How serious are we about science?

[Teke]

In general I try to not quote LONG posts in totality, but yours was excellent and outlines the tension perfectly.

If the Bible is true then it is true, regardless of what science discovers.

You said this in reference to dogma. The bible isn't a dogma but a tradition.

[ThinkingFaith]

There is a distinction in being "beyond scientific scrutiny" because:

1. Scientific methods are incapable of addressing such a question.
2. Scientific methods can address the question but we will not allow for any result which differs from dogma to be correct.

I had in mind the 2nd view, though I do believe there are questions for which the 1st holds.

Punk, unless I am missing something I disagree. Results from the scientific method are unlimited--they often disagree with previously accepted asumptions. Is that what you are saying?

[punk]

You said this in reference to dogma. The bible isn't a dogma but a tradition.

Well religion is often about dogma, and as a result answers.

What the Bible is about, and what we should get out of it is subject to some discussion on this board. Some would read it as a fact book full of answers to whatever question comes up (some of our creationist brethren come to mind).

Some would read it in other ways.

Perhaps the chasm between (christian) religion and science is a result of wanting the Bible to be something it is not?

[Teke]

There is a distinction in being "beyond scientific scrutiny" because:

1. Scientific methods are incapable of addressing such a question.
2. Scientific methods can address the question but we will not allow for any result which differs from dogma to be correct.

I had in mind the 2nd view, though I do believe there are questions for which the 1st holds.

If scientific method is as I stated, thinking, then the method is all that is necessary to establish. IOW method of thinking in a parameter.
For instance the early church fathers wrote in an apophatic manner. That is their method to try to explain the unexplainable. Some, such as St Athanasius (The Incarnation) and St Basil (The Human Condition) could likely be construed as anthropological scientist of their times as well as great theologians. There are not many who think as they did, in our present times.

[OneStep]

To really answer this question we need to get to the heart of what (typically) makes religion "religion", and science "science".

-Religion, typically, is a set of dogmatic beliefs taken (more or less) as a whole and complete system of thought, so that to reject any part of it is to reject all of it. So, too often, a person finds themself in the position of making a decision to affirm a religion's dogmatic system so that they never have to make another philosophical decision again in their life. Dogma provides a comfort of having "all the answers".

-Science, ideally, is a rejection of all dogmas and a willingness to go where the evidence leads. Since any belief might have to be discarded with the finding of new information, the scientist never has the security or comfort of a dogmatic system with all the answers. The scientist is always in a state of philosophical peril, always having to decide every minute what decisions to make without the comfort of a complete dogmatic system.

How does one reconcile too such opposing views?

You really can't.

You either have to make your religion more scientific and do away with dogmas and the comfort of dogmas, or you have to make your science more religious and insist on dogmas that are never to be overturned, whatever the evidence.

The religious person opts for security in ignoring the world around them, the scientific person opts for insecurity in holding to no unimpeachable answers.

Personally I opt for the answer of making religion more scientific, but then I thrive in insecurity.

What I've seen in this thread is stabs at making science more religious and insisting there are dogmas that cannot be overturned (though couched in words that sound more like "since the Bible is true history, no honest science will ever find evidence to overturn it", nevertheless it amounts to saying that there are dogmas beyond scientific scrutiny).

Punk...I have highlighted a portion of your post.......have you written this before, or am I becoming telepathic? I have seen this before.....or not?

[Teke]

Well religion is often about dogma, and as a result answers.

What the Bible is about, and what we should get out of it is subject to some discussion on this board. Some would read it as a fact book full of answers to whatever question comes up (some of our creationist brethren come to mind).

Legalist come to mind also....

Perhaps the chasm between (christian) religion and science is a result of wanting the Bible to be something it is not?

You know I agree on this.

[punk]

Punk...I have highlighted a portion of your post.......have you written this before, or am I becoming telepathic? I have seen this before.....or not?

I've probably said something more or less similar one time or another.

[OneStep]

Whew!!!!!, Scared me there...I certainly did not want to be telepathic

[punk]

Legalist come to mind also....



