Science or Scripture?

[Mathematician]

If the scientific community promotes an idea that goes against scripture, which should you rally yourself behind?

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

If the scientific community promotes an idea that goes against scripture, which should you rally yourself behind?

Scientific theories and ideas are constantly being changed, updated, outdated, etc. From a Christian perspective, if some new idea appears to contradict Scripture, the test of time will show the truth, and I believe God's words will stand true forever.

 

[doppelganger]

Scientific theories and ideas are constantly being changed, updated, outdated, etc. From a Christian perspective, if some new idea appears to contradict Scripture, the test of time will show the truth, and I believe God's words will stand true forever.

That's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

That's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It's an observation...man's words change, God's don't.

 

[Random]

Scripture generally is constructed to be possessed of a depth that enables it to be reinterpreted if necessary. Science can therefore only promote an idea that goes against traditional interpretation of Scriputre, not scripture itself.

 

[YmirGF]

I would go with the scientific model every time, as that model, by its very nature, backs up what is proposed without insulting my intelligence.

I watched good ol’ Larry King last night and the show was about debunking so-called “psychics”. One fellow on the show (through his foundation) has put up $1,000,000 US to anyone who can prove their psychic abilities. The offer has been standing for years apparently. The “psychic”, a rather charming, kind looking and warm lady simply offered nothing more than a blubbering “Well, some people are just born with this gift”. She seemed to think that her “say so” was good enough a “reason” and that it was almost unseemly that some folks required more concrete proof.

I don’t see religious so-called “scriptures” as being so different. They are offered on a “take it or leave it” basis and offer no actual proof. None of them do. I tend to look at religious works and often wonder, “Where’s the beef?” All I see is sanguine sauces that act almost like narcotics.

 

[Random]

I would go with the scientific model every time, as that model, by its very nature, backs up what is proposed without insulting my intelligence.

How do you know science wouldn't insult your intelligence? Isn't scientific analysis confounded in some regards by the weight of expectation? Where there's big money, titles, egos and a male peerage involved, don't expect the whole truth and nothing but the truth, I say...

 

[Ody]

If the scientific community promotes an idea that goes against scripture, which should you rally yourself behind?

Depends on how credible Science is. In the end, truth prevails, if it is scientific in nature so be it.

 

[PureX]

I personally don't see any way for science to contradict scripture. I do not believe that scripture was ever intended to be taken as factual, but rather was always intended to be taken symbolically/metaphorically. So scripture is not making any kind of assertion that science could possibly contradict. And the kinds of assertions that scripture is making, are not concepts that science has the capacity to even address, let alone contradict. So for me, they're not in contention. In fact, I personally tend to view them as complimentary.

 

[standing_on_one_foot]

How do you know science wouldn't insult your intelligence? Isn't scientific analysis confounded in some regards by the weight of expectation? Where there's big money, titles, egos and a male peerage involved, don't expect the whole truth and nothing but the truth, I say...

I think the "won't insult your intelligence" comes more from the fact that science expects you to think about things carefully and test your ideas rather than accept them on faith than it does from any sort of notion that science or scientists are perfect.

The beauty of the whole business, after all, is that all those people after the money, titles, egos, etc, are out to disprove the hell out of each other so they can get said things themselves. So while science is far from perfect (and just about any scientist would admit as much, that's another nice thing about science), it does often involve a fair deal of scrutiny and tends to be self-correcting, even if it this does not happen immediately.

So I personally won't back any idea proposed by someone in the scientific community, but I will tend to back the more enduring and closely examined ones.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

It's an observation...man's words change, God's don't.

Just because "God" doesn't change his words doesn't mean anything. He can't because his followers that wrote the Bible are dead. That's why nothing is added or changed.

Science has also lit fires underneath religion many, many times. If one creates a timeline in relation to the Bible, one finds that the earth is approximately 6 thousand years old. 6 THOUSAND! That's absolutely ridiculous. You claim that modern science is always changing and being updated but modern science, through many independent methods of dating, tell us that earth is approximately 4.5 billion years.

How can Christians deal with this kind of inconsistency? This is not a trivial miscalculation!

