Science Misuse

[no one]

And the coward still refuses to address the issue.

Your buybull is not proof of anything.

[Charlie24]

Of what value is the scientists opinion, ideas, or beliefs if they can't nail down the "first cause" of creation.

Do you drive a car? Fly in aircraft? Use electricity? Take medications?

Thank scientists for all that and more.

You probably missed my post where I said that I'm all for science. It is a gift of God, but as many other things, at times it is abused.

[Dānu]

Do you drive a car? Fly in aircraft? Use electricity? Take medications?

Thank scientists for all that and more.

You probably missed my post where I said that I'm all for science. It is a gift of God, but as many other things, at times it is abused.

Supposedly our leaders are a gift from God, as well. So, why Trump?

[Charlie24]

You probably missed my post where I said that I'm all for science. It is a gift of God, but as many other things, at times it is abused.

Supposedly our leaders are a gift from God, as well.  So, why Trump?

Jesus never spoke on politics, except to say we are to obey the laws of the land committed to us by government.

There is no perfect politician, as there is no one in this world perfect.

We Christians vote on the principles found in the Word of God.

I personally believe it is our duty to God and man to vote with our hearts on the principles that founded this nation, IN GOD WE TRUST. 

The one who holds closest to those values is the one that gets my vote.

[1Sam15]

Supposedly our leaders are a gift from God, as well.  So, why Trump?

Jesus never spoke on politics, except to say we are to obey the laws of the land committed to us by government.

There is no perfect politician, as there is no one in this world perfect.

We Christians vote on the principles found in the Word of God.

I personally believe it is our duty to God and man to vote with our hearts on the principles that founded this nation, IN GOD WE TRUST. 

The one who holds closest to those values is the one that gets my vote.

Is this another case of you not knowing what your bible says?


Romans 13


New International Version

Submission to Governing Authorities
13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

[Charlie24]

Jesus never spoke on politics, except to say we are to obey the laws of the land committed to us by government.

There is no perfect politician, as there is no one in this world perfect.

We Christians vote on the principles found in the Word of God.

I personally believe it is our duty to God and man to vote with our hearts on the principles that founded this nation, IN GOD WE TRUST. 

The one who holds closest to those values is the one that gets my vote.

Is this another case of you not knowing what your bible says?


Romans 13


New International Version

Submission to Governing Authorities
13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

What do you take from these verses?

Christ said it all in these verses.

Matthew 22:15-22

 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.
16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.
17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
22 When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

[1Sam15]

Is this another case of you not knowing what your bible says?


Romans 13


New International Version

Submission to Governing Authorities
13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

What do you take from these verses?

Christ said it all in these verses.

Matthew 22:15-22

 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.
16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.
17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
22 When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

Can you please show where Roman’s 13 isn’t saying to you to stop fucken crying about the government your god selected?

[mordant]

Jesus never spoke on politics, except to say we are to obey the laws of the land committed to us by government.

There is no perfect politician, as there is no one in this world perfect.

We Christians vote on the principles found in the Word of God.

I personally believe it is our duty to God and man to vote with our hearts on the principles that founded this nation, IN GOD WE TRUST. 

The one who holds closest to those values is the one that gets my vote.

Is this another case of you not knowing what your bible says?


Romans 13


New International Version

Submission to Governing Authorities
13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

I will likely bore the regulars with this, Charles, as I've said it before, but this is for your benefit.

Based on the above-quoted scripture and others, fundamentalists in my childhood typically discouraged political involvement, beyond perhaps the sort of half-hearted participation in the voting process that seems rampant in this country. Politics was BENEATH us and our lofty goals. It was a DISTRACTION from spreading the gospel, and as such, probably a form of the dreaded "social gospel", which we saw as anything that remotely suggested that society needed ANYTHING but people repenting and committing their lives to Jesus to heal ALL its ills. Politics was man's way of doing things, etc.

What a difference 40 or 50 years has made. Beginning with Falwell's "Moral Majority" (though the notion had earlier roots), Christians decided that taking back America for Jesus was now their goal (the basis that this is or ever was a Christian nation being the thought I guess). They then went on to sell their souls for a mess of pottage. Today they regularly laud and defend the most immoral and wicked people imaginable, so long as, per your cynical calculus above, they are seen as closer to Christian needs like appointing strict constructionist judges or taking a muscular approach to drugs or abortion and similar issues they care about. This without any regard WHATSOEVER for root causes or what would actually solve the problem because it's what they fancy their god wants.

