Why do Christians value the Bible more than science?

[Adonis65]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: science is a flashlight while theology gropes in the dark.

I like this better: Science is a flashlight while theology is the noonday sun.

 

[Storm]

I like this better: Science is a flashlight while theology is the noonday sun.

It's not though.

Science provides evidence-based answers for the little questions. Theology speculates on the big ones.

God may be the sun, but that's not the same thing.

 

[Adonis65]

It's not though.

Science provides evidence-based answers for the little questions. Theology speculates on the big ones.

God may be the sun, but that's not the same thing.

Yes it is.

Science often provides answers that are speculative at best. God gives me all that I need.

To even compare the great creator with science is an insult to Him.

 

[Shermana]

After all, if God created the world directly, with his own hand, which is infallible, but wrote the bible through men, who are fallible, surely science, which looks directly at God's creation, is a superior authority?

Why, then, do many (if not all, at least to some extent) Christians consider the Bible as a greater authority than science, and why do they consider it more valuable?

How is "Science" an authority? Is "Logic" an authority too?

Do you mean to say "The scientific establishment"? Who? Are they denying Einstein? Well, even Einstein's theories are questioned (String Theory vs. Relativity for example). Do you mean "Evoluution?" Well, Lamarckianism is making a comeback and all of "Macroevolution" is based on speculation from Micro-evolutionary patterns that are not precisely the same.

What is meant by the word "Science" in this case. Is this mainly about them not believing in Macro-evolution? Is this about not believing blindly in anything with a scientific label has? Is this about mistrusting a system that took 40 years to publicly call Piltdown man a hoax, and was even defended in court as legit before that?



Are you asking why they don't blindly believe every isotope dating they are shown when there are many errors and uncertainties involved?

Are you asking why they don't accept the idea that Venus's counter rotation was caused by an asteroid hitting the exact location on the pole withe exact force? Why they ask they ask questions about Cosmology like why only a few Supernova-remnants can be seen?

Do you mean to say "Why don't they accept the latest theory as fact?"

What exactly is the kind of science that you accuse Bible believers of denying, precisely.

 

[Storm]

Yes it is.

Science often provides answers that are speculative at best. God gives me all that I need.

To even compare the great creator with science is an insult to Him.

Theology is not God. Theology is a futile attempt to eff the ineffable. This coming from someone who's made it her life's work.

Faith and devotion are all well and good, but don't let them make you stupid.

 

[gnomon]

After all, if God created the world directly, with his own hand, which is infallible, but wrote the bible through men, who are fallible, surely science, which looks directly at God's creation, is a superior authority?

Why, then, do many (if not all, at least to some extent) Christians consider the Bible as a greater authority than science, and why do they consider it more valuable?

Science is a methodology. Not an authority.

There have been some scientists who use their prestige to act in authority and some times outside of their field of expertise. Lynn Margulis harping up Kerry Mullis's AIDS denialism is one instance.

 

[Sententia]

After all, if God created the world directly, with his own hand, which is infallible, but wrote the bible through men, who are fallible, surely science, which looks directly at God's creation, is a superior authority?

Why, then, do many (if not all, at least to some extent) Christians consider the Bible as a greater authority than science, and why do they consider it more valuable?

Hmmm

First I am sensing that you doubt the amount of inspiration and effort that went into picking said humans who wrote down the irrefutable word of god. You also failed to factor in that even though man is fallible god is not and you seem to be questioning his choice of humans he chose to capture his words and thoughts and then later... haha... something you apparently have never even considered.... the people he (or she or other) chose and inspired to edit the works of the people he (or she or other) chose to inspire to write the originals. Also you fail to understand how god works... I mean god didn't just let the first edition of bibles go did he? They weren't even written in the proper language! It took time and it will take more time but time is not something he (or she or other) need to worry about. You need to worry about time.

God is timeless. He (or she or other) will get it right. You though only have so much time and you might not want to spend your small expendable amount time arguing with a god who places no value on time...

Just sayin.

 

[Acim]

The facts are what are not flawed and if they are flawed science can usually determine a degree of certainty.

I feel I stated the last part with degrees of reliability at work.

There is nothing in nature that we have found that indicates the work of a designer just as we have a hard time figuring if we are actually able to be seperate from the chain of cause and effect.

Have we found scientists in nature? If yes, then this would be example (or evidence) of natural organisms utilizing the work of an intelligent design (method). Before you claim something along lines of "changing the goal posts," please understand I don't subscribe to old school versions of I.D. IMO, within us is the Intelligent Designer of natural phenomenon. And not over yonder, outside us and outside 'natural order.'

One thing science, with math as a tool, is able to do is predict within a certain level of certainty which can be seen as assuming but it is not.

Without math as a tool can science do any (reliable) predicting?

We accept certain facts and paint the picture from there. A good example is how einstein was able to predict so many things without ever having seen them.