 

[UnityNow101]

One of the fundamental teachings of Bahá’u’lláh is that true science and true religion must always be in harmony. Truth is one, and whenever conflict appears it is due, not to truth, but to error. Between so-called science and so-called religion there have been fierce conflicts all down the ages, but looking back on these conflicts in the light of fuller truth we can trace them every time to ignorance, prejudice, vanity, greed, narrow-mindedness, intolerance, obstinacy or something of the kind—something foreign to the true spirit of both science and religion, for the spirit of both is one. As Huxley tells us, “The great deeds of philosophers have been less the fruit of their intellect than the direction of that intellect by an eminently religious tone of mind. Truth has yielded herself rather to their patience, their love, their single-heartedness and self-denial than to their logical acumen.” Boole, the mathematician, assures us that “geometric induction is essentially a process of prayer—an appeal from the finite mind to the Infinite for light on finite concerns.” The great prophets of religion and science have never denounced each other. It is the unworthy followers of these great world teachers—worshipers of the letter but not of the spirit of their teaching—who have always been the persecutors of the later prophets and the bitterest opponents of progress. They have studied the light of the particular revelation 198 which they hold sacred, and have defined its properties and peculiarities as seen by their limited vision, with the utmost care and precision. That is for them the one true light. If God in His infinite bounty sends fuller light from another quarter, and the torch of inspiration burns brighter than before from a new torchholder, instead of welcoming the new lights they are angry and alarmed. This new light does not correspond with their definitions. It has not the orthodox color, and does not shine from the orthodox place, therefore it must at all costs be extinguished lest it lead men astray into the paths of heresy! Many enemies of the Prophets are of this type—blind leaders of the blind, who oppose new and fuller truth in the supposed interests of what they believe to be the truth. Others are of baser sort and are moved by selfish interests to fight against truth, or else block the path of progress by reason of spiritual deadness and inertia.

~source:"Bahaullah and the New Era";Pages 197-198

 

[Guitar's Cry]

6 THOUSAND! That's absolutely ridiculous. You claim that modern science is always changing and being updated but modern science, through many independent methods of dating, tell us that earth is approximately 4.5 billion years.

How can Christians deal with this kind of inconsistency? This is not a trivial miscalculation!

But, I would say, a trivial part of the Bible.

 

[lilithu]

I personally don't see any way for science to contradict scripture. I do not believe that scripture was ever intended to be taken as factual, but rather was always intended to be taken symbolically/metaphorically. So scripture is not making any kind of assertion that science could possibly contradict. And the kinds of assertions that scripture is making, are not concepts that science has the capacity to even address, let alone contradict. So for me, they're not in contention. In fact, I personally tend to view them as complimentary.

What PureX said. :jam:

 

[Guitar's Cry]

In my most humble view, I see the animosity between religion and science as being counterproductive. I know many people who hold both deep spiritual and religious belief, and are scientific. One side helps the person find meaning in a difficult world, and the other helps the person understand the mechanics of a complex world.

It may as well be poetry vs. expository writing.

 

[lilithu]

In my most humble view, I see the animosity between religion and science as being counterproductive. I know many people who hold both deep spiritual and religious belief, and are scientific. One side helps the person find meaning in a difficult world, and the other helps the person understand the mechanics of a complex world.

[SIZE=-1]"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
- Albert Einstein [/SIZE]

 

[BruceDLimber]

Hi!

The scriptures of the Baha'i Faith state clearly that if a religious doctrine contradicts established science, that doctrine is wrong. Period; end of story.

Best,

Bruce

 

[s2a]

It's an observation...man's words change, God's don't.

You may want to read:
Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why

"God's Word" has been consistently altered, amended, and overtly changed ever since a scribe has presumed to "speak" for Him in religious texts.

Or, perhaps you have knowledge and/or access to some unexpurgated and "original", verbatim accounting of "God's Word"? If so, is it available for sale?

 

[zoro]

I rather like what God HIMself allegedly said about the matter [as reported in Jeremiah 8, 8; Jeremiah 14, 14; & Jeremiah 23, 16 & 32 and to which I’ve added the notes in "square brackets", such as these]:

"How can you say, 'We are wise, we have the law of the Lord' when scribes with their lying pens have falsified it? The wise are put to shame, they are dismayed and have lost their wits… Prophets and priests are frauds, every one of them… The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I [God] have not sent them; I have given them no charge; I have not spoken to them. The prophets offer them [the people] false visions, worthless augury, and their own deluding fancies… Do not listen to what the prophets say [such as Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, Joseph Smith, et al.] who buoy you up with false hopes; the vision they report springs from their own imagination, it is not from the mouth of the Lord… It was not I who sent them or commissioned them… This is the very word of the Lord."

In contrast, science never deals with "truth" but (consistent with Popper's principle) only with hypotheses not yet demonstrated to be false. When some hypothesis is found to be false, we move on. As Feynman said, the scientific method is just a way to try to make sure we're not fooling ourselves. Religions, on the other hand...

 

[IronicallyTwisted]

[SIZE=-1]"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
- Albert Einstein [/SIZE]

Very clever people say very silly things sometimes.