Christianity: Friend or foe to science?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I dont, it has proven itself to be inerrant.
You speak of the Bible as if it has a will of its own. Some people refer to that view as "Bibliolatry." Anyway, the Bible in so many ways is so confusing that it "isn't even errant." We can't say for sure if it's right or wrong.
There have been many things that have never been proven by science. Science has not proven that your wife loves you but you think she does.
True, so let me say that there is no evidence for demonic possession yet there is abundant evidence for mental illness. It then seems wise to me to conclude that alleged cases of possession are actually cases of mental illness.
In some legal cases the judge or lawmakers have to suspend a law, but that doesnt prove that the judge or lawmakers dont exist.
True, but it does prove that those intelligent judges and lawmakers can be disorderly. And being disorderly, appealing to order doesn't prove they exist. So your "order in the cosmos" argument for God is fallacious.
No, the freedom to do evil is necessary to destroy evil.
So for instance murder is necessary to destroy murder. Brilliant logic!
Evil can only be destroyed by love, and in order to truly love God you have to freely choose to do so.
Actually, I really can't choose to love anybody. And love can actually create evil. For instance, the Stalinists loved Stalin, and we all know how that ended up. Anyway, here we have the reason evil exists.
Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
Remember, your Bible cannot err. Now you know why evil exists. God created it.
God has said that the only way to destroy evil forever is to love and obey Him. That has to be done freely.
So when did you sell all you have, gave to the poor, and then followed Jesus? (Luke 18:22)
No, auto accidents dont violate the laws of physics.
Those laws allow for disorder.
They didnt invent the first modern scientific organization to systematically study nature. Protestants did, the Royal Society of London.
Hooray for the Protestants! You keep shaping the evidence to fit your position. Why not shape your position to fit the evidence?
Yes, but that separated the wheat from the chaff. And all churches that accept the infallible authority of the Bible agree on the essentials.
No doubt you define "essential" as what most Christian sects agree on. So you're arguing in a circle.

Most sects agree on the essentials.
The essentials are what most sects agree on.
And if the Reformation had not occurred, all the good things about Western civilization would not have occurred including the formation of the greatest nation on earth the USA.
I prefer Italy. That's where the Vatican is, and it was the seat of the Roman Empire. Italy is arguably the most culturally influential nation on earth.
Not the essential teachings, they are obvious.
So did Jesus appoint Peter the first pope? That is an "essential" for Roman Catholics.
It doesnt. But Darwin never found evidence for macroevolution, only microevolution. His finches never turned into anything but finches with different beaks...No, macroevolution has never been empirically observed, it is just an unwarranted historical extrapolation of microevolution.
I never could understand how small change can occur over short periods of time yet large change cannot occur over a long period of time. Maybe you can explain it.
He didnt know about genetic entropy, we now know that over time genes lose information so that major body structure changes are not unlimited.
Evolution works just fine within limits. Your fallacy is to conclude that constrained change cannot exist.
The great botanist Asa Gray was a devout Presbyterian who eventually accepted evolution as Gods method to create living things. And he was a friend of Darwin and there were others.
Asa sounds like a sensible guy.
Huh? That is the best way to understand ancient documents you have to read them in the original language. Not english translations.
Then maybe you can explain why those who read the "original language" disagree as much as those who can't read those languages.
It can also mean open space like the atmosphere. So that means the Bible is not wrong. Try again.
How can the atmosphere hold up that mythological ocean that the Bible speaks of?
 
Maybe you don't understand what Hawking and Mlodinow wrote, but to me it is perfectly clear. There is no "right" way to determine what celestial body orbits some other celestial body.
You have not demonstrated understanding, only that you can parrot a saying.

It all depends on the viewer's frame of reference which is the point Hawking and Mlodinow are making.
That is true only for inertial frames of reference because only inertial frames of reference are equivalent.

I do hope you aren't saying that the cosmos is absolutely centered on the sun!
I'm not. I'm saying that the frame of reference of the sun is closer to an inertial frame of reference than the one centered on the earth. Because the earth is undergoing more than 100 times as much acceleration due to gravity than the sun, the earth frame of reference is more than 100 times worse for making predictions of orbits.

