Why do Christians value the Bible more than science?

[Adonis65]

When you arbitrary rely upon a book full of irrational and unsubstantiated claims rather than upon reason, you become nothing more than an automaton. God gave you the gift of reason with the intention of you using it. But instead you disavow it and then use some crappy book to put nonsensical words in the mouth of god, presuming to speak on his behalf. Surely you can see why it might appear to be a bit arrogant to but some book above god?

You mean God created us to become atheists? That just may be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. :thud:

 

[Katzpur]

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 has never been able to give me a single solitary answer as to what my relationship to God is and what He expects of me. On the other hand, the Bible is a very poor source of information on quantum physics. I don't see the problem with using different sources depending upon what kind of information you're seeking.

 

[Father Heathen]

You mean God created us to become atheists? That just may be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. :thud:

No, that's not what I said at all. Are you implying that believing in a specific book written by a specific group of people from a specific time period and from a specific cultural perspective is a prerequisite to believe in god? You can still believe in god without believing in all the dumb stuff that men has attributed to god. It doesn't have to come down to either believing that George Washington ate babies and shot lasers from his eyes or believing that he didn't exist at all.

 

[Adonis65]

No, that's not what I said at all. Are you implying that believing in a specific book written by a specific group of people from a specific time period and from a specific cultural perspective is a prerequisite to believe in god? You can still believe in god without believing in all the dumb stuff that men has attributed to god. It doesn't have to come down to either believing that George Washington ate babies and shot lasers from his eyes or believing that he didn't exist at all.

No, I'm implying that the Bible is a book of holy scripture containing written works that were inspired by God. Have you even read the Bible? I mean, have you really delved into its pages and tried to capture what it is truly about? something tells me that you have not. If you had approached this book in a faithful & prayerful manner (like you should) you wouldn't be saying such things.

 

[Father Heathen]

No, I'm implying that the Bible is a book of holy scripture containing written works that were inspired by God. Have you even read the Bible? I mean, have you really delved into its pages and tried to capture what it is truly about? something tells me that you have not. If you had approached this book in a faithful & prayerful manner (like you should) you wouldn't be saying such things.

Yes, I've read the bible. Most of it is rather repulsive (such as instructing how to sell ones own daughter into sexual slavery, for example), and what little that can be considered valuable is hardly original or exclusive to the bible.

Besides, everything you've said about the bible others have said about The Koran, The Book of Mormon, The Bhagavad Gita, The Tripitaka, The Aqdas/Iqan, Dianetics, etc. Unsubstantiated claims and circular logic are meaningless.

 

[horizon_mj1]

I can see where Father Heathen is coming from; if you are so vapid in your beliefs that you choose to base them on one book and one book alone, you are the only one who can change that. The parts they left out of the Bible is the plundering and pillaging that was done by these "holy people". Science can give you the answers to how our existence started, how the universe grows, what happened billions of years ago etc.; if this does not lead you to question the existence of Divinity, you are the one not seeing the "whole picture", and you are the one disallowing yourself an understanding of how things were created; all of the different religions just lend reason to the why; IMO they are both equally important to answering the most asked questions throughout History.

 

[Adonis65]

Yes, I've read the bible. Most of it is rather repulsive (such as instructing how to sell ones own daughter into sexual slavery, for example),

I see. So you believe the Bible is, among other vile and dastardly things, an instruction manual for sex slavery. Check. What else is wrong with it?

and what little that can be considered valuable is hardly original or exclusive to the bible.

Oh? From what source did the writers of the Bible plagiarize?

Besides, everything you've said about the bible others have said about The Koran, The Book of Mormon, The Bhagavad Gita, The Tripitaka, The Aqdas/Iqan, Dianetics, etc. Unsubstantiated claims and circular logic are meaningless.

Why do you even care what other people have said about those listed works? Are you not able to trust your own interpretation? Have you ever actually read and studied any of those books, or do you just parrot favorite passages from the atheist community?

 

[Tristesse]

No, I'm implying that the Bible is a book of holy scripture containing written works that were inspired by God. Have you even read the Bible? I mean, have you really delved into its pages and tried to capture what it is truly about? something tells me that you have not. If you had approached this book in a faithful & prayerful manner (like you should) you wouldn't be saying such things.