This in response to me saying, Science's infallibility claim is "having everything to do with accepted assumptions and axioms."

Knowledge should be infallible or else it really isn't knowledge.

Knowledge can be distorted and then those distortions (aka interpretations) could be fallible. I.E. - I know I exist as a human body, could be a distortion about the knowledge of my existence. If it is, then 'what I know about my existence' (and the physical world, perceptual order) may be, altogether, fallible.

Philosophy isn't really something that can be debunked unless we are assuming facts that end up not being true.

Ding ding ding ding.

Christian science already have something to prove. Science is not in the nature of drawing a conclusion without having the facts first.

Again, I find this debatable. At various level, not the least of which is "what is natural?" A large branch of science (arguably all that is deemed not psuedo science) rests on the axiom that a physical world is self evident. I claim this is faith based and have not seen objective evidence to counter this. Drawing conclusions from physical evidence presented with this accepted axiom is debatable, to me, of whether we actually have the facts first.

Beyond that (ahem) little trivial matter, I observe that what science is mostly up to is developing (degrees of) reliable explanations designed to predict assumed outcomes. These outcomes or results are reliant on data that is presumed to be valid (in all similar cases) via inductive reasoning and consensual reality. Global warming models are an example that readily comes to mind.

With a god that can do anything imaginable, you can assume just about anything in those conditions and reality doesn't even have to match.

I wasn't intending on referencing god when I spoke earlier of "those conditions." And was implying (any) science relies on (the assumption of) controlled conditions to reach verifiable conclusions.

 

[waitasec]

Science often provides answers that are speculative at best. God gives me all that I need.

i bet thats what you say on your way to the doctor when your sick...

 

[Shermana]

i bet thats what you say on your way to the doctor when your sick...

Medical "science" and Speculative Theory only meet in the Micro-evolution department, which few Creationists have anything against. I'm sure you're willing to admit that much "Medical science" is fraudulent and uneccessary Pharmacorp greed too.

I'm sure you're aware how much of a racket the "Cancer research" industry is.

 

[idav]

Have we found scientists in nature? If yes, then this would be example (or evidence) of natural organisms utilizing the work of an intelligent design (method). Before you claim something along lines of "changing the goal posts," please understand I don't subscribe to old school versions of I.D. IMO, within us is the Intelligent Designer of natural phenomenon. And not over yonder, outside us and outside 'natural order.'

Sure we have designed things and we are nature. Other than man-made things there isn't anything that appears to be of a designer since it is caused to happen through natural means as if intelligence wasn't needed at all. I can see design but not intelligence. And I only see design because thats what humans do, we are structured to find patterns in things.

Without math as a tool can science do any (reliable) predicting?

Probably not but without science as a tool math couldn't do reliable observing.

This in response to me saying, Science's infallibility claim is "having everything to do with accepted assumptions and axioms."

Mind you math was the tool doing the assuming. Science had yet to observe any of it.

Knowledge can be distorted and then those distortions (aka interpretations) could be fallible. I.E. - I know I exist as a human body, could be a distortion about the knowledge of my existence. If it is, then 'what I know about my existence' (and the physical world, perceptual order) may be, altogether, fallible.

Knowledge is knowing. You either know or don't about a specific fact. What might change are details that might paint a different picture. Your/our perception of the world is fallible because we are limited to the only senses we have. It doesn't mean that the preception we have is unreliable, it only means they are only tiny clues. We need all our senses and the senses of other animals(thanks to machines) to figure it all out so we get even a better picture than just our human perception would normally be able to offer. Still there may be other things but there is plenty of evidence. How would any of us observe anything in a universe without light?

Again, I find this debatable. At various level, not the least of which is "what is natural?" A large branch of science (arguably all that is deemed not psuedo science) rests on the axiom that a physical world is self evident. I claim this is faith based and have not seen objective evidence to counter this. Drawing conclusions from physical evidence presented with this accepted axiom is debatable, to me, of whether we actually have the facts first.

Again we have more than our perception as tools but we can only observe what we are aware of. You can debate reality but it is useless to IMO. There are ideas that there is more and we are all looking for it.

Beyond that (ahem) little trivial matter, I observe that what science is mostly up to is developing (degrees of) reliable explanations designed to predict assumed outcomes. These outcomes or results are reliant on data that is presumed to be valid (in all similar cases) via inductive reasoning and consensual reality. Global warming models are an example that readily comes to mind.

That is more math relating to statistics which uses science as a tool.

I wasn't intending on referencing god when I spoke earlier of "those conditions." And was implying (any) science relies on (the assumption of) controlled conditions to reach verifiable conclusions.

Science does not have to rely on controlled conditions. It can be argued that sociology can be very much a science. You just get more reliable data in controlled conditions but some things we can't/won't test in a lab.

