Christianity Versus Science

[Unknown Soldier]

There is much ado in Christian apologetics regarding the compatibility between Christian doctrine and science. Christianity's critics charge that Christianity is unscientific or even antiscientific. Of course, almost all apologists deny the charge sometimes claiming that modern science has been founded on Christian beliefs. In any case, there is no doubt that the scientific approach to knowledge differs from Christianity's basis of establishing truth. Two simple syllogisms (arguments) can clarify that difference. This first syllogism forms the basis of science:

All the observed s from F have been G.
Therefore, all F are G.

Here s are known instances, F is some class the s instances belong to, and G is another class that the observed s instances might belong to. For example, here's a typical argument scientists might use:

Aside from the earth, no planet in the solar system is known to harbor life.
Therefore, no planet in the solar system except earth harbors life.

Here s is the seven planets aside from earth in the solar system along with Pluto, F is the class of planets in the solar system, and G is the class of planets that harbor life. Note that this argument is provisional in that if life is discovered on some planet beyond the earth in the solar system, then the conclusion will be dropped.

No, by contrast, here's an argument that Christian theologians and apologists typically use:

All the s eyewitness accounts from F have been believed by authorities to be G.
Therefore, all F are G.

This argument relies on eyewitness accounts and scripture for observations and on traditional belief and authority rather than knowledge gleaned from data. Here's an example:

All the prophets seen in the Bible are believed to have spoken for God.
Therefore, all Biblical prophets have spoken for God.

Most scientists do not rely on the Bible for making observations, and neither do they rely on what have been beliefs as held by authorities. Christian apologists and theologians, by contrast, will not generally rely on any observations that cannot be harmonized with their beliefs and the way they interpret scripture.

Can these two differing views ever be reconciled?

 

[Dizerner]

Science cannot describe of all of reality, it has too many presuppositions it just flat out assumes with no proof or substantiating.

Apologetics is misguided, the best you can show logically is hard solipsism or skepticism, the fact that justified certainty is impossible.

 

[Bocco]

Science cannot describe of all of reality

I would say also, that science is just a word. It means knowledge. Science is always changing and learning.

Look at all the lies that Mr. Science Dr. Fauci told us.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I would say also, that science is just a word. It means knowledge. Science is always changing and learning.

Is changing and learning good or bad? I see science's change as its learning from its mistakes which is good, of course. To admit errors is I think "realistic humility and integrity" which is to say it is humbly facing the fact that one is imperfect, makes mistakes, and honestly admits it. Such realistic humility and integrity is sorely lacking in Christian theology and apologetics. What theologian or apologist ever openly admitted making a mistake?

Look at all the lies that Mr. Science Dr. Fauci told us.

If the doctor lied to us, does that mean medicine is false to? I don't think so. To judge medical science as a hoax and its practitioners as hoaxers based on one doctor is a hasty generalization fallacy. Besides, I see no good reason to believe Fauci lied.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Science cannot describe of all of reality,

What part of reality can science not describe? I see no reason why God and His work cannot be discovered by science.

it has too many presuppositions it just flat out assumes with no proof or substantiating.

At some point basing some truth A on some truth B should terminate. In other words, to conclude A should be assumed true based on the truth of B, and stop there. If it is always demanded that B be based on C, then we encounter an infinite regression of assumptions, and no truth ever has a fundamental basis. So yes, there are some assumptions science makes without proof, but in epistemology they are unavoidable.

Apologetics is misguided, the best you can show logically is hard solipsism or skepticism, the fact that justified certainty is impossible.

Can you explain?

 

[Dizerner]

What part of reality can science not describe? I see no reason why God and His work cannot be discovered by science.

Well, think about it this way. What if something existed that so-called "science" did not have the ability to measure? It is only an assumption that only things that are measurable by us exist.

On top of that we have so many logical problems, and unless we perfectly understand the basis of thought itself, which is arguably an impossibility, we can never really see things from an external vantage point.

