What happens when a Christian accepts science?

Gadfly, I read an article a long time ago about animals that were rumored to be dinosaurs. All the ones I read about were sea animals in remote places.
 
THEU,
It's puzzling to me that intelligent, thoughtful people will so quickly dispense with their natural curiosity and skepticism, their tendencies towards independent and critical thought—attributes that have served them well, and still do.

Every day you evaluate and assess and examine and make all variety of life decisions based on the evidence of the world you live in, using your gifts of reason and intellect. But when presented with a certain subset of facts you're perfectly satisfied to say: no, this is not a truth of my world. Even though these truths were arrived at in exactly the same way as so many others that you value and depend upon and have never had reason to question.

You'll gladly acknowledge the scientific method and accept the enormous benefits humanity has derived from it, except in those limited scenarios where it appears to conflict with your creed, and then science suddenly becomes meaningless and impotent—at least until you need it again in the form of a medical treatment, technological innovation or some other practical life benefit.

How does a thinking person reconcile this apparent duplicity and self-deception? I know one reason but I'd like to hear your take.
 
One such issue is that of uniformitarianism. As I continue to look at the scientific literature I found that geologists, (not religious ones mind you) are starting to reject uniformitarianism for a type of catastrophism as a base guideline for understanding geologic history. They are starting to find evidence that geologic processes are in fact not constant. These scientists of course don't embrace the Biblical account but if geologic processes aren't constant then the whole age of the earth issue changes drastically since the current accepted age of the earth is built on a uniformitarian foundation. I have also read a study where rocks of known age have been measured to verify the dating method. The problem is the measurements give artificially old results. If the method can't be verified with known quantities, otherwise known as calibration, then the validity of the data comes into question. That study was carried out using the scientific method. Were you aware of it? Maybe you are scientifically ignorant of it.

And the results of such new studies will presumably place the age of the earth at 10,000 years? And the universe at substantially less than 14 billion years? Interesting.

But we have heard similar claims before, mostly with the discredited Demski and Behe, what with their mousetrap and eye "irreducible complexity" explanations.

From a sociological, even psychological, perspective, is there anything quite like religion that induces such a high level of self-imposed science ignorance?

What is interesting in the above is that the poster is all too eager to accept scientific findings that support and corroborate his religious viewpoints, but refuses to accept findings that dispute those viewpoints. How does he determine which piece of sciece is valid? Easy, that which supports his religous views.
 
Then what is the point of mentioning what you did?

You seemed to have been proffering alternative scientific explanations to accurately determine the age of the earth. Presumably in order to show that the earth is substantially younger than is claimed by the "materialists".

There is a wealth of good, solid, verifiable evidence to show both the age of the earth/cosmos and to support evolution. Why is that science not accepted? Because it conflicts with one's religion.

This is not how one should approach science, and imo is not how one should approach religion.
 
What is somewhat puzzling to me is that I have never heard anyone claim that "science" or evidence of things which belie religion (and on this thread it's really only about christianity) is actually some sort of test of faith laid out by god to give us humans both reasons to believe and reasons to disbelieve. It's the kind of explanation that I would expect to spring up and I really haven't heard it come up. It's no more assailable than anything else...
 
Nick, it has been said (seriously if one can believe it) that fossilized dinosaur bones were placed in the geologic strata by Satan as a means of testing the faithful.
 
