Is science 'anti-God'? Really?

[KBertsche]

I think that Christians would say that the Bible IS evidence just as much as the empirical measurements of science is to scientists. I agree with that completely.

I agree; God reveals truth to man both through nature and through Scripture. But the types of truths that He reveals through each are somewhat different. Nature reveals a wealth of scientific truths about how God created and sustains His universe, but reveals very little theological information about why He did/does this. Conversely, Scripture reveals a wealth of theological truths about God's purposes for His interactions with the universe and with man, but reveals little scientific information about the mechanisms by which He does this.

[Xru]

So it isn't true that a non-Christian and other non-Christians of the past have compaired yo to jorge and said you are one in the same?



Really, one of the bed rocks of science is that the universe works in ways that can be predicted? I would have never figure that out, oh grand one! I hate to burst your delusional bubble, but you do know that is a product of the Christian world view, right? What do I mean by this, the pagans though the universe worked in accordance to the wills of the gods, Christians believe that the universe was created by God and isn't subject to changing fancies because God does not change, he is God. Next, miracles do not happen? So you have been everywhere, in the entire universe, at every point in time and have determined, beyond a reasonable doubt that no miracle has ever occurred? Wow... when will you present your findings to the scientific community about you becoming omniscient? Seriously though, miracles do not normally occur is a centerpiece of Christianity theology because we see it as a sign of God's power and authority being used to authentic a message being presented, so why are miracles so rare? Because if they started to occur regularly, we wouldn't see them as miracles, would we? Finally, science has to assume miracles do not happen? Really? Who said that? Fundy atheist like you? Sorry, but all science has to assume is that things tend to have natural causes. Nothing special about that, but if science has proved or has to assume miracles are impossible and never occur, perhaps you can present where the experiment proved this or are you letting your philosophy leak into your conclusions? Now, while it is cute that you want to hijack science to fit your own agenda, I am not going to let you do it. Now present your data or is your philosophy, all you got?



Ok....

YOU'RE AN IDIOT!

There, is that 'more honest'? When you can prove your assumptions as true, come back and try again, ok?

[Ansgar Seraph]

Xru, the Bible isn't evidence in the same way that science uses evidence. If the authors in the Bible write that a flood covered the entire earth, we can examine whether or not there's any natural evidence of such an event. If authors in the Bible write that God opens the windows of heaven to fill rain clouds, we can check to see if that's the case. If it is discovered that rain clouds form because of evaporation and there are no discernible windows holding back a cosmic ocean, it would be foolish to claim that the Bible and scientific evidence are on even footing.

Some claims are historical and can be verified or falsified (e.g., global flood). Some claims are historical and cannot be verified or falsified (e.g., the Resurrection, ax heads floating on water). Some claims make no scientific hypotheses (e.g., gods, souls, demons).

Some biblical claims can be determined by instruments and expressed as numbers. It doesn't make the faith look good when its adherents cannot accept that.

—Sam

[Xru]

I agree; God reveals truth to man both through nature and through Scripture. But the types of truths that He reveals through each are somewhat different. Nature reveals a wealth of scientific truths about how God created and sustains His universe, but reveals very little theological information about why He did/does this. Conversely, Scripture reveals a wealth of theological truths about God's purposes for His interactions with the universe and with man, but reveals little scientific information about the mechanisms by which He does this.

Thank's . . . I was feeling like I was trapped in an insane asylum an LPOT was the only door out.

[Xru]

Xru, the Bible isn't evidence in the same way that science uses evidence. If the authors in the Bible write that a flood covered the entire earth, we can examine whether or not there's any natural evidence of such an event. If authors in the Bible write that God opens the windows of heaven to fill rain clouds, we can check to see if that's the case. If it is discovered that rain clouds form because of evaporation and there are no discernible windows holding back a cosmic ocean, it would be foolish to claim that the Bible and scientific evidence are on even footing.

Some claims are historical and can be verified or falsified (e.g., global flood). Some claims are historical and cannot be verified or falsified (e.g., the Resurrection, ax heads floating on water). Some claims make no scientific hypotheses (e.g., gods, souls, demons).