Wait a minute--didn't you start out by implying that appeals to authority are illogical (which as I have explained is not always the case)? You then proceed to imply that I should accept what you are posting which is an appeal to authority!
To keep this simple I have not posted anything that requires more than a good high school level education in physics to verify yourself. So no, I am not resting my claim on my authority or any other super high level expert. I don't think it is too much to ask that those who choose to engage in a debate on physics have at least that common level of education.

The mistake you're making here is to consider that the earth is the actual, absolute center of the universe and then argue why it cannot be.
That is not a claim I am making, even as part of a reductio ad absurdum argument. Here are two high-school physics formulas you can find in any good physics textbook. One is that the force of gravitational attraction between two masses is given by

f = G * m1 * m2 / r^2 where f is force and r is the distance between them.

The other is f = m * a where force and acceleration are both taken as vectors.

Using these two formulas alone you can calculate the orbital period of the earth around the sun. But these two formulas will fail if you consider the sun orbiting a stationary earth. Again, don't take my word for it. Read a high school physics text because that's the only level of expertise it takes.
 
why do so many people assume that the Bible tries to be scientific ? Imagine Moses writting down Gods Word, about Lancaster Bombers and or Jump Jets for example ? again, God telling Moses how and what to do by a Heart transplant for example, both of which are very very REAL! ?

The reason the bible has come so far is God wisdom of how and what to put/write in it..
cheers.
Actually the Bible is only mans testimonies of their dealings with their gods. We do the very same thing in this forum and write it down for others to read and judge.

The Bible is not a historical document, it is a religious document.
 
Here are two high-school physics formulas you can find in any good physics textbook. One is that the force of gravitational attraction between two masses is given by

f = G * m1 * m2 / r^2 where f is force and r is the distance between them.

The other is f = m * a where force and acceleration are both taken as vectors.

Using these two formulas alone you can calculate the orbital period of the earth around the sun. But these two formulas will fail if you consider the sun orbiting a stationary earth.
I highlighted your fallacy. To know which earth-sun system is "right" we have no obligation to stick with any set of formulas to describe orbits. We can arbitrarily select either the Ptolemaic system or the Copernican system and just use whatever formulas work to describe the apparent orbits of the celestial bodies
 
I highlighted your fallacy. To know which earth-sun system is "right" we have no obligation to stick with any set of formulas to describe orbits.
OK, show me what the formulas would be for predicting the orbit of the sun around the earth. I showed you the only formulas that are of any use in orbital mechanics. But if the earth centered system is "just as good" then what formulas would work under that system?
 
OK, show me what the formulas would be for predicting the orbit of the sun around the earth. I showed you the only formulas that are of any use in orbital mechanics. But if the earth centered system is "just as good" then what formulas would work under that system?
We don't need those formulas to know that we can conceive of any celestial body being at rest while other bodies orbit it.
 
We don't need those formulas to know that we can conceive of any celestial body being at rest while other bodies orbit it.
My claim was that you cannot calculate orbits without those formulas. There is a big difference between being able to conceive of something and being about make quantitative and practical use of what you have conceived. When NASA sends a rocket to the moon, they need to be able to calculate how and when to fire the rockets to put them were they need to be. If they assume that the moon is at rest and the earth revolves around the moon, the formulas will fail. If you can't find an alternate way of doing that in your frame of reference, you have not really proven that all frames of reference are equally good.
 
My claim was that you cannot calculate orbits without those formulas. There is a big difference between being able to conceive of something and being about make quantitative and practical use of what you have conceived.
And Ptolemy did just that. He came up with the math to model a geocentric cosmos. It was complicated and cumbersome, but it worked.
When NASA sends a rocket to the moon, they need to be able to calculate how and when to fire the rockets to put them were they need to be. If they assume that the moon is at rest and the earth revolves around the moon, the formulas will fail.
That's because they're not using the math to model a lunar-centric universe.
If you can't find an alternate way of doing that in your frame of reference, you have not really proven that all frames of reference are equally good.
Frames of reference aren't "equally good." They're just relative to the observer. The observer needs to develop a mathematical model that is based on the assumption that his frame of reference is at whatever point he's thinking of. Both Ptolemy and Copernicus did it albeit with different points in space in mind.