At some point basing some truth A on some truth B should terminate. In other words, to conclude A should be assumed true based on the truth of B, and stop there. If it is always demanded that B be based on C, then we encounter an infinite regression of assumptions, and no truth ever has a fundamental basis. So yes, there are some assumptions science makes without proof, but in epistemology they are unavoidable.

Yeah, but the logic you are pointing out means certainty for anything is impossible, and that's a non starter for science.

Can you explain?

I had a lot of posts on this, but most of my posts have been deleted. Here is some thoughts:

  - Is God Falsifiable? Yes or No

The solution to that contradiction is to understand that knowledge doesn't have to be certain, it can be probabilistic, using relative levels of certainty but nothing - perhaps with the exception of Decartes' cogito - being absolutely certain. Then, we can still rely on senses and logic...

forums.carm.org

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Well, think about it this way. What if something existed that so-called "science" did not have the ability to measure? It is only an assumption that only things that are measurable by us exist.

I don't know if science inevitably measures everything it knows exists. The cosmos is known to exist, of course, but it's never been "measured."

But I think you mean "observed." Scientists have never observed dark matter or dark energy, but both are known to exist by their effects on the cosmos. So it's really not true that science only accepts as existing that which can be observed. What makes the difference for scientists is evidence. If there is evidence that something exists, even if that something is not directly observable, then its existence is probable.

On top of that we have so many logical problems, and unless we perfectly understand the basis of thought itself, which is arguably an impossibility, we can never really see things from an external vantage point.

Observing the world from an internal vantage point seems more than adequate to me.

Yeah, but the logic you are pointing out means certainty for anything is impossible, and that's a non starter for science.

Why do you need certainty? Sometimes inductive generalizations like those used by science work just fine although their inductive probabilities are less than 100 percent.

I had a lot of posts on this, but most of my posts have been deleted. Here is some thoughts:

  - Is God Falsifiable? Yes or No

The solution to that contradiction is to understand that knowledge doesn't have to be certain, it can be probabilistic, using relative levels of certainty but nothing - perhaps with the exception of Decartes' cogito - being absolutely certain. Then, we can still rely on senses and logic...

forums.carm.org

I'm still not sure what you mean by: "Apologetics is misguided, the best you can show logically is hard solipsism or skepticism, the fact that justified certainty is impossible." How does apologetics at best show logical hard solipsism or skepticism?

 

[Dizerner]

"Why do you need certainty?"

Because without it, you can't even base factors to form a percentage of probability.

You are just guessing in complete darkness, and no one guess is better than another.

Dark matter and energy are by no means proven, so bad example there—they are fill-ins for influences observed.

But that point doesn't even matter, because it's tangential to something existing that cannot be "observed," which is a form of measuring.

 

[JonHawk]

Christianity Versus Science

I see no reason why God and His work cannot be discovered by science.

“So when you hear someone say something at one point, and then two or three months later, if you stick with what you said at the original time, when you had one fifth of the amount of data that you have now, I think that would be inappropriate... as you learn more and more, you’ve got to continue to evolve, with the data." A. Fauci

What makes the difference for scientists is evidence.

He who answers a matter before he hears it, that is foolishness and disgraceful. Prov 18:13

______________________________________________________
'My sheep hear My voice, and I give them eternal life'

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Can these two differing views ever be reconciled?

NO. Because "Science" will always be biased against God, and toward human wisdom, which will invariably create confusion.

 

[Gary Mac]

Scientifically one can examine, test and analyze, You can form opinions on findings as to why people believe in a god.
You can examine, test, and analyze, what motivates a mind to believe what it believes and still form opinions as tho why that belief.

In the case of Gods mind, the only way one can know the truth in that what science examines is -- reaching realities, not beliefs or speculation but the manifestation of those exams. And when the quest comes to the manifestation of the discoveries, then all issues are solved.

One can believe he can go to the moon, search all the science and experiments to get there, but there is no reality in it at all until one puts his foot on it.

