Why do Christians value the Bible more than science?

[Storm]

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

Oh, ok. Glad to hear it.

 

[Mister Emu]

what fundamental questions and answers do you think that the Bible can offer which Science cannot?

Well as I alluded to, I think the Bible is part(a large part, but not the entirety) of Christian Tradition, so it isn't only the Bible.

The questions... who we are, what our purpose is, is there more than materialism, does deity exist, does it care about us, should we care about it, and what, if anything, happens after death.

edit: I'd like to add, I'm not anti-science; I enjoy scientific inquiry, among the sciences are my favorite courses in college, and my anticipated career path is through a scientific field.

 

[idav]

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.

Some of those questions can be answered without the bible or science though I can appreciate that some answers can be found in the bible. I do still believe science can answer most of it anyway. I wouldn't count some of the answers in the bible, like stuff about the afterlife or pricing of humans.

 

[horizon_mj1]

i think it's because we are not to question god.
why? because we're not.

Who said anything about questioning? If you believe in your Bible, then you should know there is not a stone to be left unturned when seeking knowledge of the Divine; so which is it with you?

 

[horizon_mj1]

great point!

the bible settles the "truth seekers" dilemma with this premise...
"how can one be a truth seeker it they are being deceived?"

You know what, you should really not judge that in which you do not know!! As a Seeker, there is no dilemma; there are only those in whom limit their minds to what Knowledge they accept and choose to learn no more. This I see as being problematic for those who are not Seekers:angel2:

 

[Acim]

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.

Most interesting claim here, to me, is "we are structured." Curious who or what structured us? And important, I think, is statement following that, 'to find patterns in things.' Something/someone (let's even call it nature) structured us to find patterns in things. And yet, we too are natural. Incredibly interesting if you ask me.

I would also agree that outside of us, it doesn't appear to be a designer. As I stated before the Designer is not outside of us. Moreover, there is a catch-22 of sorts that says the evolution process is through natural means, where intelligence isn't needed at all; while claiming this, is based on being rational. Scientific method is determined (pre-supposed really) to be rational / intelligible. Conceivable that the method (and intelligence in general) is aspect of natural order. If not, then plausible that scientific method needs not intelligence and is random in any way of its conception. Order could be any step, other steps, and be 'natural' by the way we have 'assumed' natural order to operate (without any sign of intelligence).

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

Another interesting claim. As if math is in need of this. While science clearly seems need of math to be reliable.

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

Of when do you speak? And what assumptions is math making?

Knowledge is knowing. You either know or don't about a specific fact.

Interesting. I tend not to understand knowledge as limited like this.

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?

I see mind playing much bigger role than is being stated here. That understanding proceeds from awareness, from within. As that awareness attempts to go outside / around perceived self, it relies on perception, and may be making determinations, or even assumptions, on acute sense of projection. If awareness remains focussed inside, it begins to truly see, reason, know and, naturally appreciate / expand.

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.

If we are looking outside and insisting it is outside, I believe we may never find. i.e. designer as outside, or natural order / process of selection as outside (intelligence). Assumed by some to be 'the way it is and always has been,' when more obvious answer is it could be occurring from within (awareness).

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.

In which case, facts are not easy to come by, while solid theories may still be found.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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?

Humans tend to be word-worshippers. We believe that words contain truth all by themselves, rather than seeing them for what they actually are -- just bits of sound which one mind uses to transfer its meaning into another mind.

Sometimes we even put dictionaries up on pedestals. I've seen that in libraries and colleges.

So how much more sacred is a book containing the actual Words of God. We worship that. Sometimes we worship it so much that nothing else matters. All other evidence has to bend itself to that book.

That's kinda how I see it, anyway.

 

[kepha31]

"Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish.... We need each other to be what we must be, what we are called to be." Pope John Paul II

 

[waitasec]

You know what, you should really not judge that in which you do not know!! As a Seeker, there is no dilemma; there are only those in whom limit their minds to what Knowledge they accept and choose to learn no more. This I see as being problematic for those who are not Seekers:angel2:

are you a scientist? that is what i meant by "truth seekers"...

 

[horizon_mj1]

are you a scientist? that is what i meant by "truth seekers"...