Some biblical claims can be determined by instruments and expressed as numbers. It doesn't make the faith look good when its adherents cannot accept that.

—Sam

You're making a couple big assumptions. I agree things considered as evidence in the Bible is not of the same qualitative material as science, while as you say there are some empirically verifiable things in the Bible. Why are you people having so hard a time grasping that some Christians consider the Bible as weighty and strong as evidence of their belief as empiricists consider their beloved numbers. And rightfully so.

[Ansgar Seraph]

You're making a couple big assumptions. I agree things considered as evidence in the Bible is not of the same qualitative material as science, while as you say there are some empirically verifiable things in the Bible. Why are you people having so hard a time grasping that some Christians consider the Bible as weighty and strong as evidence of their belief as empiricists consider their beloved numbers. And rightfully so.

Well, that depends on what meaning one takes from the phrase "as evidence of their belief." If one's belief is in God's supremacy or Christ's divinity, your point is valid. If, on the other hand, one's belief is that the earth is less than 40,000 years old or that God literally flooded the entire earth, Christians do not rightfully consider the Bible as weighty and strong evidence as empirical science.

As far as a theological set of claims goes, it would again be erroneous to equate theological belief with scientific knowledge. Theological claims never really reach the level of certainty; they can be justified and they can be warranted . . . but that's about as far as we can get, "warranted Christian belief." Scientific knowledge, on the other hand, is much more certain, much more robust . . . given to clear falsification criteria and testable experimentation. It takes that level of rigor to reach the state of certainty. So even if we're talking about purely theological claims, we cannot equate the theological evidence in the Bible with empirical evidence in science — the former will never be as certain as the latter.

So while phank is in error in his logical positivism, arguing that only empirically-testable claims can be warranted, it is true that the claims contained in the Bible can never be "just as much" evidence to Christians as empirical data is to scientists. Theological claims are not subjected to the same rigorous testing and are therefore less certain.

—Sam

[princesa]

So while phank is in error in his logical positivism, arguing that only empirically-testable claims can be warranted, it is true that the claims contained in the Bible can never be "just as much" evidence to Christians as empirical data is to scientists. Theological claims are not subjected to the same rigorous testing and are therefore less certain.

—Sam

What other testing aside from empiracle testing can be warranted; and can it be applied to the theological claims which are not subject to that testing?

[Ansgar Seraph]

What other testing aside from empiracle testing can be warranted; and can it be applied to the theological claims which are not subject to that testing?

My apologies; it's been a long day. Let me try to clarify what I meant by "empirically-testable," which is where I think I tripped up; if that's not what you're referring to, lemme know.

All testing is empirical but not all claims are testable. So there are some claims that require empirical tests to determine their truth values and some claims that do not require empirical tests to determine their truth value. For instance, "God exists" can be assigned a truth value based on logic, intuition, or even taken as a basic belief. "A global flood covered the earth" could also be assigned a truth value in such fashion but, as such an event would actually be falsifiable, that truth value would still be contingent upon the results of testing.

So I would say that the "tests" applicable to theological claims are logical, intuitive, existential and historical. We can logically establish that God might exist, we can intuit that one God should be supremely powerful over other gods or creatures, we can existentially relate to such a God and we can examine history to help reason out aspects of that God. By such methods it might be possible to preference one religion or a set of religions over others, by virtue of their theological claims.

Did that help or did I just confuse my phrasing even further?

—Sam

[Xru]

Well, that depends on what meaning one takes from the phrase "as evidence of their belief." If one's belief is in God's supremacy or Christ's divinity, your point is valid. If, on the other hand, one's belief is that the earth is less than 40,000 years old or that God literally flooded the entire earth, Christians do not rightfully consider the Bible as weighty and strong evidence as empirical science.

As far as a theological set of claims goes, it would again be erroneous to equate theological belief with scientific knowledge. Theological claims never really reach the level of certainty; they can be justified and they can be warranted . . . but that's about as far as we can get, "warranted Christian belief." Scientific knowledge, on the other hand, is much more certain, much more robust . . . given to clear falsification criteria and testable experimentation. It takes that level of rigor to reach the state of certainty. So even if we're talking about purely theological claims, we cannot equate the theological evidence in the Bible with empirical evidence in science — the former will never be as certain as the latter.