Anyway, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow explain this science in The Grand Design. I'd recommend you read it.
 
God has told us that we can understand the Bible by studying nature.
That's illogical. If God spoke to us, then there would be no need for us to understand the Bible or study nature. He would tell us everything we need to know directly and unambiguously. He would know better than to have us read a book that is confusing millions of people who can't agree on what it says.
He wants us to use the large brains he gave us in addition to studying Bible, he wants us to study His creation. The essentials in the Bible ARE direct and unambiguous. All denominations that accept the infallible authority of the Bible agree on the essentials.
Crafty people, on the other hand, frequently make false claims in books they write that they are speaking to some god who is revealing secrets to them. Joseph Smith is but one example of such a "crafty person."
There is nothing in the Book of Mormon that has been confirmed by science, history and philosophy unlike the Bible.
And it has recently been discovered that ancient peoples actually knew more than many historians originally believed.
That's correct. Not long ago scientists discovered a computer created by Hellenistic Greeks. Those Greeks--they were amazing scientists, were they not? Modern science wouldn't be the same without them.
Evidence?
Actually ancient hebrew doesnt have a word for meteor, so even if they knew the difference they couldnt describe without using the word for star.
That's a good point. The Bible writers were very backward scientifically lacking terminology to adequately describe nature.
No, it is just that their language was somewhat simpler but more nuanced than other languages. And it was not meant for a science textbook. I am not claiming that the Bible is science textbook but when it does touch on scientific things, it is correct.
So falling star is probably the word for meteor.
Probably? We can't be very sure what the Bible writers were saying. It's sad that the Bible was written in dead languages that are difficult to translate into modern languages like English.
I said probably because I am not a hebrew scholar. But see above for more about their language. It is not that difficult.
Did the ancient Greeks know the difference between a meteor and a star?
I don't know.
I thought you were claiming the Greeks were far more advanced than the ancient hebrews.
Actually we do, the Big Bang. No known scientific law caused the Big bang.
What law of nature did the Big Bang violate?
A nonphysical cause producing a physical effect. Most scientists agree that the laws of physics breakdown at the singularity.
And since the universe is everything that physically exists, then according to the law of causality, the cause had to be non-physical.
About two years ago I read an article in Scientific American in which some scientists came up with a model in which our universe came from a four-dimensional star in another universe. If they are right, then contrary to what you assert the "cause" of our universe was indeed physical.
Unlike my theory, there is absolutely no evidence for their theory.
Not sure how you came up with that number ...
0.001 X 365 days per year X 24 hours per day = 8.76 hours.
and actually my number is probably actually more like 99.999%...
Move those goalposts!
Well I havent counted how many miracles have occurred in the 13.8 billion years that the Bible covers. But the number is pretty small given how many events have occurred during that time period. But It is possible my first estimate is fairly close.
but yes I would cross the bridge.
Good luck! You'll probably survive.
That is why I would do it.
So you think the weather man is ignorant because he says the sun rises and sets? He used ordinary humans to convey His messaage.
Uh, no--the weather person is a human living in a modern culture predicting the weather to a modern audience. The words she chooses to use have a different meaning than the meaning that was in vogue 2,000 years ago, of course. Language evolves as old words take on new meanings, and it's often a mistake to assume otherwise. What was meant literally to people long ago can be meant figuratively today.
They had figurative language in ancient times as well.
Even if they endorse rape?
It depends on what you mean by "endorse." Nobody should be attacked if they don't think rape is wrong. Only the actual act of rape is wrong as I see it.
Someone that endorses rape should be verbally refuted and that is what Jesus was doing, he was refuting serious moral errors.