One can believe he can be saved by a God and go to some heaven that is a belief, but until one actually puts his foot in it it is only a belief.
See what Jesus said in Luke 17:20-21 == The kingdom of God, His heaven, doest come with observation it is within you.

Not many put their foot into that for reality of do they?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Because without it, you can't even base factors to form a percentage of probability.

I'm not sure what you mean by "base factors," but certainty only serves as a maximal probability; certainty is a 100 percent probability. Certainty in "the real world" is relatively rare, so generally we need to rely on probabilities and endure doubt.

You are just guessing in complete darkness, and no one guess is better than another.

That's not true. "Guesses" are more or less likely to be true depending on how robust the evidence is for a given conclusion. For example, say you have observed ten striped tigers at random, and all but one of them is striped. Your best guess then is to conclude that about 90 percent of tigers are striped. Later on you observe at random an additional 90 tigers, and out of that 100 tigers you see that 90 of them are striped. Since you have much better evidence based on a much larger sample of tigers, your conclusion that about 90 percent of tigers are striped is a much better "guess" than it was when you only observed ten tigers.

Dark matter and energy are by no means proven, so bad example there—they are fill-ins for influences observed.

We do know for sure that something is having most of the gravitational effects on galaxies, yet we cannot see what that something is. Also, we do know that the rate of the universe's expansion is increasing, but we cannot account for what the required energy might be. Nevertheless, in both cases scientists can infer things that exist without direct observation which is the point I made earlier. I never argued that either one is "proven."

But that point doesn't even matter, because it's tangential to something existing that cannot be "observed," which is a form of measuring.

If you want to define two words that way, then go ahead. My point remains that certainty is a luxury that is not always necessary in the pursuit of knowledge.

 

[shnarkle]

There is much ado in Christian apologetics regarding the compatibility between Christian doctrine and science. Christianity's critics charge that Christianity is unscientific or even antiscientific. Of course, almost all apologists deny the charge sometimes claiming that modern science has been founded on Christian beliefs.

More accurately, the church funded scientific exploration.

In any case, there is no doubt that the scientific approach to knowledge differs from Christianity's basis of establishing truth.

A pretty bold claim in need of some proof.

Two simple syllogisms (arguments) can clarify that difference. This first syllogism forms the basis of science:

All the observed s from F have been G.
Therefore, all F are G.

This is a tautology.

Here s are known instances, F is some class the s instances belong to, and G is another class that the observed s instances might belong to. For example, here's a typical argument scientists might use:

Aside from the earth, no planet in the solar system is known to harbor life.
Therefore, no planet in the solar system except earth harbors life.

Again, this is nothing more than a tautology.

No, by contrast, here's an argument that Christian theologians and apologists typically use:

All the s eyewitness accounts from F have been believed by authorities to be G.
Therefore, all F are G.

This argument relies on eyewitness accounts and scripture for observations and on traditional belief and authority rather than knowledge gleaned from data.

This is the basis of history, not science.

Here's an example:

All the prophets seen in the Bible are believed to have spoken for God.
Therefore, all Biblical prophets have spoken for God.

You're applying a tautology that doesn't exist in the texts.

Most scientists do not rely on the Bible for making observations, and neither do they rely on what have been beliefs as held by authorities. Christian apologists and theologians, by contrast, will not generally rely on any observations that cannot be harmonized with their beliefs and the way they interpret scripture.

Nonsense. Christian doctrine swings wildly from one end of the spectrum to the other, and quite often based upon the exact same texts. You have everything from Calvinists to self-determined works based salvation.

Can these two differing views ever be reconciled?

They're not in conflict to begin with. You're just Begging the Question.

 

[shnarkle]

Is changing and learning good or bad? I see science's change as its learning from its mistakes which is good, of course. To admit errors is I think "realistic humility and integrity" which is to say it is humbly facing the fact that one is imperfect, makes mistakes, and honestly admits it. Such realistic humility and integrity is sorely lacking in Christian theology and apologetics.