So while phank is in error in his logical positivism, arguing that only empirically-testable claims can be warranted, it is true that the claims contained in the Bible can never be "just as much" evidence to Christians as empirical data is to scientists. Theological claims are not subjected to the same rigorous testing and are therefore less certain.

—Sam

I don't propose they are qualitatively the same.

[Xru]

Theological claims are not subjected to the same rigorous testing and are therefore less certain.

I don't assert that tests of truth of Biblical stuff are of equivalent nature as truth claims in science and so of course would not be subject to the same tests.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Then I'm not sure how to interpret your response to pancreasman's post. It has been a long day and I may very well be missing some nuance but I'm not sure, then, why pancreasman is "stuck in a conceptual box" if we all agree that biblical evidence and scientific evidence are qualitatively different things.

—Sam

[pancreasman]

Another TWebber that is stuck in the conceptual box that evidence has to be made up by instruments and and expressed as numbers.

Doesn't work that way brother.

Free your mind and your . .. .. behind will follow.

You actually care to argue against anything I said which is basically what Ansgar said?

[Raphael]

Hey PMan,

Sorry for the quick reply without quotes (just pressed for time and don't want to dive back into the thread right now).

What I mean is science is meant to be open to enquiry science is supposed to never "be settled". Yes there are things I consider to be proven scientifically, but the whole point of the scientific method is that if new evidence arises that question what we thought was proven, we need to investigate it and either demonstrate the evidence to fit or change what we thought we knew.

For example, if some evidence arose that supported John Martin's whacky Geocentricism we need to try and explain how that is explained with our current scientifically accepted model, or if it can't we need to change our model. Likewise if someone discovered the edge of the earth, we would have to change our understanding of the shape of the world (yes both of those are never going to happen....but if it happened we can't just shrug and say "the science is settled so you didn't fall over the edge")

However for those who hold the the Scientism philosophical world view, they (and yes I am generalising about the group here before Chris31 accuses me of generalising) will declare that something has it's Science settled and therefore needs to accepted as Dogma.
They have taken things which are true, under our current scientific knowledge, and placed them on the same level as we Christians place our Religious beliefs. They have effectively made Science their Religion without realising it, and made men in lab coats into their Priests.

This is why I say that the Scientism Philosophical view point is incompatible with the Christian Philosophical view point.

This is not to say that science is incompatible with Christianity in the slightest. Some scientific findings may arise that we Christians need to explain how they fit within our Philosophical view point, but then the same is true for those who hold to Scientism.

[Xru]

You actually care to argue against anything I said which is basically what Ansgar said?

For example, qualitatively, what sense or quality of experience confirms to you that you are actually a sentient being.

This sense or quality of experience that confirms that you are a sentient being is convincing of you is is not? This is knowledge or evidence if yo will . . . Yes, I am a sentient being.

Evidence takes many forms . . . intuition, a hunch, just a feeling, an inspired painting may show you the pain of the subjects .. . .

The NT story of the ministry of Jesus can and probably is evidence for the Christian as much as your subjective experience of being a sentient being is evidence that you are indeed a sentient being.

That's why I said free you mind and you . . . behind will follow. It's a paradigm shift of sorts in thinking.

[Xru]

Originally posted by Ansgar Seraph

Theological claims are not subjected to the same rigorous testing and are therefore less certain.

I don't assert that tests of truth of Biblical stuff are of equivalent nature as truth claims in science and so of course would not be subject to the same tests.

Theological claims are have a basic qualitative difference in substance than truth claims in science.

Theology strikes at spiritual issues. How are those going to be measured.

For God's sake people . . . the stuff measure by science, by instruments and recorded in numeric for is not the ONLY way information, and knowledge is gained.

You all are so habituated to thinking of evidence as a measured number you cannot see past your noses. Come on!!!!!

How do you know you love someone. How do you know how MUCH you love someone. By sticking a pair of electrods on your nuts and measuring an electrical differential between the left and rigfht nut.

No0 . . . you know it by how much you feel it in your heart. Can you measure that . . . . COME ON!