We do see instances of rape in the Bible practiced by the Hebrews with God's alleged approval. See Judges 21:10-24, for example.
No, that was not approved by God, the Bible is just recording the facts of what happened. But actually even in this case no actual rape is mentioned. It just says that they took the women to become their wives. Most of them could very well have been consensual. In ancient times before police forces, single women were in a very vulnerable state so the importance of being married could mean life or death.
 
It should still be historically accurate.
Spiritually it is accurate, carnally it is an instruction manual on how to achieve spiritual knowledge. That is why it is a religious document.

Not many follow the instruction to achive spiritual knowledge as Jesus did in Matt 3:16. Ye must be born again, a renewing of the mind just as Jesus mind was renewed in Matt 3:16.
 
Actually the Bible is only mans testimonies of their dealings with their gods. We do the very same thing in this forum and write it down for others to read and judge.

The Bible is not a historical document, it is a religious document.
Bible is Gnostic document: mixed reality, truth and myth...
 
He wants us to use the large brains he gave us in addition to studying Bible, he wants us to study His creation.
Why would God want us to use large brains to struggle to figure out a confusing book written by people we can't trust or study a mysterious, disorderly creation? I don't see the point in that. I think our time would be better served listening to His knowledge and wisdom as He communes with us directly.
The essentials in the Bible ARE direct and unambiguous. All denominations that accept the infallible authority of the Bible agree on the essentials.
What is an example of an "essential"? Jehovah's Witnesses believe the Bible is infallible, and they deny the deity of Christ. So if you're right that all denominations that accept the infallible authority of the Bible agree on the essentials, then Christ's divinity is not an essential.
There is nothing in the Book of Mormon that has been confirmed by science, history and philosophy...
True, but nevertheless millions of people around the world believe that The Book of Mormon is authored by God. They arrive at that conclusion through prayer and faith and no doubt many of them will claim science, history and philosophy as inspirations for their faith.
...unlike the Bible.
Isn't it interesting how the closer in time and space we are able to judge a religion, the more we can easily see difficulties with that religion? As we both know Joseph Smith was a conman who duped people into believing what he made up. We have the advantage of seeing Smith and his work "up close." The Bible, by contrast, is much older and "farther away" in that it originated in the Middle East, and we know much less about the circumstances under which it came about. I think that that is an advantage to faith in the Bible because its problems have been largely washed away in the waves of time.
Evidence?
Evidence for what?
No, it is just that their language was somewhat simpler but more nuanced than other languages. And it was not meant for a science textbook. I am not claiming that the Bible is science textbook but when it does touch on scientific things, it is correct.
Any good book should never contain scientific errors or confuse people making them think it has scientific errors. It should be able to clearly explain what it's trying to say. God can handle that; people may not be so adept.
I said probably because I am not a hebrew scholar. But see above for more about their language. It is not that difficult.
God realizes that speaking to people in their native tongues is the best way to communicate with them. People, by contrast, may not have that power and end up writing books that need to be subjected to messy translations.
I thought you were claiming the Greeks were far more advanced than the ancient hebrews.
The Greeks obviously were more scientifically advanced than the Hebrews, but I never said that I know everything that the Greeks knew.
A nonphysical cause producing a physical effect.
How is that possible?
Most scientists agree that the laws of physics breakdown at the singularity.
Right. So let's not jump to conclusions asserting that the cause of the universe was not physical.
Unlike my theory, there is absolutely no evidence for their theory.
Unfortunately, I don't have that article, but like every article in Scientific American, all the evidence for the hypothesis that the universe originated from a four-dimensional star is presented. In any case, the lesson to learn is to use science to study the origin of the cosmos rather than just use pure "armchair" reasoning.
Well I havent counted how many miracles have occurred in the 13.8 billion years that the Bible covers.
If we did the answer would no doubt be zero.
But the number is pretty small given how many events have occurred during that time period. But It is possible my first estimate is fairly close.
Zero is "pretty small," is it not?
They had figurative language in ancient times as well.
And when they meant something literally, they omitted metaphors only to have Biblical apologists insert metaphors to save the day.
Someone that endorses rape should be verbally refuted and that is what Jesus was doing, he was refuting serious moral errors.
What do you mean by "endorse"?
No, that was not approved by God, the Bible is just recording the facts of what happened.
Verses 1 - 4 from Judges 21 tells us:
Now the Israelites had sworn at Mizpah, “No one of us shall give his daughter in marriage to Benjamin.” And the people came to Bethel and sat there until evening before God, and they lifted up their voices and wept bitterly. They said, “O Lord, the God of Israel, why has it come to pass that today there should be one tribe lacking in Israel?” On the next day, the people got up early and built an altar there and offered burnt offerings and sacrifices of well-being.
It looks to me like they had God's approval to get those virgins as the spoils of war.
But actually even in this case no actual rape is mentioned. It just says that they took the women to become their wives.
And those "brides" had no say regarding whether or not they were to become the wives of the men who had slaughtered their families. There is no need to mention rape. Rape is obvious from the circumstances described.
Most of them could very well have been consensual.
Anything is possible.
In ancient times before police forces, single women were in a very vulnerable state so the importance of being married could mean life or death.
The married women among those the Hebrews conquered did not need to worry about death resulting from their becoming widows; their attackers killed them.
 