So you lot can have your serial adulterer, inveterate liar, convicted rapist of a president back on his golden toilet if you want, except that in the process he is likely to destroy the tattered remains of what passes for freedom in this country anymore.

Sheeple like you don't know or perhaps just don't care that you're supporting leadership that would be likely to usher in a fascist dictatorship and destroy what's left of the rule of law, worsen already dire income inequality, destroy what's left of the environment, and upend the world economy ultimately. That makes folks like you dangerous.

Mind you I don't lay it 100% at your feet. The chronically moribund opposition party has many unforced errors and obeys the will of the same donors, for example. But I grew up in a fundamentalism that at least held to some principles, even if often for the wrong reasons. I have ZERO respect for the ghastly thing that it has since become.

[Charlie24]

Is this another case of you not knowing what your bible says?


Romans 13


New International Version

Submission to Governing Authorities
13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

I will likely bore the regulars with this, Charles, as I've said it before, but this is for your benefit.

Based on the above-quoted scripture and others, fundamentalists in my childhood typically discouraged political involvement, beyond perhaps the sort of half-hearted participation in the voting process that seems rampant in this country. Politics was BENEATH us and our lofty goals. It was a DISTRACTION from spreading the gospel, and as such, probably a form of the dreaded "social gospel", which we saw as anything that remotely suggested that society needed ANYTHING but people repenting and committing their lives to Jesus to heal ALL its ills. Politics was man's way of doing things, etc.

What a difference 40 or 50 years has made. Beginning with Falwell's "Moral Majority" (though the notion had earlier roots), Christians decided that taking back America for Jesus was now their goal (the basis that this is or ever was a Christian nation being the thought I guess). They then went on to sell their souls for a mess of pottage. Today they regularly laud and defend the most immoral and wicked people imaginable, so long as, per your cynical calculus above, they are seen as closer to Christian needs like appointing strict constructionist judges or taking a muscular approach to drugs or abortion and similar issues they care about. This without any regard WHATSOEVER for root causes or what would actually solve the problem because it's what they fancy their god wants.

So you lot can have your serial adulterer, inveterate liar, convicted rapist of a president back on his golden toilet if you want, except that in the process he is likely to destroy the tattered remains of what passes for freedom in this country anymore.

Sheeple like you don't know or perhaps just don't care that you're supporting leadership that would be likely to usher in a fascist dictatorship and destroy what's left of the rule of law, worsen already dire income inequality, destroy what's left of the environment, and upend the world economy ultimately. That makes folks like you dangerous.

Mind you I don't lay it 100% at your feet. The chronically moribund opposition party has many unforced errors and obeys the will of the same donors, for example. But I grew up in a fundamentalism that at least held to some principles, even if often for the wrong reasons. I have ZERO respect for the ghastly thing that it has since become.

All through the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, there was no voting process.

For example, during the time of Christ it was Rome who ruled supreme. In each country they controlled, it was the Roman officials who chose the pollical leaders, such was the case in Israel. 

As time has passed and the Word of God has spread all over the world, many leaders took heed to that Word, and the world slowly, as the Word abounded, became a better place. Mind you, it was the principles of the Word of God spreading that did this!

Now we find ourselves in a completely different environment than those under dictatorship in the past, at least most of the world. So we find ourselves facing new challenges where the Scripture is silent.

So should we drop the ball and say, let someone else decide who will lead this nation that was founded on the principles of IN GOD WE TRUST? Just let the radicals take our country and do with it as they will?

I'm thinking that the times are really bad in this country of ours and we need God more than ever before. All of the politicians are stained, but does that mean we give up? The government as a whole in this nation is going down the tube, but that must come for the Scripture to be fulfilled.

Each one of us has to decide if we will take part in elections or not, for me, I will do my best to continue to vote for the person who holds the principles of the Word of God, no matter how shallow those values may be.

It's my opinion that God expects that of us and will honor our efforts, regardless of the qualifications of the candidate.

