Why do Christians value the Bible more than science?

[Adonis65]

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.

That's one reason why you're not God.

 

[Pegg]

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

God does...thats why we like him so much

 

[sojourner]

I think it's called INDOCTRINATION.

what is "it?"

 

[Acim]

Acim, I agree; Science can only allow for theory of how life started, but also the most logical.

I'm going to have to contest this one. "How" for science on this one, shows up to me as "what" and is really not an explanation, but more of a description. In my view, a creator is most logical. I'd like to make it creator with a capital C, but if referring only to life in the physical universe, than I see it as manifested, and perpetuated, in an imaginary way. Though we dare to say it is 'reality' and think of God as 'imagined.' Upside down perception in my understanding.

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 understand what you are saying in the last part (ability to colonize other planets and/or save entire planet), but am not making connection of relevant to history from 1 billion years ago. We could have desire to explore and/or cleanse without need for historical perspective.

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.

If I say yes, will you admit that the scientific theory wasn't the first time humans came to this understanding?

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?

Agreed, and you make a good point. Though, for me, that goes two ways. Who is anyone who claims to believe in Reason to say, "It cannot be this way or that way" and then deny matters of faith, intuition and communion? That's not to say that when our focus is on identifying attributes of physical processes and then testing them to reach conclusions, we ought to only rely on introspection. But is to say that science can be made to be every bit as dogmatic (or misguided) if introspection is to be disallowed since that strikes some as based on subjective rationale. At a certain level, I can understand why we would downplay introspection. But at the level of intellectual honesty, whereby existence of physical 'reality' is established via faith, it comes off as preposterous, or dare I say hypocrisy.

 

[horizon_mj1]

Acim, the reason I mention historical accounts is for "learning from mistakes"; such as killing species to meet Humanity's own selfish needs. Every species we kill, we kill the planet (or at least change the Nature of our planet). I agree that religious beliefs is what gave humans the "punishment and reward" system, as well as accrediting it for the birth of Science. The last part is my point; you can not have one without the other and intend to get the "whole picture"; Religion I see as being the "fill in the blanks" with Science, as well as a tool to further investigation if a theory seems plausible or rational, with an open mind (one that is not conventional to "standard" thought) doorways to possibilities are left wide open allowing for answers to be found more easily. If subjective rationale and introspection is fully left out, the mind is not open to all possibilities leaving answers illusive. I am not saying introspection should be the basis, but it should not be ignored; sometimes completely different situations have relevant criteria to help solve problems; kind of like an Aesop Fairytale.

 

[waitasec]

God does...thats why we like him so much

because god tells you what you want to hear?

 

[horizon_mj1]

because god tells you what you want to hear?

Waitasec, wait a second!! Are you calling Peg God???

 

[thebigpicture]

I can take heat from you people all day.

Adonis65, let me say that your backbone is quite refreshing. We live in a world where there is a lot of bandwagoning. The fact that you’re willing to stand on your own two feet without caring less if it’s popular or not -- I commend you for it.

With that stated...

I have a question for you...Do you think it’s okay to question the bible? If so, to what extent. If not, why?

 

[Acim]

I agree that religious beliefs is what gave humans the "punishment and reward" system, as well as accrediting it for the birth of Science. The last part is my point; you can not have one without the other and intend to get the "whole picture"; Religion I see as being the "fill in the blanks" with Science, as well as a tool to further investigation if a theory seems plausible or rational, with an open mind (one that is not conventional to "standard" thought) doorways to possibilities are left wide open allowing for answers to be found more easily. If subjective rationale and introspection is fully left out, the mind is not open to all possibilities leaving answers illusive. I am not saying introspection should be the basis, but it should not be ignored; sometimes completely different situations have relevant criteria to help solve problems; kind of like an Aesop Fairytale.

Other than semantics and (my own) desire to nitpick, I think we have much agreement.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and understandings.