 

[.Frame.]

... You also failed to factor in that even though man is fallible god is not and you seem to be questioning his choice of humans he chose to capture his words and thoughts and then later... haha... something you apparently have never even considered.... the people he (or she or other) chose and inspired to edit the works of the people he (or she or other) chose to inspire to write the originals ...

You're right, I didn't consider that when I raised the point, but, while I acknowledge it's an aspect that anyone discussing the subject would not do well to ignore (and I apologise for my lapse of judgement in doing so initially) I don't think it goes any further towards answering my question.

God, wise as his choice may be, has still chosen the best humans for the job from what is, basically, a catalogue of horrendeously fallible humans. "The wisdom of this world" after all "is foolishness in God's sight."

The problem there is firstly that the world is made by God in the first place (and one would expect the work of a master artist to be masterful, not flawed and untrustworthy) and secondly that ANY interpretation that can be made by humans is, (well, I've said it, but it seems a point worth clarifying) made by humans.

When a human claims, upon reading the Bible, that something is true, they are fallible in the sense that, even if the Bible is exactly and unequivicably true, their judgement in interpreting it cannot be entirely trusted.

I'll digress a minute, simply to clarify that in referring to Science I am referring to direct testing and observation of the material world. I do not mean 'the scientific community', and I am not referring to any given theory or interpretation of the world; simply to the general principle and method.

The failing of the Bible (in being misinterpreted) is almost the exact same failing that Science has (in being misinterpreted by Scientists).

The difference is that the world cannot be wrong. Scientists may well test for the wrong thing but the world would never actually give a false reading.

The Bible, however, by it's own concession of being written by 'foolish' men, may contain mistakes. This means that the Bible, even if it is directly inspired by God, is still the victim of human foolishness twice over, whereas Science is only the victim once over.

By the way, Sententia, your profile describes you as an atheist, so, were you simply playing devils advocate, for want of a less provocative expression.

I any case, this has turned into a debate, which wasn't actually what I intended (I actually was simply curious. I'd have started this thread in the debates section if that were my intention). Seeing as it has digressed in this way, though, I think I'll go along with it.

 

[.Frame.]

I might just add, for the sake of fairness, to remove (hopefully) any confusion and to avoid being accused of missing the point again, that there is an extra layer of fallibility in communicating the results of ones scientific or biblical findings to others.

This is usually neccesary in the field of science (except where the common man or woman is in a position to test the evidence themself). It is not usually neccesary in the field of Bible study.

This would mean that, if the Bible is directly inspired by God, it actually carries not less, but equal authority to that of a scientist. The person who has heard a peice of information from a scientist is, in this scenario, equally (but not more) informed than a person who has read it in the Bible (but more informed than a person who has heard it from a vicar or priest).

Of course, if the two peices of information contradict, it is neccesary to reconcile them. Some kind of controlled test of the two claims would be required (which is surely more reliable than even a divinely inspired Bible, for the reasons mentioned in the previous post, so it wouldn't make sense to check in there).

Of course, what do we call a controlled test? Well, it's science, isn't it?

As it happens I don't believe the Bible to be divinely inspired, so the discussion is not of fundamental importance to me (other than as a philisophical curiosity) but my real point is that this is a discussion that all modern (modern in the sense of being surrounded by and relying upon the products and knowledge of science) Christians ought to be having.

 

[Mister Emu]

I value the Bible, perhaps more accurately stated as preserved Christian Tradition, more than science because the questions and answers of preserved Christian Tradition are more important than those of science.

 

[Storm]

I value the Bible, perhaps more accurately stated as preserved Christian Tradition, more than science because the questions and answers of preserved Christian Tradition are more important than those of science.

You say that as if it were a contest....

 

[Mister Emu]

You say that as if it were a contest....

I don't understand what you mean...

 

[Storm]

I don't understand what you mean...

I mean you don't have to choose. As you said, they ask different questions.

 

[ninerbuff]

Because most christian denominations teach you to fear the wrath of god.

 

[.Frame.]

I value the Bible, perhaps more accurately stated as preserved Christian Tradition, more than science because the questions and answers of preserved Christian Tradition are more important than those of science.

Well, this was more what I was looking for in terms of an answer (in that, as a response it seems to be a direct product of established Christian belief). So, thank you for your response. I'd be interested to hear your reasons in a little more detail (ie, what fundamental questions and answers do you think that the Bible can offer which Science cannot?).

I have to say I entirely disagree with you (except in a few respects), but that's the basis of a seperate debate, which I'd be quite happy to have and if you start the relevant thread I will certainly jump in on, but which I'd rather not have here for fear of muddling up an already rather muddled thread.

But yes, I'd like to hear more, nonetheless.

 

[Mister Emu]

I mean you don't have to choose.

I didn't say I was choosing between the two... but if I were forced to...