Dion,
I don't think that means anything of the sort of which you speak. I think many thoughtful Christians are curious and think deeply in many areas of study. For science, just look back at the number of profoundly religious people who make discoveries which change our lives dramatically. Francis Collins would be a current day example.
That being said, I think Perham is probably right that I need to define 'discovered truths.' What I mean by that is that I believe God has revealed Himself to us in Scripture. I believe it is true and trustworthy. That being said, it doesn't negate or somehow mean I don't go out to discovery truths not disclosed in the Bible. I have said earlier on this thread (or maybe another) that I agree that the Bible tells us how to go to heaven and not how the heavens go. I enjoy reading things that challenge me and cause me to discover new things. I am the type nerd who KNEW it was Brian Greene when he was on Big Bang Theory. I knew that because I have read one of his books and found it to be most fascinating. That was some time ago, but I remember him talking about the space-time continuum and something about what it would be like IF something was out there beyond it. Science of course has no way of testing for that. Science doesn't test for God, and cant. That is not it's purpose. So yes, I do buy into the fact that science doesn't negate God, and God doesn't negate science.
Ultimately, I guess it comes down to worldview. I view observable phenomenon through the lens of God existing. Therefore, when I eat some really good sashimi, I don't think primarily about the makeup of a tuna's muscle. I think primarily of a God who gave us taste buds to enjoy such amazing flavours.
It means that when I consider all of time and space, and physics, it points me to the God of the Bible. I don't look primarily for meaning in discoveries, but my discoveries inform my understanding of God.

First time I have written about these things, so I hope I am clearer than mud. I am not on here really to debate science v. religion. I have never done so, and don't intend to start now. Just hope I can articulate the way I look at the world.
 
THEU, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. I guess I'm not understanding your earlier statement:

I believe that revealed truths about God have primary merit over discovered truths.

I took that to mean that if something demonstrated by the scientific method came into conflict with what you believe to be divinely revealed in the bible, then you would reject the science in favor of what you consider biblical truth. Did I misunderstand you?

I do think many Christians would take that position, and I have heard exactly that expressed by some.
 
Then what is the point of mentioning what you did? You seemed to have been proffering alternative scientific explanations to accurately determine the age of the earth. Presumably in order to show that the earth is substantially younger than is claimed by the "materialists". There is a wealth of good, solid, verifiable evidence to show both the age of the earth/cosmos and to support evolution. Why is that science not accepted? Because it conflicts with one's religion. This is not how one should approach science, and imo is not how one should approach religion.

The point was not to say that findings I mentioned proved the earth is 10,000 years old. Earth ages of thousands of years comes from the Bible. Radiometric dating measurements give earth ages in the billions. Without those 2 sources we wouldn't have any data telling us how old the earth is. I understand that.

The point was to mention that the dating methods that produce billions of years ages have issues. The shift from uniformitarianism to catastrophism is not a religious movement is a secular geologist movement, even though it is just starting. The movement may not become prominent but the article I read quoted leaders in the field today. The point is if uniformitarianism is no longer accepted as an assumption, then radiometric dating methods are called into serious question. It's just a logical fact based on secular geologist findings.

The point of the study about the rock age measurements of rocks of known age shows that the methods themselves have issues. The findings don't settle the issue. But if the findings prove true all radiometric dates are called into question. The wealth of data you claim will no longer exist. The studies I have read from a secular viewpoint don't address the reliability of the data. The reliability is assumed. I guess the point is what I was trying to get you to do personally: evaluate your own assumptions. That's it.

So how do you determine which scientific findings are reliable and which are to be ignored? Does your current viewpoint or world view come into play? I think my process is obvious. It is a synthesis between scientific observation and bible. I try to weigh each side carefully.

Just so you know. My understanding of science and the bible has modified over time as I continue to learn. I don't really resemble the image you have presented of me.
 
Earth ages of thousands of years comes from the Bible. Radiometric dating measurements give earth ages in the billions. Without those 2 sources we wouldn't have any data telling us how old the earth is. I understand that.


What? No, we don't need those TWO sources to tell us that. We need ONE source, and I'll let you guess which one that is. Seriously, this is some messed up reasoning going on here.

This is like a Scientologist telling us that we need two sources also, geology and Dianetics.
 
Dion,
you do understand that statement correctly. Sorry, if I am not explaining myself well today.

The only slight addition I would make, is that I don't believe science every contradicts the Bible. When it appears to, either science or the Bible is not rightly understood. I will contend that often times in history it has been the Bible that has not been understood well.
 
Perham1 you really have trouble reading! I didn't say we need 2 sources. I said that there are only 2 sources which people use. You have real problems.
 
I read quite well. And that is not what you said. It may be what you THOUGHT you said, but it is not what you have written. I try to stay with what was actually written.