I have. And I came to a very different conclusion than you did. What does this tell us about that book? Maybe you should try reading something other than the bible.

 

[Tristesse]

You mean God created us to become atheists? That just may be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. :thud:

Well, if I were god, I wouldn't want a bunch of sycophants hanging on to my every word, I would have more improtant things to worry about.

 

[sojourner]

When people start touting that book as the be-all end-all, I shall tell it as it really is. I'm not going to pretend to respect or revere some book that's unworthy of it just to humor others. If there was/is a god, the bible is definitely an insulting slap to "his" face. It was written by ancient, primitive savages that had no more insight into god than your or I. It's okay to believe in god, but it's time to move beyond the silly nonsense that mere mortals have attributed to the concept.

First of all, many of us don't tout the book as the "be-all-end-all." In what way do you think the Bible is not worthy of our respect or reverence for what it is: The written theological record of God's people?
Why is the book an insulting slap to God's face?
The writers had no more insight than you or I. So what? We're not pretending that they did.
Would it hurt to have a little common courtesy, though?

 

[sojourner]

Science can give you the answers to how our existence started, how the universe grows, what happened billions of years ago etc.

But it can't assign anything meaningful to that creation.

The Bible is not a science text. Neither is science a spiritual treatment.

 

[Acim]

all of the different religions just lend reason to the why; IMO they are both equally important to answering the most asked questions throughout History.

Highly appreciate this acknowledgment that religions (and philosophy) lend to the "why" while science lends to the how and what. Though "equally important" is not something I can go along with. I tend to value both, but one strikes me as concerned with the heart and mind, and the other is more interested in describing the clothes the emperor is wearing, what materials the clothes are made of, where those materials are derived from, and what elements make up those materials.

Science can give you the answers to how our existence started, how the universe grows, what happened billions of years ago etc.;

On all of these explanations, science would provide theories, not answers. Not (true) knowledge.

How the universe grows and what happened billions of years ago, strikes me as impractical. Feel free, anyone, to offer your understanding of why these particular matters (universes growth patterns and what happened 1 billion years ago) is relevant to human life in last 50 years, and/or today?

Our existence explained is, in my understanding, related to practical concerns. While not overly familiar with scientific explanation on this topic, I feel familiar enough to say science is explaining (or rather theorizing) what occurred, but not why. When a human process is involved (i.e. our existence) why and/or 'what is this for' type questions become much more important, than mundane paradigms that honestly aren't explaining all that much. More like changing the terms, reducing the building blocks, and rephrasing the understanding of what was already alleged.

if this does not lead you to question the existence of Divinity, you are the one not seeing the "whole picture", and you are the one disallowing yourself an understanding of how things were created;

Feel free, anyone, to provide here your best "how" things were created, and I'll take the opportunity to poke holes in the "why" that is likely to be lacking. Our scientific understandings of the nature of reality (really physical existence) can be fascinating, but is limited in seeing (whole picture) as well. In many ways, these limitations are 'built in' or set up via the basis for the paradigm. Such as... introspection is to be downplayed in favor of a psuedo sense of objectivity derived from consensual agreement of physical faculties. Downplayed is a nice way of putting it. Disregarded is more appropriate, and is basis of refusal to seeing whole picture, as if that is mark of 'objectivity.'

 

[waitasec]

But it can't assign anything meaningful to that creation.

The Bible is not a science text. Neither is science a spiritual treatment.

who says life has meaning
other than the struggle to survive ?

 

[idav]

But it can't assign anything meaningful to that creation.

The Bible is not a science text. Neither is science a spiritual treatment.

This kinda reminds me of a kid who endlessly asks why with no reasonable explanation in sight because we are too busy answering how. Like if a kid asks why does it rain they don't want to know how just why it rains at all. It's almost like they want a reason for existence in the first place. We wander about with science really trying to find why but only end up finding more questions. However the why given in the bible is matter of opinion really so it leaves something to be desired which makes people seek alternatives. Many people aren't happy being told we exist just because we do. Like there must be some reason. In the end we end up finding our own reason if we aren't satisfied with "just because" but really 'why' is not easily answered even when believing the bible is true. You could say why we exist is because god loves us but then many turn around and say well then why is there evil and it just gets convuluted very quickly. /rant

 

[horizon_mj1]

But it can't assign anything meaningful to that creation.