:hug:

 

[elmarna]

What makes you "value" anything in life is in the importance you place on the form of thinking and the objectivity you have. Just as if you say "life has no meaning" to insist this is a truth than the wrds you speak have no value and you are expressing a world that contains nothing of importance. I do not belive that all christians put more value to the bible than science. My father was a Baptist minister and I did not find the bible to back up it's theroy with facts. The truths are important to me so, I was quicker to accept the objectivity of science as a better way of looking. So while some christians may do as you say...
I am better of with a open mind willing to accept the great diversity of thinking!
Who would be hungry and find they have 2 things to eat and neither will give you what you need and satisfy you?
I would rather go to the grocery store and be satisfied with a smile!

 

[kepha31]

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?

A different authority, not a superior one.

There are three different kinds of "sciences." The difference between them is the degree of abstraction that is involved. The mind might just focus on the physical by experimental observation. This science is called physics or natural science (this is what the modern mind knows as "science"). He can also move toward a higher degree of abstraction dealing with quantity and number which can be distinguished apart from the material things. This is called mathematics. The highest abstraction is when the mind deals with being or reality itself as being. This is called metaphysics.

What the modern mind needs to remember is this: all three sciences are different and one method of science cannot be the method of another. This has been the error of both the modern and the ancients. As Dr. Kreeft said, "the ancients used a philosophical method to do science and the moderns use a scientific method to do philosophy." One cannot say that since relativity is true in physics, morality and truth are relative. Physics is also mathematical. Does this mean we need a mathematical morality? If relativity is true in physics, does this mean that mathematics ought to be relative?

A new science does not necessitate a new religion or a new philosophy. To mix them is committing what the scholastics call the fallacy of uniform method of science. As Fulton Sheen said,

"Here we call it the 'Fallacy of the Uniform Method of Science' -- the fallacy of taking one science as the norm, and making it the measure, the guide, the interpreter, and the inspiration of every other science." (Philosophy of Religion, 185)
​

Physics should be treated as physics, mathematics as mathematics, and especially, metaphysics as metaphysics. One should not use a scientific or mathematical method to do metaphysics and vice versa. As Etienne Gilson said,

"Theology, logic, physics, biology, psychology, sociology, economics, are fully competent to solve their own problems by their own methods…no particular science is competent to either solve metaphysical problems, or to judge their metaphysical solutions." (The Unity of Philosophical Experience, page 249)
​

This should answer the question of should we should allow evolution and/or creationism in a science class. The answer is evolution should be taught as long as it does not imply philosophical naturalism/materialism and creationism should not be taught since it mentions God and the problem of God which is a metaphysical problem.
At the same time, we should not limit all knowledge to science. First, because it cannot be scientifically proven that everything should be scientifically proven or limited to science. It is self-contradictory. Second, because there are many things which are true but cannot be proven scientifically such as mathematics, love, aesthetics, morality, and the laws of logic.

To be faithful in science does not mean one ought to be an empiricist. A religious person ought not to look down upon science and a scientist ought not to look down upon a religion. Both persons need to look up and thank God for making a beautiful universe; so beautiful that it makes them wonder about that universe, especially their place and purpose in it. Science and Religion by Apolonio Latar

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?

80% of the worlds Christians don't confuse different kinds of authority. The "many" you refer to are vociferous American fundamentalists that do not represent mainstream Christianity. They just think they do.

 

[waitasec]

A different authority, not a superior one.

There are three different kinds of "sciences." The difference between them is the degree of abstraction that is involved. The mind might just focus on the physical by experimental observation. This science is called physics or natural science (this is what the modern mind knows as "science"). He can also move toward a higher degree of abstraction dealing with quantity and number which can be distinguished apart from the material things. This is called mathematics. The highest abstraction is when the mind deals with being or reality itself as being. This is called metaphysics.