[Deesse23]

Do you drive a car? Fly in aircraft? Use electricity? Take medications?

Thank scientists for all that and more.

You probably missed my post where I said that I'm all for science.

And YOU probably "forgot" what you just said yourself.

Of what value is the scientists opinion, ideas, or beliefs if they can't nail down the "first cause" of creation.

[mordant]

All through the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, there was no voting process.

That is correct, representative democracy is a fairly recent development.

As time has passed and the Word of God has spread all over the world, many leaders took heed to that Word, and the world slowly, as the Word abounded, became a better place. Mind you, it was the principles of the Word of God spreading that did this!

Are you seriously claiming that representative democracy and social support nets for the less fortunate springs from Christian dogma? The dogma that, when it was put down on paper, did not even have the concept that slavery is a terrible thing? The authoritarian dogma that says don't think, just believe what I tell you to?

Now we find ourselves in a completely different environment than those under dictatorship in the past, at least most of the world. So we find ourselves facing new challenges where the Scripture is silent.

So should we drop the ball and say, let someone else decide who will lead this nation that was founded on the principles of IN GOD WE TRUST? Just let the radicals take our country and do with it as they will?

The scriptures are silent about a lot of things -- or just assume a lot of awful things like slavery are just unremarkable and not even wrong. If I am correctly unpacking what you are saying here:

1) The nation was founded on the principle of trust in god ... no, it was founded by deists for the most part, people whose dogma and theology you would not subscribe to ... and they wanted an egalitarian society founded on English common law where people of different beliefs coexist. Granted they weighted it toward the elites (explicitly, men of means and influence), because they, like the authors of the NT, were a product of their time. But no it was not a Christian nation, most especially not in the sense of "Christian" as you understand it, meaning, fundamentalist Christian. Christian fundamentalism hadn't been though of yet ... that came out of Darbyism in the 1830s.

2) People who do not agree with you are "radicals" and therefore dangerous, as well as, we come with new and strange ideas. Whereas in fact liberal democracy is a quite mature notion that has been around since the Enlightenment and in essentially its present form for several generations now. Even Republican President Eisenhower presided over a country with a marginal tax rate of, IIRC, 94% that assumed that beyond a certain point, the accumulation of personal wealth should be inhibited and redirected equitably to the vulnerable and disadvantaged. So no there are no radicals. If anything it's a radical idea to storm the capital in some misguided attempt to prevent the orderly transfer of power after an election.

3) There used to be this thing in fundamentalist teaching that the end does not justify the means, therefore, situational ethics is a Bad Thing. You should look it up some time. It's pretty cool. That way you can be clear that fascism is never a Good Thing even if it for the moment serves your god. In fact fascist leaders virtually always turn on their most dedicated followers in the end. When that happens, you may find out what REAL Christian persecution is all about.

I'm thinking that the times are really bad in this country of ours and we need God more than ever before. All of the politicians are stained, but does that mean we give up? The government as a whole in this nation is going down the tube, but that must come for the Scripture to be fulfilled.

Let it all burn and bring on the rapture, hm? Don't let a little corruption or totalitarianism get in your way.

Each one of us has to decide if we will take part in elections or not, for me, I will do my best to continue to vote for the person who holds the principles of the Word of God, no matter how shallow those values may be.

The values you seek are not simply "thin", they are entirely pretense, as you will eventually find out to your chagrin.

It's my opinion that God expects that of us and will honor our efforts, regardless of the qualifications of the candidate.

You guys truly do not see how depraved you are. Which tells us all we need to know about your god.

[Charlie24]

All through the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, there was no voting process.

That is correct, representative democracy is a fairly recent development.

As time has passed and the Word of God has spread all over the world, many leaders took heed to that Word, and the world slowly, as the Word abounded, became a better place. Mind you, it was the principles of the Word of God spreading that did this!

Are you seriously claiming that representative democracy and social support nets for the less fortunate springs from Christian dogma? The dogma that, when it was put down on paper, did not even have the concept that slavery is a terrible thing? The authoritarian dogma that says don't think, just believe what I tell you to?

Now we find ourselves in a completely different environment than those under dictatorship in the past, at least most of the world. So we find ourselves facing new challenges where the Scripture is silent.