You know I agree on this.

Of course if we start saying things like "The Bible asks far more questions than it answers" or "The Bible is a book about how we should act, and not a science text book" (both of which I would affirm), quite a few people out there are going to find it small comfort when compared to what they have given up in stopping viewing the Bible as "containing all the answers".

I often think the Bible is more of a mirror than anything else.

[punk]

Whew!!!!!, Scared me there...I certainly did not want to be telepathic

Yeah, you might find yourself having new and troubling obligations were that the case.

[aliensyndm]

Thinkingfaith ->> That's the same old you are clever I am dumb argument. Obviously I am not smart cos I don't agree with your view right ? If I studied more I would agree with you because I would see the evidence and I wouldn't be dumb anymore right ?

I would hazard a guess that plenty scientists who have studied WAY more than you have also seem to have problems with evolution and other scientific paradigms. I take it they are all dumb and not as smart as you either right ?

Are you actually a Christian thinkingfaith ? If so how do you choose which parts of the bible to believe ? Do you believe everything until science "proves" otherwise and then say those bits are wrong or something ?
Why believe any of it then ? Seems odd to me.

[chal]

If the Bible said the moon was made of cheese yet science demonstrates it is made of rock, would you assume your interpretation of the Bible was wrong or that the scientists lied?[/COLOR]

chal > I would not have to assume anything. Science's interpretation of the Bible moon-cheese would definitely be wrong, because as usual, they would be trying to interpret it by looking at it under a microscope in a lab, when in fact it must be eaten at a table to truely understand it.

First look at the Sun as a big Rye cracker. Then and only then Passagehopper, will you understand what turns the inner tides of scripture.

[ThinkingFaith]

Thinkingfaith ->> That's the same old you are clever I am dumb argument. Obviously I am not smart cos I don't agree with your view right ? If I studied more I would agree with you because I would see the evidence and I wouldn't be dumb anymore right ?

I would hazard a guess that plenty scientists who have studied WAY more than you have also seem to have problems with evolution and other scientific paradigms. I take it they are all dumb and not as smart as you either right ?

Are you actually a Christian thinkingfaith ? If so how do you choose which parts of the bible to believe ? Do you believe everything until science "proves" otherwise and then say those bits are wrong or something ?
Why believe any of it then ? Seems odd to me.

First, these are honest questions any educated Christian has these days. Things like evolution or the age of the earth are serious Christian issues--just look at the Republican debate this past week.

There are very few scientists who have problems with the age of the earth or evolution, and their conclusions are not substantiated by the scientific method. You are welcome to present opposing view points.

Questioning my Christianity is what I expect—it is what I have experienced here since I first began posting. If you have a Biblical basis please share it. Otherwise, how do you justify your evil statements?

[pmckelvy]

Questioning my Christianity is what I expect—it is what I have experienced here since I first began posting. If you have a Biblical basis please share it. Otherwise, how do you justify your evil statements?

I don't think AS meant that in a judgmental way just as a basis of where you are coming from. Honestly I was thinking that as well. You seem to say that if we don't take the Word of God with a grain of salt so to speak, that we are just ignorant folk. I also don't think questioning the truth of the Bible is a wise policy. We don't get to believe the good parts and discount the parts we don't like or understand, doesn't at all work like that. When called to be on the side of God or the side of science, which side would you assume a Christian to land on?

[ThinkingFaith]

I don't think AS meant that in a judgmental way just as a basis of where you are coming from. Honestly I was thinking that as well. You seem to say that if we don't take the Word of God with a grain of salt so to speak, that we are just ignorant folk. I also don't think questioning the truth of the Bible is a wise policy. We don't get to believe the good parts and discount the parts we don't like or understand, doesn't at all work like that. When called to be on the side of God or the side of science, which side would you assume a Christian to land on?

Can't you accept that your interpretation of scripture just might be incorrect? After all, scripture was used to teach geo-centerism. It's a clear Biblical teaching, yet no one I know still holds to it.

Isn't it possible you are mistaken?