Isn't it interesting how the closer in time and space we are able to judge a religion, the more we can easily see difficulties with that religion? As we both know Joseph Smith was a conman who duped people into believing what he made up. We have the advantage of seeing Smith and his work "up close." The Bible, by contrast, is much older and "farther away" in that it originated in the Middle East, and we know much less about the circumstances under which it came about. I think that that is an advantage to faith in the Bible because its problems have been largely washed away in the waves of time.
This is a key point that is not appreciated until one starts digging in to the history of the church, Jewish-Christianity, Essenes, Maccabees, Persian-Babylonian religions, even unto the Sumerian and Akkadian beliefs birthed in Mesopotamia. Most people do not have the time to investigate actual history and how it contributed to the Bible we now have so they are easily manipulated to believe whatever they are told.
 
Bible is Gnostic document: mixed reality, truth and myth...
Yes' it is a religious document. Each testimony in it has its own view of their dealings with beliefs, and truths that is not a belief but actualities, and mythical for some, and yes Gnostics not only believe the Spirit of God resides in man but He actually does for fact by the manifestation of God who resides in man to have His same disposition of mind, man is the temple of Him.
 
Isn't it interesting how the closer in time and space we are able to judge a religion, the more we can easily see difficulties with that religion? As we both know Joseph Smith was a conman who duped people into believing what he made up. We have the advantage of seeing Smith and his work "up close." The Bible, by contrast, is much older and "farther away" in that it originated in the Middle East, and we know much less about the circumstances under which it came about. I think that that is an advantage to faith in the Bible because its problems have been largely washed away in the waves of time.
This is a key point that is not appreciated until one starts digging in to the history of the church, Jewish-Christianity, Essenes, Maccabees, Persian-Babylonian religions, even unto the Sumerian and Akkadian beliefs birthed in Mesopotamia. Most people do not have the time to investigate actual history and how it contributed to the Bible we now have so they are easily manipulated to believe whatever they are told.
Did you ever notice that Christian apologists and evangelists like El Cid and Theo are loathe to encourage people to check the history of the Bible and Christianity or much less history in general? If people did do such historical study then as you say they would learn the real roots of religion and have their faith shaken. Yes, like I have pointed out many important details of the root of Christianity have been erased by time, but there's enough that is extant to sow doubt in any honest person's mind. For instance, history demonstrates that pagan religions and their gods existed thousands of years before the Bible came along yet those pagan beliefs have much in common with Judaism and Christianity.

Ignorance preserves the marriages of fools to their lies, and knowledge leads to their divorces.
 
Did you ever notice that Christian apologists and evangelists like El Cid and Theo are loathe to encourage people to check the history of the Bible and Christianity or much less history in general?

Bearing false witness is a sin.
Just so you know.

I love how you use the most extremist terminology ("loathe"?!) to misrepresent people.

I actually love studying church history, and I've been studying the history of the Bible for years.

How would you even know my position?
Have you been stalking me for years or something?

If people did do such historical study then as you say they would learn the real roots of religion and have their faith shaken.

