Science: The Alternative Utopian Ideal

[Omtita]

Science is a word that is bandied about in these debates in a manner which isn't very conducive to meaningful scientific inquiry, which often reflects poorly on both sides of the issue. I've always thought that unfortunate.

Meanwhile, real science goes on, fortunately, oblivious to the conflict. The sidewalk theologians and the armchair proponents of science hash out what surely must appear to the curious secular audience, as nonsensical. So what, exactly is the problem? Why the discord between the two? Where does the Bible and science disagree?

Most of the points of contention that has been introduced to me in my two decades of discussion and debate between the two are matters of poor understanding of the Bible. The issues could have been fairly easily resolved with a minimal amount of research. You would think the scientific solution, but the problems run deeper. The militant atheist world view isn't interested in resolving misinterpretations on their part, they simply use 'science' as a tool to establish an alternate utopian ideal. One that, apparently, can't sustain itself in the presence of competition. They are not as clever as they like to think they are.

Some Misinterpretations Of The Science Minded Bible Critic

For the record, the Bible doesn't teach astrology, though at one time science taught that you were ignorant if you hadn't been instructed in the field. It did, after all, encourage an education in math and language.

The Bible doesn't teach that bats are birds, the criticism is corrected by a simple use of language. The Old English term 'fowl' used to apply to any winged or flying creature. Insects, bats, birds etc.

The Bible doesn't say insects only have four legs. It considers the leaper insects as walking on four legs, the other two it uses for leaping.

The militant atheist, in the name of 'science' have similar unfounded criticisms of the Bible regarding pi, Noah's ark, rabbit's chewing cud, a flat earth and geocentric philosophy, but where does the Bible and science actually disagree?

Evolution and the global deluge. It could be argued that there is some disagreement with the supernatural but science doesn't speculate one way or the other on the supernatural simply because it can't be tested.

Two points of disagreement. Not bad, really, and it hardly merits such blatant contention, don't you think?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Two points of disagreement. Not bad, really, and it hardly merits such blatant contention, don't you think?

Absolutely. I find ancient myths and superstitions to be completely irrelevant to science. I don't feel the need to nitpick over specific details written in any collection of ancient parables, stories, and musings - nor do the vast majority of other atheists I've known.

If we simply accept these ancient collections of stories for what they are, we don't need to waste our time refuting them with science or facts. These scriptures are not scientific in nature, and thus will only be taken literally by those who have no care or respect for scientific thought or truth. Trying to change the minds of such individuals is a waste of time and effort.

 

[Omtita]

Absolutely. I find ancient myths and superstitions to be completely irrelevant to science. I don't feel the need to nitpick over specific details written in any collection of ancient parables, stories, and musings - nor do the vast majority of other atheists I've known.

If we simply accept these ancient collections of stories for what they are, we don't need to waste our time refuting them with science or facts. These scriptures are not scientific in nature, and thus will only be taken literally by those who have no care or respect for scientific thought or truth. Trying to change the minds of such individuals is a waste of time and effort.

You are simply dismissing the Bible while overestimating science. There are two problems with that. First it causes you to overestimate science and secondly it causes you to underestimate the Bible. That was the sort of thing I was pointing out in the OP.

When science thought the earth was flat, the Bible said it was round, when science thought that day and night were caused by vapors, in the case of day coming from the sky and night coming from the Earth, the Bible taught that it was a division of the luminaries, just a little over 100 years ago when the medical professional would go from the morgue dissecting table to the birthing room table without so much as washing his hands the Bible had forbade it for thousands of years.

Historically, the events of the Bible being false is in error. The Bible, like Sir Isaac Newton said, is the most reliable of historical manuscripts, and your biggest contention of any merit, the supernatural, is probably unsustainable as untestable scientifically.

That leaves you at best with conjecture.

To me the real interesting question is . . . why?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Anyone who thinks the bible is scientific in nature is terribly mistaken about both science and religion.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Science is a word that is bandied about in these debates in a manner which isn't very conducive to meaningful scientific inquiry, which often reflects poorly on both sides of the issue. I've always thought that unfortunate.

Meanwhile, real science goes on, fortunately, oblivious to the conflict. The sidewalk theologians and the armchair proponents of science hash out what surely must appear to the curious secular audience, as nonsensical. So what, exactly is the problem? Why the discord between the two? Where does the Bible and science disagree?

Most of the points of contention that has been introduced to me in my two decades of discussion and debate between the two are matters of poor understanding of the Bible. The issues could have been fairly easily resolved with a minimal amount of research. You would think the scientific solution, but the problems run deeper. The militant atheist world view isn't interested in resolving misinterpretations on their part, they simply use 'science' as a tool to establish an alternate utopian ideal. One that, apparently, can't sustain itself in the presence of competition. They are not as clever as they like to think they are.