Here is your quote:

Without those 2 sources we wouldn't have any data telling us how old the earth is. I understand that.

This doesn't say that there are only two sources that people use. And that isn't even true (there being only two sources that people use). But my point was the absurdity of the statement, and I even brought up Scientology as an example.

We use one source to tell us how old the earth/cosmos is: science. We don't use the bible, we don't use Dianetics, we don't use the Koran.

I'm sorry that you feel it necessary to say that I have problems when all I'm doing is attempting to be precise and direct. As I have said, I find your reasoning to be deficient, all the more so after your last post.
 
Without those 2 sources we wouldn't have any data telling us how old the earth is.

For whatever reason you're still not getting it.

Let us include the Koran and Diantetics, along with the bible and science. Your statement would now be "without those four sources we wouldn't have any data telling us how old the earth is." Why not include the Houston phone book? Yellow pages? Without those six sources....

Conjoining the bible with science does not mean we need or that people use the bible to determine the age of the earth. I mean, people who are serious about using good concrete data to determine the age, i.e., using geology.

You are very, very confused.

You are correct, not everyone uses science to determine the age of the earth. Some may use astrology or the Ouiji board. Those people are a joke and irrelevant to intelligent discussion of the matter.

You have failed to understand my point thus far and nothing shows me that you will understand it now. Unfortunately, I think that this lack of understanding plays a large role in your inability to gauge the value of science.
 
Gadfly - It's also interesting that the further and further we get from the writing of the Bible, people profess to actually know more and more about how to translate it and what it "really" means. It seems that the original authors would have known the most about what they were writing, and any changes in their stories (whether they be actual changes or changes in interpretations) over the years may have just been done out of convenience in order to not uncover glaring problems in the text that would cause people to stop believing?
 
I’d like to present a small example to illustrate how man can unknowingly corrupt the Bible. Much like recent evolutionary science lead to ID, the Bible interpretation has changed to confer with the science – and then claimed that the Bible was aware of the science the whole time.

Consider this passage:

Isaiah 40:22 (King James Translation)
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

It is believed Isaiah was written around 8th century BC. Biblical scholars believe that most of Isaiah was written by Isaiah, so in a way, it is a history of this period including his prophecies. The common world view at this time was of a flat circular earth with a hemisphere of heaven above, and hell below. The Hebrew word for circle is chuwg. Now – Isaiah meant circle (like a compass). That is the word he chose (not duwr - for sphere) because that is what he understood the earth to look like. Yet, science has changed some or our understandings of the universe.

First, there is not a “heaven” as described in the Bible. The heaven that exists as a physical place which could be reached by building a tower is no longer possible. Second, we know the earth is not flat. When the King James translation was created, they correctly translated the word chuwg into the word circle because it didn’t challenge their world view. Yet modern people read this, and change the meaning and ignore what is actually said. They irrationally say in their head that circle must mean sphere because God cannot be wrong. God is not wrong; Isaiah is wrong. They also ignore the fact Heaven does not exists above the earth, and the irrational nature of God forcing people to speak new languages to confuse them for trying to build a tower to it.

So these are the simple explanations as they were understood by the people who wrote the bible:
Why do angels need wings? So they can fly to heaven.
Why did Jesus go up after his death? Because Heaven is up.

People just ignore the obvious problems in the bible (Like the death of Judas or the timing of the Last Supper – many more). They explain that these are just allegory. Then what if everything is allegory? What if none of it is literal? Who gets to decide what is literal and what is metaphor? I will assure you those who wrote the Bible didn’t not think any of it was allegory.

To Mona's point, I think he is quite right. God gave us rationality, science, and intelligence to work out these problems so that we will not be corrupted by the selfish motives of man. Mona accepts Jesus on his faith. Wonderful! I think that is just as valid as accepting Jesus on science. Although our fundamental understanding of Jesus is not the same, I don't believe that's very important. What we both believe is that the teachings of Jesus are a fundamental necessity to understanding God.
 
Gadfly, duwr can also be translated as circle. The others uses of the word chuwg don't refer to something flat and circular. It refers to the sky, like a dome and the oceans. So I don't know if the issue is as cut and dried as you put it.