What the modern mind needs to remember is this: all three sciences are different and one method of science cannot be the method of another. This has been the error of both the modern and the ancients. As Dr. Kreeft said, "the ancients used a philosophical method to do science and the moderns use a scientific method to do philosophy." One cannot say that since relativity is true in physics, morality and truth are relative. Physics is also mathematical. Does this mean we need a mathematical morality? If relativity is true in physics, does this mean that mathematics ought to be relative?

A new science does not necessitate a new religion or a new philosophy. To mix them is committing what the scholastics call the fallacy of uniform method of science. As Fulton Sheen said,

"Here we call it the 'Fallacy of the Uniform Method of Science' -- the fallacy of taking one science as the norm, and making it the measure, the guide, the interpreter, and the inspiration of every other science." (Philosophy of Religion, 185)
​

Physics should be treated as physics, mathematics as mathematics, and especially, metaphysics as metaphysics. One should not use a scientific or mathematical method to do metaphysics and vice versa. As Etienne Gilson said,

"Theology, logic, physics, biology, psychology, sociology, economics, are fully competent to solve their own problems by their own methods…no particular science is competent to either solve metaphysical problems, or to judge their metaphysical solutions." (The Unity of Philosophical Experience, page 249)
​

This should answer the question of should we should allow evolution and/or creationism in a science class. The answer is evolution should be taught as long as it does not imply philosophical naturalism/materialism and creationism should not be taught since it mentions God and the problem of God which is a metaphysical problem.
At the same time, we should not limit all knowledge to science. First, because it cannot be scientifically proven that everything should be scientifically proven or limited to science. It is self-contradictory. Second, because there are many things which are true but cannot be proven scientifically such as mathematics, love, aesthetics, morality, and the laws of logic.

To be faithful in science does not mean one ought to be an empiricist. A religious person ought not to look down upon science and a scientist ought not to look down upon a religion. Both persons need to look up and thank God for making a beautiful universe; so beautiful that it makes them wonder about that universe, especially their place and purpose in it. Science and Religion by Apolonio Latar


80% of the worlds Christians don't confuse different kinds of authority. The "many" you refer to are vociferous American fundamentalists that do not represent mainstream Christianity. They just think they do.

all that to say you know diddly squat about the scientific method...

 

[horizon_mj1]

Other than semantics and (my own) desire to nitpick, I think we have much agreement.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and understandings.

:hug:

Thank you as well (I have that secret desire to nitpik at times, I think we all do)

 

[earlwooters]

It is the reason why.

 

[Pegg]

because god tells you what you want to hear?

i think he tells us what we need to hear in order to know who we are and what our place is in this universe

otherwise, according to science, we are just another useless organism that will come and go

 

[The Sum of Awe]

according to science, we are just another useless organism that will come and go

Agreed and why not?

 

[Pegg]

Agreed and why not?

why not?

because for some strange reason we have an inbuilt desire to live forever. We memorialize our dead and live like we will never die. If we are no different to any other creature, then we are doing what is completely unnatural for any creature.

So there must be more to us then that. And God has explained that there is more to us then that. We have been created in his image. That explains perfectly why we view everlasting life as possible. It explains why we have teachings in all our religions that we never really die...we live on in other forms according to all the great religions.

 

[waitasec]

i think he tells us what we need to hear in order to know who we are and what our place is in this universe

if god tells us what we need to hear, why isn't god more straightforward instead of ambiguous?

otherwise, according to science, we are just another useless organism that will come and go

i wouldn't say "useless", we (mankind) have an undue sense of importance, after all it is survival of the fittest no matter how you look at it.

 

[waitasec]

why not?

because for some strange reason we have an inbuilt desire to live forever...

just because we desire doesn't make it real...

 

[Pegg]

if god tells us what we need to hear, why isn't god more straightforward instead of ambiguous?

I think the ambiguity depends on who you get your information from

i wouldn't say "useless", we (mankind) have an undue sense of importance, after all it is survival of the fittest no matter how you look at it.

todays society isnt concerned with survival of the fittest...its more like survival of the richest.

that makes all our advancement and technology completely useless and empty.