Science or Scripture?

[doppelganger]

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

However it is undeniable that Scripture is written in man's words. There's not a single word in the Bible that I can't read, associate meaning with, and attempt to use for communication.

So Scripture changes with every person who reads it.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Very clever people say very silly things sometimes.

What do you mean?

 

[linwood]

Very clever people say very silly things sometimes.

I agree Clever people have indeed said silly things, Einstein included.

However I believe you need to have an understanding of exactly what Einsteins "religion" was.
The statement then makes perfect sense.

I haven`t ever seen this quote in context though so that might prove it silly after all.

 

[Booko]

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

Generally speaking:

Furthermore He proclaims that religion must be in harmony with science and reason. If it does not conform to science and reconcile with reason it is superstition. Down to the present day it has been customary for man to accept a religious teaching even though it were not in accord with human reason and judgment. The harmony of religious belief with reason is a new vista which Bahá'u'lláh has opened for the soul of man.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 247)

 

[Booko]

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

Actually, some of God's words do change. Were it not so, you would be following Mosaic Law.

 

[lilithu]

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?

Rather easily. Most Christians do not take the bible literally.


As for the ones who do, in my experience they seem to have a hostile suspicion of science.

 

[Booko]

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

Even were it not so, there are probably at least a billion people in the world who accept the Bible as scriptural, but believe there's been a chapter or two added since.

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?

Well, there's one unexpurgated and original text of a religion's scripture available in Haifa, but how one proves in the strictest sense that it's "God's Word" is a sticky wicket, to say the least. :sarcastic

 

[Dirty Penguin]

That's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I agree.

some, not all, theist seem to be under the assumption that science is set out to "Prove" something to them. whether their way of life is correct or incorrect.

i have seen science as having questions that can't be answered. So science does do a lot of theorizing but then it tries to make the theory a fact. is it alway correct? No..Does it attempt to correct itself...Yes....Do scientist admit when it is incorrect?..Yes

Don't religious people try to interpret their scriptures in order to tell a story in order for people to understand?

Isn't some of that interpretation sometimes considered a theory on behalf of the person interpreting a story?

Most information i have read and documentaries i have seen on evolution the scientist tend to stay away from challenging religious scholars.

I mean isn't the planet earth billions of years old...Didn't dinosaurs walk the earth millions of years ago.....Doesn't man...as far as fossil records go back about 160,000 years ago...????

The bible doesn't explain ANY of this. The bible says

Gen: 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of Elohim moved upon the face of the waters.

So it's not like the earth wasn't there. it was because it says that God moved upon the face of the waters.

Science is not alone in the theory business. Religion does it too.

 

[s2a]

Hi lilithu,
You said (in reply to TurkeyOnRye):

"...Most Christians do not take the bible literally."

It seems to depend upon the given sectarian affiliation.
It might be fair to say that "most" [U.S.] Christians (as in a simple majority of the whole) don't take (or interpret) the Bible literally; it's also fair to say that a significantly sizable (overall) minority do.

Just as background FYI triviata...

"Christians generally are far more supportive of the inerrancy position. The Barna Research Group reported in 1996 that among American adults generally:
58% believe that the Bible is "totally accurate in all its teachings"
45% believe that the Bible is "absolutely accurate and everything in it can be taken literally."

Support dropped between that poll and another taken in 2001. Barna reported in 2001 that:
41% of adults strongly agrees that the Bible is totally accurate in all that it teaches

They also published beliefs by denomination:
Above average:
Pentecostal / Foursquare: 81%
Assembly of God: 77%
Christian, non-denominational (mostly Fundamentalist) 70%
Baptist: 66%
Seventh-day Adventist: 64%
Church of Christ: 57%

Below average:
Presbyterian: 40%
Methodist: 38%
Lutheran: 34%
Latter-day Saints (Mormon): 29%
Catholics: 26%
Episcopal: 22%"

Source

As for the ones who do, in my experience they seem to have a hostile suspicion of science.

Indeed so, and sadly enough, they tend to be the most outspoken and active in attempts to dismiss or obfuscate contemporary scientific understanding.

 

[lilithu]

Hi lilithu,

It seems to depend upon the given sectarian affiliation.
It might be fair to say that "most" [U.S.] Christians (as in a simple majority of the whole) don't take (or interpret) the Bible literally; it's also fair to say that a significantly sizable (overall) minority do.

Just as background FYI triviata...

"Christians generally are far more supportive of the inerrancy position. The Barna Research Group reported in 1996 that among American adults generally:
58% believe that the Bible is "totally accurate in all its teachings"
45% believe that the Bible is "absolutely accurate and everything in it can be taken literally."

Support dropped between that poll and another taken in 2001. Barna reported in 2001 that:
41% of adults strongly agrees that the Bible is totally accurate in all that it teaches

Hi s2a, thanks for the data.

I'm assuming that the respondants are answering either a yes or no question or multiple choice. In either case, they're being asked something akin to "Do you believe that the bible is absolutely accurate and everything in it can be taken literally."