The Bible is not a science text. Neither is science a spiritual treatment.

So I take it you do not see Knowledge as being a part of God; interesting. as far as "spiritual treatment" that is where I agree religion can be good but is not always portrayed as good by the people who claim to represent it. Just like certain churches who founded themselves after someone who spoke nothing of worshiping them, but only of worshiping the Divine; yet who is followed??? What people fail to realize, like it or not, the tribes mentioned in the Bible were not "Godly" in their actions, yet everyone wants to take everything written in the Bible literally. Maybe at the time these people were "the best there was to work with" at the time. IMO if you can not find meaning behind the complexity of this biosphere in which we live and see it in a "spiritual" light, I do not see how you can expect "spiritual" treatment from the Source.

 

[sojourner]

This kinda reminds me of a kid who endlessly asks why with no reasonable explanation in sight because we are too busy answering how. Like if a kid asks why does it rain they don't want to know how just why it rains at all. It's almost like they want a reason for existence in the first place. We wander about with science really trying to find why but only end up finding more questions. However the why given in the bible is matter of opinion really so it leaves something to be desired which makes people seek alternatives. Many people aren't happy being told we exist just because we do. Like there must be some reason. In the end we end up finding our own reason if we aren't satisfied with "just because" but really 'why' is not easily answered even when believing the bible is true. You could say why we exist is because god loves us but then many turn around and say well then why is there evil and it just gets convuluted very quickly. /rant

who says life has meaning
other than the struggle to survive ?

these two quotes go together.
The human dimension of imagination demands meaning.

I like when you said that the Bible is a matter of opinion, so it leaves something to be desired, which makes people seek alternatives. That is, perhaps, the Bible's greatest attribute: The ability to make us look deeper. Our imaginations push us to greater depths of meaning as we find out more about ourselves and the world around us.

 

[sojourner]

So I take it you do not see Knowledge as being a part of God; interesting. as far as "spiritual treatment" that is where I agree religion can be good but is not always portrayed as good by the people who claim to represent it. Just like certain churches who founded themselves after someone who spoke nothing of worshiping them, but only of worshiping the Divine; yet who is followed??? What people fail to realize, like it or not, the tribes mentioned in the Bible were not "Godly" in their actions, yet everyone wants to take everything written in the Bible literally. Maybe at the time these people were "the best there was to work with" at the time. IMO if you can not find meaning behind the complexity of this biosphere in which we live and see it in a "spiritual" light, I do not see how you can expect "spiritual" treatment from the Source.

I like it when the Bible inspires outbursts of indignation. It shows that the texts have, indeed, made us think more deeply about the human condition. And that is, after all, what the texts address: The human condition.

 

[horizon_mj1]

Acim, I agree; Science can only allow for theory of how life started, but also the most logical. The reason and importance of studying galaxies that were birthed billions of years ago is for simple self preservatoin of Humanity. Some day our planet will die; here is one to consider, in the Bible it says that the earth will be "cleansed by fire" in Revelations; guess what science agrees; when our sun dies it will cook the earth (our sun is already middle aged). Maybe with space technologies before this happens we will have the ability to colonize other planets or maybe find a way to save the entire planet by then.

I also agree that Science is only a fragment if the whole picture, but a larger fragment than what people would like; for instance Science has taught us every action has an equal and opposite reaction, isn't this kind of like a punishment or reward system in which religions teach for the realationship with the Divine. Another example is simply the circle of life; what if Creation as a whole (everything inclusive) works the same way? Concepts of not allowing ones self to see the extravagence of Science in relation to the Divine IMO are only looking for a comfort zone; the Truth is usually to complex or illusive if your mind is not open to all concepts when searching for answers; after all hasn't it been said "anything is possible with God", so who is anyone who claims to believe in Him to say "it cannot be this way or that way" or to leave any key components out of the scenario?

 

[earlwooters]

I think it's called INDOCTRINATION.

 

[Adonis65]

I have. And I came to a very different conclusion than you did.

What was your conclusion?