So should we drop the ball and say, let someone else decide who will lead this nation that was founded on the principles of IN GOD WE TRUST? Just let the radicals take our country and do with it as they will?

The scriptures are silent about a lot of things -- or just assume a lot of awful things like slavery are just unremarkable and not even wrong. If I am correctly unpacking what you are saying here:

1) The nation was founded on the principle of trust in god ... no, it was founded by deists for the most part, people whose dogma and theology you would not subscribe to ... and they wanted an egalitarian society founded on English common law where people of different beliefs coexist. Granted they weighted it toward the elites (explicitly, men of means and influence), because they, like the authors of the NT, were a product of their time. But no it was not a Christian nation, most especially not in the sense of "Christian" as you understand it, meaning, fundamentalist Christian. Christian fundamentalism hadn't been though of yet ... that came out of Darbyism in the 1830s.

2) People who do not agree with you are "radicals" and therefore dangerous, as well as, we come with new and strange ideas. Whereas in fact liberal democracy is a quite mature notion that has been around since the Enlightenment and in essentially its present form for several generations now. Even Republican President Eisenhower presided over a country with a marginal tax rate of, IIRC, 94% that assumed that beyond a certain point, the accumulation of personal wealth should be inhibited and redirected equitably to the vulnerable and disadvantaged. So no there are no radicals. If anything it's a radical idea to storm the capital in some misguided attempt to prevent the orderly transfer of power after an election.

3) There used to be this thing in fundamentalist teaching that the end does not justify the means, therefore, situational ethics is a Bad Thing. You should look it up some time. It's pretty cool. That way you can be clear that fascism is never a Good Thing even if it for the moment serves your god. In fact fascist leaders virtually always turn on their most dedicated followers in the end. When that happens, you may find out what REAL Christian persecution is all about.

I'm thinking that the times are really bad in this country of ours and we need God more than ever before. All of the politicians are stained, but does that mean we give up? The government as a whole in this nation is going down the tube, but that must come for the Scripture to be fulfilled.

Let it all burn and bring on the rapture, hm? Don't let a little corruption or totalitarianism get in your way.

Each one of us has to decide if we will take part in elections or not, for me, I will do my best to continue to vote for the person who holds the principles of the Word of God, no matter how shallow those values may be.

The values you seek are not simply "thin", they are entirely pretense, as you will eventually find out to your chagrin.

It's my opinion that God expects that of us and will honor our efforts, regardless of the qualifications of the candidate.

You guys truly do not see how depraved you are. Which tells us all we need to know about your god.

Well, you already you know who I am, what I believe, and even spoke in my place, using my own words against me. 

I must come across to some as a very bad person. Not much I can do about that.

[no one]

Science is a gift from god.

This is the same god that feared some hoomans could build a tower high enough to reach it.

[Charlie24]

Science is a gift from god.

This is the same god that feared some hoomans could build a tower high enough to reach it.

[Charlie24]

[quote="no one" pid='414194' dateline='1704238714']
Science is a gift from god.

This is the same god that feared some hoomans could build a tower high enough to reach it.

There's much more detail to the mass rebellion against God at Babylon.

[mordant]

I must come across to some as a very bad person. Not much I can do about that.

You might be surprised that it is possible to to be kind to others, to not kick puppy dogs, and still be witlessly complicit in an evil system of thought that has taken root in your mind such that you don't know up from down in some ways. That was me, once upon a time. I repented and changed my ways.

Not that I was particularly insightful or something. For all I know, I would probably still be the same if my life had been a little less unfortunate and baffling to me. It wasn't though, and I got tired of trying to explain away all the leaks in the fundamentalist abstraction. Once I left the ideology, it was literally like a veil was lifted and things made sense finally.

You are probably too frightened, idealistic, or both to go there. No one, including me, EVER changes unless the pain of changing becomes less than the pain of not changing. And if you don't have much pain in your life ... if you are truly content with it as it is ... then you're a long way from changing.

So I don't think you're "very bad". Just misled. Being good is not the zero sum game you think it is. Within the scope of whatever self-awareness you possess, I think that you mean well. If I had a dime for every time I was being an impertinent asshole without knowing it, I'd be rich. I'm living proof that you can do better when you are ready to do better.