Do you think that all of these people who said yes to that question would also have said yes to the question of whether they believe that scientific estimates are wrong and the world is only 6000 years old?

I am sure that a fair number of them would say yes to the latter question. But I also believe that a fair number would say no.

I think, when asked about the book that's supposed to be the source of their faith many people tend to want to say it's all true without thinking about the repercussions of that statement.

I could be wrong. I suppose that I just don't want to think that 41% of the U.S. believes that the world is only 6000 years old. :cover:

They also published beliefs by denomination:
Above average:
Pentecostal / Foursquare: 81%
Assembly of God: 77%
Christian, non-denominational (mostly Fundamentalist) 70%
Baptist: 66%
Seventh-day Adventist: 64%
Church of Christ: 57%

Below average:
Presbyterian: 40%
Methodist: 38%
Lutheran: 34%
Latter-day Saints (Mormon): 29%
Catholics: 26%
Episcopal: 22%"

Source

It is difficult for me to make sense of what these numbers mean without knowing what percentage these deminations make up in the general population. That is, I already knew that members of the "above average" denominations tend to be more religiously conservative than members of the "below average" denominations. But I was also under the impression that most of the "above average" denominations tend to be smaller in number than the "below average" denominations. Granted that Baptists and Fundamentalists are not few. And from what I've been hearing, the mainline protestant churches are in decline while non-denom/Fundamentalists are growing....

 

[cardw]

An interesting note about Latter Day Saints. I believe one reason they are so low on the belief scale is in their study of genetics they were trying to prove that there was Jewish DNA in the native Indian population so they could prove the Book of Mormon. When the results showed that there was no trace, there was further fall out in the literal camp.

What is interesting is that the apologists reasoned that God must be testing them. In the end the Book of Mormon will be vindicated and this controversy is only serving to weed out the false Mormons.

With that kind of reasoning there is no proof sufficient to show the Bible as the work of men.

 

[s2a]

Do you think that all of these people who said yes to that question would also have said yes to the question of whether they believe that scientific estimates are wrong and the world is only 6000 years old?

I am sure that a fair number of them would say yes to the latter question. But I also believe that a fair number would say no.

I think, when asked about the book that's supposed to be the source of their faith many people tend to want to say it's all true without thinking about the repercussions of that statement.

I could be wrong. I suppose that I just don't want to think that 41% of the U.S. believes that the world is only 6000 years old. :cover:

It's perhaps worse than you thought plausible...
[I'll avoid a ton of cut and paste bandwidth excesses, and put this forward, with relevant source afterwards]

Poll questions (premised), as put (% in agreement):
Creationist view
44% -- "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."

Theistic evolution
39%--"Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation."

Naturalistic Evolution
10%--"Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process."

Source

Note that 83% of respondents indicate some belief in a supernaturalistic cause/influence...despite the fact that science offers no indications/suggestions of divine interventions or oterwise attributable affects upon/within it's presented conclusions.

KInda scary, ain't it...?

;-)

 

[lilithu]

Note that 83% of respondents indicate some belief in a supernaturalistic cause/influence...despite the fact that science offers no indications/suggestions of divine interventions or oterwise attributable affects upon/within it's presented conclusions.

KInda scary, ain't it...?

;-)

For the record, I have no problem with people believing in things that science does not indicate. I'm not a materialist myself. My only concern is people not being able to distinguish between religion and science.

 

[Quiddity]

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.

Ditto...Now if it happens to knock down a traditional interpreation/dogma then hold on to your hats people. Although I'm not sure how it can ever really do that unless science or religion plans on moving the goal posts. If the Catholic Church for example starts to make official that the moon is made of cheese, then we can begin to ponder and worry.

 

[michel]

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

"an idea" ? as in a theory? or as in a proven scientific fact? The first scenario, I'd stick with my gut religious feelings.

If it is the latter, then, I would never refute proof positive.

 

[DeepShadow]

An interesting note about Latter Day Saints. I believe one reason they are so low on the belief scale is in their study of genetics they were trying to prove that there was Jewish DNA in the native Indian population so they could prove the Book of Mormon. When the results showed that there was no trace, there was further fall out in the literal camp.

Wow, where to start! First, the Church as a body has never tried to prove that Native Americans have "Jewish DNA." Rather, several disaffected LDS have tried to prove the opposite. Moreover, the results never showed there was "no trace," but rather that Native American DNA was primarily Asiatic. In their haste to attack the church, these people failed to realize that this doesn't contradict the text of the Book of Mormon, only the gross oversimplifications pandered about in the halls after Sunday School.

What is interesting is that the apologists reasoned that God must be testing them. In the end the Book of Mormon will be vindicated and this controversy is only serving to weed out the false Mormons.

ROTFL! Apologists hardly have to resort to such tactics. Considering that Hugh Nibley--the leading "apologist" and preeminent LDS scholar--predicted fifty years prior to the study that Native Americans would have Asiatic DNA based on his study of the Jaredites, apologist have much better arguments. A small sample can be found at http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/DNA.shtml

With that kind of reasoning there is no proof sufficient to show the Bible as the work of men.