Even with that, I have no problem with the understanding that Isaiah described the earth in terms he understood at the time. The meaning is the earth in totality.

The idea of a spherical earth does not contradict the ascension of Jesus. If He bodily leaves the earth, he would be perceived to rise up though we understand that the true direction is away from the center.
 
Gadfly and Johnny,
there is actually good historic reasons why we know more about the Bible now than we have in the past. It is because we continue to accumulate more information about the Bible, and even find more sources.
That being said, I can understand reservations about 'believing' in what the Bible says. Let me say, in this post, I am NOT trying to convince you to believe what is in the Bible just to talk about the Bible as a document from history.
Every new English translation that come out does not come from a previous English translation, but rather from source documentation. We do not have the original autographs of any book in the NT. (I am going to talk about the NT first). What we have is a compilation of sources, manuscripts paparii, from the first through 3rd century from roughly Italy to Iran. These have all been compiled with any textual differences. Secular scholars who study the NT use the same compilation that religious scholars use. here is a link to Nestle-Aland from amazon The Link

If you notice the footnotes they denote EVERY textual difference for any of these ancient sources. I honestly don't know the last time an ancient source was discovered for the NT, but I will talk a bit about that when I talk about the OT.

The text that Jews, Christians, and secular scholars use for the OT are really 2. The oldest texts we have for the TNK, or OT are not actually in the original Hebrew, but rather the Greek Translation known as LXX, or the Septuagint. It is a translation that was made in the third and second centuries BCE. This means it was around, and widely used actually, during the time of Jesus.
The oldest complete copy of the TNK we have in Hebrew is the Masoretic Text. It is from the 9th century CE.
In modern times, any English translation is made from these texts, and NOT from some already existing English translation as some mistakenly believe.
Now, one reason we know more about the TNK in particular than we did before was because new discoveries continue to be made. The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in the 1940's, but are in Hebrew and date back to before the time of Jesus. This pushes the oldest texts we have available to modern scholars back over 800 years! That is a big discovery indeed, and was not previously available to scholars. That is why we can know more now than we have in the past.
The TNK, and the NT are regarded as highly attested to. They are very well researched and documented texts. I write all this NOT to try to say you should believe they are correct, but to say that they are historically reliable, in that they are from when, and say what we though they said then. The level of changes or distortions are quite small for a text that old.
 
That is a cool book, THEU. I like that you present your conclusions with an honest intellectual curiosity founded on evidence. My concern with the NT is that the only existing original Hebrew versions have the virgin birth and resurrection missing (I’m not aware of any Hebrew version or section from John – I need to investigate that). As you say, the later full versions we have are based on Greek translations. I don’t know, but I’d imagine much of this was from Paul and the Corinthians. We will both agree that Jesus is likely the most well studied and scrutinized individual in history, and any serious corruption to his story would likely have been found out. Personally, I believe the Sermon on the Mount is probably the most profound and likely accurate words from Jesus. I would bet he said that sermon multiple times (the same Sermon on the Plain in Luke), so his actual words there are probably highly accurate.

Monahorns – I do not trust your understanding of ancient Hebrew as satisfactory for changing my mind based on what I’ve read from Jewish scholars, but I welcome to consider the evidence you’re using to make your conclusion. I’m wondering why the Hebrew scholars I’ve read would contradict what you’ve said. I suppose whoever has made the most compelling argument is the one to be believed. I am skeptical of your claim, but open-minded to hear you out if you wish to defend it.
 
Gadfly,
I am a bit confused about your talking about hebrew texts for the NT. The NT was written originally in Greek. Any writings found in Hebrew would have been translations from the originals into another language.
You may know this, but the writings of Paul are actually older than the writings we call the Gospels. So it would seem from Paul's writings that these items you mentioned were not additions.
 
Gadfly, I actually would be curious to know what articles or Jewish scholars you have read. My response was just based on Hebrew lexicon definitions and Job 22:14 and Proverbs 8:27 where chuwg shows up again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top