Nowhere near as sorely lacking in science these days. Peer review has become a horrendous joke. The studies are performed by professionals who base their conclusions not on the evidence, but upon who is funding the research. There are then those who write up the findings who are also in the back pocket of whoever is funding the research. These findings are then placed neatly within the pages of the peer reviewed journals amidst advertisements for the exacts same products being sold. Those peers who sign their names are only going by what is presented to them, and again they're all being compensated for their signatures as well.

What theologian or apologist ever openly admitted making a mistake?

Plenty. So many that they're creating a schism within Christianity. People like Jack Spong, Panikkar, et al. I've literally got boxes of these theologians books in my closet.

If the doctor lied to us, does that mean medicine is false to? I don't think so.

It's bad medicine if you go by what that lying doctor says.

To judge medical science as a hoax and its practitioners as hoaxers based on one doctor is a hasty generalization fallacy.

When the whole medical community follows his edicts it isn't a hoax, it's a medical community that has been captured by corporate interests.

Besides, I see no good reason to believe Fauci lied.

You're not paying attention. He thinks other doctors can't figure out what he's talking about because he's some sort of incarnation of science itself. He literally said that! smh. He's so full of himself, it shouldn't come as any surprise how many people are practically falling over themselves just to kiss his feet.

No one in the medical community is following the science. They're all following the edicts of the high priests of western corporate medicine. Double blind placebo is the gold standard and yet there is nowhere in the medical journals where we find this with the whole Covid scam. They couldn't even be bothered to use it to establish their testing equipment.

Again, corporate interests have engaged in regulatory capture. Barring political campaigns, Big pharma makes up over 70% of mainstream media's revenue stream.

 

[shnarkle]

What part of reality can science not describe?

Plenty.

I see no reason why God and His work cannot be discovered by science.

Then you're not paying attention to what theologians are pointing out. Jesus himself points out that the kingdom does not come by observation. Q.E.D.

there are some assumptions science makes without proof,

Most theories begin with an assumption.

but in epistemology they are unavoidable.

Which is why it can never be used to validate the truth.

 

[shnarkle]

I don't know if science inevitably measures everything it knows exists.

It can't.

But I think you mean "observed." Scientists have never observed dark matter or dark energy, but both are known to exist by their effects on the cosmos.

The only thing that is known to exist is the theory. Your claim is no different than the Creationists claim that creation necessarily requires a Creator. Different nomenclature, same principle and method.

So it's really not true that science only accepts as existing that which can be observed.

Very true! Yesterday's superstitions are tomorrow's science.

What makes the difference for scientists is evidence. If there is evidence that something exists, even if that something is not directly observable, then its existence is probable.

Same exact principle for Creationists which is why science is essentially just another religion.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

NO. Because "Science" will always be biased against God, and toward human wisdom, which will invariably create confusion.

I'm not sure what you mean by your use of the quotation marks, but many great scientists have been Christians. The science they practiced had no apparent bias against God.

 

[GeneZ]

Its not "Christianity vs Science." Its bad Christianity vs bad science."

Everything that science tries to use to disprove the Bible, does not in fact, disprove the Bible. It simply exposes long accepted, unquestioned, bad theology.

God put scientists on earth to disprove bad theology to force the Church out of its complacency. Its to make us expand in
our understanding, and its for our enrichment that God allows for the secular attacks.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

More accurately, the church funded scientific exploration.

I'm not sure what you mean by "funded scientific exploration," but yes, some scientists have received their funding and support from church groups. Georges Lemaître, for instance, a Roman Catholic priest and professor of physics, is credited with work that led to the Big Bang Theory. His work was enthusiastically endorsed by Pope John XXIII.

This is a tautology.

Again, this is nothing more than a tautology.