Some Misinterpretations Of The Science Minded Bible Critic

For the record, the Bible doesn't teach astrology, though at one time science taught that you were ignorant if you hadn't been instructed in the field. It did, after all, encourage an education in math and language.

The Bible doesn't teach that bats are birds, the criticism is corrected by a simple use of language. The Old English term 'fowl' used to apply to any winged or flying creature. Insects, bats, birds etc.

The Bible doesn't say insects only have four legs. It considers the leaper insects as walking on four legs, the other two it uses for leaping.

The militant atheist, in the name of 'science' have similar unfounded criticisms of the Bible regarding pi, Noah's ark, rabbit's chewing cud, a flat earth and geocentric philosophy, but where does the Bible and science actually disagree?

Evolution and the global deluge. It could be argued that there is some disagreement with the supernatural but science doesn't speculate one way or the other on the supernatural simply because it can't be tested.

Two points of disagreement. Not bad, really, and it hardly merits such blatant contention, don't you think?

WOW, you've spent 2 decades of discussion and debate on these matters? I think you should speak as often and as much as you can. There is no better example of what a die-hard bible thumper DOESN NOT have to offer. Thanks!

 

[Omtita]

WOW, you've spent 2 decades of discussion and debate on these matters? I think you should speak as often and as much as you can. There is no better example of what a die-hard bible thumper DOESN NOT have to offer. Thanks!

You guys are cracking me up. Is this real?! Dude. Read your own sig. Scratch out religion and with crayon write in 'science.'

 

[Omtita]

Anyone who thinks the bible is scientific in nature is terribly mistaken about both science and religion.

It isn't a science text book but when the Bible touches on science it is accurate. Though fallible it doesn't have to correct itself, only it's interpretation and translation need be corrected.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Though fallible it doesn't have to correct itself, only it's interpretation and translation need be corrected.

Read: if something in the bible turns out to be incorrect, then change the wording to make it right.

You should really take your act on the road. It's hilarious.

 

[Omtita]

Read: if something in the bible turns out to be incorrect, then change the wording to make it right.

You should really take your act on the road. It's hilarious.

Uh-huh. Can you give an example of the Bible turning out to be incorrect and then the wording changed to make it right?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Uh-huh. Can you give an example of the Bible turning out to be incorrect and then the wording changed to make it right?

You're the one who made the claim.

Of course, there are many things in the bible which are incorrect which no amount of semantical gymanstics can fix, such as all humans being descended from two people, a global flood occurring, and a virgin becoming pregnant without having her ovum fertilized by a human spermatozoa.

 

[Omtita]

You're the one who made the claim.

No, I'm not. You are.

Of course, there are many things in the bible which are incorrect which no amount of semantical gymanstics can fix, such as all humans being descended from two people, a global flood occurring, and a virgin becoming pregnant without having her ovum fertilized by a human spermatozoa.

[Sigh]

How many humans does the alternative suggest?

How often in recorded history has science misinterpreted floods for other natural phenomenon?

Has anyone, virgin or otherwise, ever become pregnant without having her ovum fertilized directly by a human?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

How many humans does the alternative suggest?

If you understood that populations evolve, not individuals, then you would understand why your question is meaningless.

How often in recorded history has science misinterpreted floods for other natural phenomenon?

What does this have to do with a global flood being impossible?

Has anyone, virgin or otherwise, ever become pregnant without having her ovum fertilized directly by a human?

It's physiologically impossible for a human ovum to begin the process of developing into a human without first being fertilized by a human spermatazoa. All humans get half of their dna from their human mother and half from their human father. A new human life cannot being without the genetic material from two human parents.

 

[outhouse]

Science is a word that is bandied about in these debates in a manner which isn't very conducive to meaningful scientific inquiry, which often reflects poorly on both sides of the issue. I've always thought that unfortunate.

This is only due to your severe ignorance on the topics at hand, due to theistic blindness

Where does the Bible and science disagree?

Due to inane theist with no education that overstate every aspect of the theology they really know nothing about.

Its one thing to have a theist ignorant of science, I have no issue with that.

But when a theist mouths of and is completely ignorant to his own religion, and then fails to trash science, they catch my attention.


They disagree, because the bible contains pseudo science and pseudo history.

That is a fact.

Most of the points of contention that has been introduced to me in my two decades of discussion and debate between the two are matters of poor understanding of the Bible.

Exactly like your factually poor understanding of the bible

The issues could have been fairly easily resolved with a minimal amount of research.

Then why don't you do it?

It could be argued that there is some disagreement with the supernatural

.