[Charlie24]

I must come across to some as a very bad person. Not much I can do about that.

You might be surprised that it is possible to to be kind to others, to not kick puppy dogs, and still be witlessly complicit in an evil system of thought that has taken root in your mind such that you don't know up from down in some ways. That was me, once upon a time. I repented and changed my ways.

Not that I was particularly insightful or something. For all I know, I would probably still be the same if my life had been a little less unfortunate and baffling to me. It wasn't though, and I got tired of trying to explain away all the leaks in the fundamentalist abstraction. Once I left the ideology, it was literally like a veil was lifted and things made sense finally.

You are probably too frightened, idealistic, or both to go there. No one, including me, EVER changes unless the pain of changing becomes less than the pain of not changing. And if you don't have much pain in your life ... if you are truly content with it as it is ... then you're a long way from changing.

So I don't think you're "very bad". Just misled. Being good is not the zero sum game you think it is. Within the scope of whatever self-awareness you possess, I think that you mean well. If I had a dime for every time I was being an impertinent asshole without knowing it, I'd be rich. I'm living proof that you can do better when you are ready to do better.

I'm content where I stand, the Lord and I get along very well. Actually, I can't imagine it any other way.

[mordant]

You might be surprised that it is possible to to be kind to others, to not kick puppy dogs, and still be witlessly complicit in an evil system of thought that has taken root in your mind such that you don't know up from down in some ways. That was me, once upon a time. I repented and changed my ways.

Not that I was particularly insightful or something. For all I know, I would probably still be the same if my life had been a little less unfortunate and baffling to me. It wasn't though, and I got tired of trying to explain away all the leaks in the fundamentalist abstraction. Once I left the ideology, it was literally like a veil was lifted and things made sense finally.

You are probably too frightened, idealistic, or both to go there. No one, including me, EVER changes unless the pain of changing becomes less than the pain of not changing. And if you don't have much pain in your life ... if you are truly content with it as it is ... then you're a long way from changing.

So I don't think you're "very bad". Just misled. Being good is not the zero sum game you think it is. Within the scope of whatever self-awareness you possess, I think that you mean well. If I had a dime for every time I was being an impertinent asshole without knowing it, I'd be rich. I'm living proof that you can do better when you are ready to do better.

I'm content where I stand, the Lord and I get along very well. Actually, I can't imagine it any other way.

Yeah I figured. I couldn't imagine it back in the day, either.

[no one]

Science is only "misused" when it shatters the fragile walls of my poorly constructed fantasy. Otherwise, I'm all for it. I enjoy my streaming services. I enjoy my pocket supercomputer. I enjoy modern medicine which allows me to live longer, and even see better. I enjoy all the modern technologies that are beneficial to my well being. But, when this same exact process punches massive holes in my ludicrous delusion, well then, I just have to put my foot down!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Dave Armstrong]

Is "science" even relevant to the bible?  

Absolutely. Philosopher Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) wrote:

In the first place, there can be no living science unless there is a widespread instinctive conviction in the existence of an Order Of Things. And, in particular, of an Order Of Nature . . . The inexpugnable belief that every detailed occurrence can be correlated with its antecedents in a perfectly definite manner . . . must come from the medieval insistence on the rationality of God . . .


My explanation is that the faith in the possibility of science, generated antecedently to the development of modern scientific theory, is an unconscious derivative from medieval theology.

The faith in the order of nature that has made possible the growth of science is a particular example of a deeper faith. This faith cannot be justified by any inductive generalisation. It springs from direct inspection of the nature of things as disclosed in our immediate present experience. (Science and the Modern World, reprinted by Free Press, 1997, pp. 3-4, 13, 18)

One of the leading philosophers of science, Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996), elucidated the medieval background in his book, The Copernican Revolution (New York: Vintage Books / Random House, 1959):

After the Dark Ages the Church began to support a learned tradition as abstract, subtle, and rigorous as any the world has known . . . The Copernican theory evolved within a learned tradition sponsored and supported by the Church . . . (p. 106)