I'm afraid that the syllogism you refer to is not a tautology. A tautology in argument form consists of a conclusion that merely repeats its premise(s) (e.g., 'A, therefore A'). Although tautologies are always true, they are often useless in that their conclusions tell us what we already know. In any case, the argument in question does not merely repeat its premises. Let's take a look:

All the observed s from F have been G.
Therefore, all F are G.

The key differences between the premise and the conclusion is that the premise provides information from a sample of F while the conclusion makes a statement about all of F. Also, the information about the sample in the premise is based on observation while the conclusion infers a truth about F.

This is the basis of history, not science.

You are making similar errors here. Let's take a look:

Aside from the earth, no planet in the solar system is known to harbor life.
Therefore, no planet in the solar system except earth harbors life.

The difference here is that the premise tells us something about our knowledge about life on planets in the solar system, and the conclusion states something about life itself in the solar system. This syllogism is then not a tautology.

You're applying a tautology that doesn't exist in the texts.

What "texts" are you referring to? Again, no syllogism I posted is a tautology.

Nonsense. Christian doctrine swings wildly from one end of the spectrum to the other, and quite often based upon the exact same texts. You have everything from Calvinists to self-determined works based salvation.

I know of no Christian doctrine that has changed the way you characterize it, and I suspect you know of no such doctrine either otherwise you would have posted an example if you did.

They're not in conflict to begin with. You're just Begging the Question.

I posted the differences in the OP.

To conclude, I'd strongly suggest you read up on what tautologies are. You've misidentified inductive arguments as tautologies. The two are different.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Nowhere near as sorely lacking in science these days. Peer review has become a horrendous joke. The studies are performed by professionals who base their conclusions not on the evidence, but upon who is funding the research. There are then those who write up the findings who are also in the back pocket of whoever is funding the research. These findings are then placed neatly within the pages of the peer reviewed journals amidst advertisements for the exacts same products being sold. Those peers who sign their names are only going by what is presented to them, and again they're all being compensated for their signatures as well.

Science being practiced poorly is not the fault of science but of those who practice it poorly. Anyway, are you saying that since some science is sloppy, then science is no more capable of informing us about the world than Christianity is? Please stay on topic.

Plenty. So many that they're creating a schism within Christianity. People like Jack Spong, Panikkar, et al.

What mistakes did they admit making?

I've literally got boxes of these theologians books in my closet.

I assume you've read them.

It's bad medicine if you go by what that lying doctor says.

Maybe, but again I'm discussing how science is practiced broadly and not just how one person might practice it.

When the whole medical community follows his edicts it isn't a hoax, it's a medical community that has been captured by corporate interests.

Yes, some modern medicine is unduly influenced by "corporate interests" not the least of which are insurance companies. However, such a problem is primarily a difficulty for medicine as it's practiced in America. Medical science, at least ideally, generally follows the description I posted in the OP.

You're not paying attention. He thinks other doctors can't figure out what he's talking about because he's some sort of incarnation of science itself. He literally said that! smh. He's so full of himself, it shouldn't come as any surprise how many people are practically falling over themselves just to kiss his feet.

I just checked Google, and Fauci never said he's an incarnation of science itself. Here's what he did say:

“It’s very dangerous, Chuck, because a lot of what you’re seeing as attacks on me quite frankly are attacks on science, because all of the things that I have spoken about consistently from the very beginning, have been fundamentally based on science

So Fauci is saying that attacks on him are actually attacks on science. In other words, he's saying that the attacks are on science rather than on him.

No one in the medical community is following the science. They're all following the edicts of the high priests of western corporate medicine. Double blind placebo is the gold standard and yet there is nowhere in the medical journals where we find this with the whole Covid scam. They couldn't even be bothered to use it to establish their testing equipment.

Again, corporate interests have engaged in regulatory capture. Barring political campaigns, Big pharma makes up over 70% of mainstream media's revenue stream.

I agree that much of modern medicine is corrupt. If we can steer it back to the ideal I posted in the OP, then the differences between medical science and Christianity should be clear. It's much fairer to compare apples to oranges rather than compare one allegedly rotten apple to oranges.