we can talk about what you feel science has been wrong about. You mentioned the Static State universe vs. the BB. I agree this was a big change in our understanding, but the underlying science that led us to this discovery has held true.

I've never said anything bad about the scientific method, have I? Christians use it too you know. See a phenomenon, think of what might've caused it, test your theory, and tada, right? How could you prove that wrong?

As you said about the Bible, the Universe is what it is, we just interpret it differently as we have better tools and knowledge. Many theists interpret the Bible to fit the science, others don't (you, for example?).

The "science" you're speaking of is the knowledge gained from conclusions based on assumptions drawn from theories that are full of holes.

Perhaps, though, you can give reasons WHY your opinion on the veracity of the Bible is valid? Since you distrust science, I'm sure you don't use science to validate the Bible.

When it's unnecessary, I don't. When something is explained to be a miracle, I don't question why it doesn't fit in with modern science.

Do you use the Bible to validate the Bible? How does that work? Why enter into that circular reasoning willingly?



It seems you have a conundrum: in order to verify the Bible, you must use the scientific method - which you reject....




Link to "Explanation" thread.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=7297

I will use this to explain any of my beliefs. Do you have a similar list that you refer to in order to make sure you aren't straying from what the Bible means?[/quote]

[daedalus 2.0]

When it's unnecessary, I don't. When something is explained to be a miracle, I don't question why it doesn't fit in with modern science.

How do you determine if its unnecessary or not?
Do you accept miracles from other religions?
Are all unexplained events "miracles" or are they "unexplained events"?
What is a miracle to you?