False.
I've found that it only serves to strengthen my faith.

Yes, like I have pointed out many important details of the root of Christianity have been erased by time, but there's enough that is extant to sow doubt in any honest person's mind.

Hardly.

For instance, history demonstrates that pagan religions and their gods existed thousands of years before the Bible came along yet those pagan beliefs have much in common with Judaism and Christianity.

Again, you show your ignorance of history.
The vast majority of false religions involved polytheism, and Judeo Christianity stands out in stark contrast to them all. And you may not be aware of this, but the pagans in the first couple of centuries used to call Christians "atheists", since they denied all the pagan gods, and only worshipped on God.

Ignorance preserves the marriages of fools to their lies, and knowledge leads to their divorces.

You would know, being the king of ignorance.
 
Did you ever notice that Christian apologists and evangelists like El Cid and Theo are loathe to encourage people to check the history of the Bible and Christianity or much less history in general? If people did do such historical study then as you say they would learn the real roots of religion and have their faith shaken. Yes, like I have pointed out many important details of the root of Christianity have been erased by time, but there's enough that is extant to sow doubt in any honest person's mind. For instance, history demonstrates that pagan religions and their gods existed thousands of years before the Bible came along yet those pagan beliefs have much in common with Judaism and Christianity.

Ignorance preserves the marriages of fools to their lies, and knowledge leads to their divorces.
Christianity we see now is not Christ Jesus's kind (and Paul is in the same company).
 
Did you ever notice that Christian apologists and evangelists like El Cid and Theo are loathe to encourage people to check the history of the Bible and Christianity or much less history in general? If people did do such historical study then as you say they would learn the real roots of religion and have their faith shaken. Yes, like I have pointed out many important details of the root of Christianity have been erased by time, but there's enough that is extant to sow doubt in any honest person's mind. For instance, history demonstrates that pagan religions and their gods existed thousands of years before the Bible came along yet those pagan beliefs have much in common with Judaism and Christianity.

Ignorance preserves the marriages of fools to their lies, and knowledge leads to their divorces.
Ironic is, the Bible most read is the KJV and was compiled by a team of scholars and authorized in 1611 (if I remember correctly), by a king James who was an atheist and didnt believe in a God at all.

And look how many today believe what he authorized as an atheist. That should have a clue to the religious minds that something just isn't right here!
 
Christianity we see now is not Christ Jesus's kind (and Paul is in the same company).
You are spot on. Paul didnt teach what Jesus taught in the Father and far from it the perfections of. He was bold enough to even admit that he used witchcraft to get people to follow him in his ways as a sinner instead of Christ and be without sin yourself as Jesus taught the ways of Gods anointing, BTW which is the Christ in me. He called it trickery to get people to follow him. I dont remember Jesus using such tactics to get people to follow him -- do you?

Most are Pauline instead of Christian and only call it christian.

When I look at Saul and him out to eliminate Christianity by persecution and he saw that wasn't going to work, he changed his tactics, his name, his intent. If he couldn't kill therm all then he would infiltrate and destroy it from the inside, stirring people to follow him in his ways for sin instead of being the righteousness of God in His anointing and be without sin.

We who are born of God it is impossible to be in sin, cannot sin because we are born of God. 1 John 3:9. and that is exactly just one example of how most follow Paul as a sinner instead of Christ and be perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect in which Paul taught just the opposite. To him no one is worth of the kingdom of God where Jesus commands that we be instead.

These are so tuned to be a sinner through Paul that Christ in righteousness to be without sin is strewn by the wayside instead.

people dont take time to really study it, they just follow a leader that Paul had it all together. These can identify with Paul as the sinner they are, but they cant be identified with Christ and without sin at all. See the difference? I can by the same God who came to Jesus in Matt 3:16 and delivered him from the laws for sin in the temple for Jewish law and made him in the image of God Himself where the law was fulfilled in him just as the same happens in us all who are of Christ and not of Paul.

People are so tuned into Paul instead of Jesus, if these Paulines could they would have me hung on a cross for blaspheme as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top