No I am not (can't afford it at the time) but I do know science (have studied various areas of science in college and on my own) it is a fundamental part of what I believe and how I believe. Sorry for the misunderstanding, it just seems that the term Seeker is used quite loosely at times.

 

[horizon_mj1]

Humans tend to be word-worshippers. We believe that words contain truth all by themselves, rather than seeing them for what they actually are -- just bits of sound which one mind uses to transfer its meaning into another mind.

Sometimes we even put dictionaries up on pedestals. I've seen that in libraries and colleges.

So how much more sacred is a book containing the actual Words of God. We worship that. Sometimes we worship it so much that nothing else matters. All other evidence has to bend itself to that book.

That's kinda how I see it, anyway.

This is one thing in Humanity that I find perplexing. Here is a question I would like to ask ones who do this; if you were in a situation in which you needed to burn a Bible (or any other object deemed at great value) and if you did not, you or someone else would die, would you burn it?

 

[sojourner]

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?

Depends on what kind of authority we're talking about. The Bible isn't a science text, just as science tells us nothing about theology. If I'm looking for scientific answers, I turn to science. If I'm seeking theological insight, I turn to the teaching of the Church.

 

[horizon_mj1]

Depends on what kind of authority we're talking about. The Bible isn't a science text, just as science tells us nothing about theology. If I'm looking for scientific answers, I turn to science. If I'm seeking theological insight, I turn to the teaching of the Church.

Wouldn't you consider Science searching for evidence to a flood, theology based? Here is what I do not understand; Scientist found evidence that a great flood may have happened around the time of Noah, in the general vicinity; the Bible stated it was the entire Earth, is it possible it was written that is was the entire earth due to the perception of the person writing? It seems to me that people on both sides are fearful of being proved wrong.

 

[Storm]

Wouldn't you consider Science searching for evidence to a flood, theology based? Here is what I do not understand; Scientist found evidence that a great flood may have happened around the time of Noah, in the general vicinity; the Bible stated it was the entire Earth, is it possible it was written that is was the entire earth due to the perception of the person writing? It seems to me that people on both sides are fearful of being proved wrong.

Not if the flood was a metaphor.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

This is one thing in Humanity that I find perplexing. Here is a question I would like to ask ones who do this; if you were in a situation in which you needed to burn a Bible (or any other object deemed at great value) and if you did not, you or someone else would die, would you burn it?

I suspect that most people would burn a Bible if their child was near death from hypothermia and the Bible was the only fuel on hand. A few fanatics might not, but most people follow common sense over theology when pushed to the wall.

I saw an interesting thing once. A car had broken down in a very bad spot on the interstate. It was an elevated section with merging lanes and high-speed traffic. As I passed, a man and a woman and two kids were getting out of the car to walk for help. No one carried anything except for the man, who tucked a Bible under his arm as he exited the car.

Holy words give us comfort. The Truth comforts us.

 

[horizon_mj1]

Not if the flood was a metaphor.

Right, which it could very well be, but there is sufficient evidence that states a flood did occur closely relevant to that time frame.

 

[Storm]

Right, which it could very well be, but there is sufficient evidence that states a flood did occur closely relevant to that time frame.

Not worldwide.

 

[horizon_mj1]

I suspect that most people would burn a Bible if their child was near death from hypothermia and the Bible was the only fuel on hand. A few fanatics might not, but most people follow common sense over theology when pushed to the wall.

I saw an interesting thing once. A car had broken down in a very bad spot on the interstate. It was an elevated section with merging lanes and high-speed traffic. As I passed, a man and a woman and two kids were getting out of the car to walk for help. No one carried anything except for the man, who tucked a Bible under his arm as he exited the car.

Holy words give us comfort. The Truth comforts us.

Good story. I would honestly hope that most people would in fact do what it takes to survive.

 

[horizon_mj1]

Not worldwide.

No not world wide, just in the general area in which the flood of Noah may have been written.

 

[waitasec]

No I am not (can't afford it at the time) but I do know science (have studied various areas of science in college and on my own) it is a fundamental part of what I believe and how I believe. Sorry for the misunderstanding, it just seems that the term Seeker is used quite loosely at times.

no worries...