At least there's something we agree on. Just make sure you understand that this reasoning (or lack of it) isn't that of most LDS apologists.

 

[DeepShadow]

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.

I'm inclined to agree. I think there's a point where reinterpretation of scripture (or rather, re-re-re-reinterpretation of scripture) wears prohibitively thin, but it's important to be aware of where we go beyond the text. This DNA evidence that refutes armchair archaeology is a prime example of this.

 

[Katzpur]

An interesting note about Latter Day Saints. I believe one reason they are so low on the belief scale is in their study of genetics they were trying to prove that there was Jewish DNA in the native Indian population so they could prove the Book of Mormon. When the results showed that there was no trace, there was further fall out in the literal camp.

Uh... no.

I'm not even going to pretend to understand enough about this subject to try to argue on behalf of the LDS position. This stuff is so far over my head it's not even funny. As soon as someone makes mention of Mitochondrial DNA, the Cohen Modal Haplotype or Polymorphism Gradients, I quickly remember why the life sciences were a nightmare for me in high school and college. I get lost within the first two paragraphs of any article on the subject. However, what I have managed to glean from most articles I've attempted to read and from most speakers I've made a vain effort to understand is that it is the consensus of LDS scientists that we musn't be in too big of a hurry to rush to a premature conclusion. As you may or may not know, the LDS Church is not of the opinion that all of the Native American people have Middle Eastern ancestry, only that some of them do. So far, studies have produced no evidence (that I'm aware of) that any of them do. From the little bit I have been able to understand, though, most of the LDS scientists that have written on the subject have been primarily concerned with showing why the opposition's conclusions are flawed, and why further research is needed before they can justify pronouncing the case closed. The science of DNA is, after all, still relatively new. Twenty or thirty years from now, who knows what it will turn up.

Anyway, here, if you're interested, is an article that seems to me to be fairly characteristic of most I have seen:

http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormo..._Mormon_2.html

 

[linwood]

Wow, where to start! First, the Church as a body has never tried to prove that Native Americans have "Jewish DNA." Rather, several disaffected LDS have tried to prove the opposite. Moreover, the results never showed there was "no trace," but rather that Native American DNA was primarily Asiatic. In their haste to attack the church, these people failed to realize that this doesn't contradict the text of the Book of Mormon, only the gross oversimplifications pandered about in the halls after Sunday School.

This is less than honest Deep, we`ve had this debate before.
This directly contradicts LDS dogma .
The Mormon at BYU who initially began this genetic study did so in order to "prove" his faith not knock it down.
He has since been excommunicated.

You know all this Deep.

ROTFL! Apologists hardly have to resort to such tactics. Considering that Hugh Nibley--the leading "apologist" and preeminent LDS scholar--predicted fifty years prior to the study that Native Americans would have Asiatic DNA based on his study of the Jaredites, apologist have much better arguments. A small sample can be found at http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/DNA.shtml

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/DNA.shtml

Hmm..the study of a people who never existed..neat trick that.
Kinda bereft of any foundational standard though huh?

 

[DeepShadow]

This directly contradicts LDS dogma .

Dogma, sure. Fortunately we're not governed by dogma.

The Mormon at BYU who initially began this genetic study did so in order to "prove" his faith not knock it down.

My mistake. I was only aware of one guy in Bellvue, and another guy in Australia. Nevertheless, the LDS Church has never tried to prove anthing about Native American DNA.

You know all this Deep.

Apparently not. I appreciate you pointing out the one at BYU. He have a name, TW, so I can look him up and be better informed next time?

Hmm..the study of a people who never existed..neat trick that.
Kinda bereft of any foundational standard though huh?

On the contrary, Hugh Nibley cited sources for a comparison of over twenty major points of similarity between Jaredites and ancient Asiatic peoples. You didn't think much of them in our previous debate:

The points given byHugh Nibley in the thread make no direct connection with Asiatic origins but merely a few lines taken from him that if twisted correctly can show a similarity between Asian war tactics and cultural systems and Jaredite war tactics and cultural systems.
It needn`t be said that this comparison can be made with almost every people who have ever been at war or utilized their resources conservatively.
The tactics and systems are common and used to this very day by a number of societies.

But when I asked you to cite a source for only one of them...

Really? Can you cite a source for this? Specifically, can you cite a source for any other culture who had the tradition of taking defeated kings as live hostages and allowing them to live out their lives in captivity? It's an unusual and distinctive custom, or so I thought, but if you can find a reference for any other culture that did this on a regular basis, I'll gladly give you the point on this.

...you forgot to do so. Perhaps my request for a source got ignored with all the posts flying around, so I'll repeat it now. I'll even expand it. I'd like to hear about any people who make war by drawing away armies of outcasts, binding them together with blood oaths, and/or take their captured monarchs prisoner. I took these as very distinctive customs, but I'm prepared to be wrong. Seriously.

Give me some sources, please.