The centuries of scholasticism are the centuries in which the tradition of ancient science and philosophy was simultaneously reconstituted, assimilated, and tested for adequacy. As weak spots were discovered, they immediately became the foci for the first effective research in the modern world. The great new scientific theories of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries all originate from rents torn by scholastic criticism in the fabric of Aristotelian thought. Most of those theories also embody key concepts created by scholastic science. And more important than these is the attitude that modern scientists inherited from their medieval predecessors: an unbounded faith in the power of human reason to solve the problems of nature. (p. 123)

Loren Eiseley (1907-1977), an anthropologist, educator, philosopher, and natural science writer, who received more than 36 honorary degrees, and was himself an agnostic in religious matters, observed:

It is the Christian world which finally gave birth in a clear articulated fashion to the experimental method of science itself . . . It began its discoveries and made use of its method in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a Creator who did not act upon whim nor inference with the forces He had set in operation. The experimental method succeeded beyond man’s wildest dreams but the faith that brought it into being owes something to the Christian conception of the nature of God. It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption. (Darwin’s Centenary: Evolution and the Men who Discovered it, New York: Doubleday: 1961, p. 62)

H. Floris Cohen, in his book, The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1994), described the views of science historian Benjamin Farrington (1891-1974), in his books Science in Antiquity (1936) and Greek Science (1949):

The other novel element that contributed crucially to the changed atmosphere in which the heritage of Greek science was received in western Europe is the biblical world-view, This entailed a more positive appreciation of labor, of the arts, and of the possibility of the amelioration of man’s future fate generally. . . . Greek science . . . was revitalized both by the achievements of medieval technology and by an optimistic, active world-view derived from the Bible. (pp. 248-249)

Prominent German physicist and philosopher Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker (1912-2007), in his book, The Relevance of Science (New York: Harper and Row: 1968, p. 163), even went so far as to conclude that modern science is a “legacy, I might even have said, a child of Christianity.”

The foundations of modern science (once it did get off the ground in the 16th century) were overwhelmingly Christian or at least theistic. Other important scientists through the years had religious views that were sub-theistic, such as deism or panentheism (Einstein). To say that science and religion are fundamentally incompatible is literally a nonsensical statement that would obliterate science at its very roots and presuppositions and bedrock premises. It’s a self-defeating proposition. It is “historically illiterate” to propose such a ludicrous notion.

[Cavebear]

Is "science" even relevant to the bible?  

Absolutely. Philosopher Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) wrote:

In the first place, there can be no living science unless there is a widespread instinctive conviction in the existence of an Order Of Things. And, in particular, of an Order Of Nature . . . The inexpugnable belief that every detailed occurrence can be correlated with its antecedents in a perfectly definite manner . . . must come from the medieval insistence on the rationality of God . . .


My explanation is that the faith in the possibility of science, generated antecedently to the development of modern scientific theory, is an unconscious derivative from medieval theology.

The faith in the order of nature that has made possible the growth of science is a particular example of a deeper faith. This faith cannot be justified by any inductive generalisation. It springs from direct inspection of the nature of things as disclosed in our immediate present experience. (Science and the Modern World, reprinted by Free Press, 1997, pp. 3-4, 13, 18)

One of the leading philosophers of science, Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996), elucidated the medieval background in his book, The Copernican Revolution (New York: Vintage Books / Random House, 1959):

After the Dark Ages the Church began to support a learned tradition as abstract, subtle, and rigorous as any the world has known . . . The Copernican theory evolved within a learned tradition sponsored and supported by the Church . . . (p. 106)

The centuries of scholasticism are the centuries in which the tradition of ancient science and philosophy was simultaneously reconstituted, assimilated, and tested for adequacy. As weak spots were discovered, they immediately became the foci for the first effective research in the modern world. The great new scientific theories of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries all originate from rents torn by scholastic criticism in the fabric of Aristotelian thought. Most of those theories also embody key concepts created by scholastic science. And more important than these is the attitude that modern scientists inherited from their medieval predecessors: an unbounded faith in the power of human reason to solve the problems of nature. (p. 123)

Loren Eiseley (1907-1977), an anthropologist, educator, philosopher, and natural science writer, who received more than 36 honorary degrees, and was himself an agnostic in religious matters, observed:

It is the Christian world which finally gave birth in a clear articulated fashion to the experimental method of science itself . . . It began its discoveries and made use of its method in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a Creator who did not act upon whim nor inference with the forces He had set in operation. The experimental method succeeded beyond man’s wildest dreams but the faith that brought it into being owes something to the Christian conception of the nature of God. It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption. (Darwin’s Centenary: Evolution and the Men who Discovered it, New York: Doubleday: 1961, p. 62)

H. Floris Cohen, in his book, The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1994), described the views of science historian Benjamin Farrington (1891-1974), in his books Science in Antiquity (1936) and Greek Science (1949):

The other novel element that contributed crucially to the changed atmosphere in which the heritage of Greek science was received in western Europe is the biblical world-view, This entailed a more positive appreciation of labor, of the arts, and of the possibility of the amelioration of man’s future fate generally. . . . Greek science . . . was revitalized both by the achievements of medieval technology and by an optimistic, active world-view derived from the Bible. (pp. 248-249)

Prominent German physicist and philosopher Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker (1912-2007), in his book, The Relevance of Science (New York: Harper and Row: 1968, p. 163), even went so far as to conclude that modern science is a “legacy, I might even have said, a child of Christianity.”

The foundations of modern science (once it did get off the ground in the 16th century) were overwhelmingly Christian or at least theistic. Other important scientists through the years had religious views that were sub-theistic, such as deism or panentheism (Einstein). To say that science and religion are fundamentally incompatible is literally a nonsensical statement that would obliterate science at its very roots and presuppositions and bedrock premises. It’s a self-defeating proposition. It is “historically illiterate” to propose such a ludicrous notion.

Well, who am I to argue with such distinguished scientists of the past. OK, I tell you. I know more than they did. Not because I'm brilliant, but because we have generally advanced beyond them (though understanding we would not know what we do today without their great steps and broad shoulders and thoughts). Even some theists had scientific tendencies beyond the standard superstitious believers of their time. And some were more atheist than you might think, but didn't know how to describe that at the time.

"The inexpugnable belief that every detailed occurrence can be correlated with its antecedents in a perfectly definite manner . . . must come from the medieval insistence on the rationality of God".

"Inexpungible"? LOL! Medieval times were times of great superstition. There were a very few individuals who challenged the superstition of the theists (everywhere around the world) and their suggestions of reality were often punished, sometimes by torture and death. Medieval thoughts on "the rationality of God" were more that "It must have a reason for the things that happen", not on actual information-oriented rational thought.

Kuhn's book actually seems to describe the escape of some scientists from the prevailing theisms of their time. Their actually research goes against the grain of their society. They began to free us from theism, rather than supporting it in any way.

Copernicus was not accepted by theists, as you seem to think.. In 1610, 67 years after the publication of the first edition, the Catholic Church formally declared that Copernicanism was heresy. It was certainly not "evolved within a learned tradition sponsored and supported by the Church".

In fact, every scientific person has been opposed (bitterly and unrelentingly) by leaders of theisms until they were literally beaten reluctantly into acceptance by accumulated factual evidence. And many do not accept basic science to this day.

Creationists (and there are many) actually bought a section a fossil bed with dinosaur tracks and hired some people to chisel fake human footprints next to them.

You say "Other important scientists through the years had religious views that were sub-theistic, such as deism or panentheism (Einstein)".

That is true. Even for Einstein, religious matters were difficult to deal with in society. He went with the least he could get away with. From HERE. In his youth, Einstein "developed a deep aversion to the dogma of organised religion that would last for his lifetime. In later years, he said "But Einstein’s was a God of philosophy, not religion. When asked many years later whether he believed in God, he replied: ‘I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.’"

I leave your claims of religion encouraging scientists with that.

Your entire premise is shot through with holes and false statements. You are claiming what you wish (maybe) was true, but little of it is.

[Charlie24]

Absolutely. Philosopher Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) wrote:



One of the leading philosophers of science, Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996), elucidated the medieval background in his book, The Copernican Revolution (New York: Vintage Books / Random House, 1959):


Loren Eiseley (1907-1977), an anthropologist, educator, philosopher, and natural science writer, who received more than 36 honorary degrees, and was himself an agnostic in religious matters, observed:


H. Floris Cohen, in his book, The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1994), described the views of science historian Benjamin Farrington (1891-1974), in his books Science in Antiquity (1936) and Greek Science (1949):




Prominent German physicist and philosopher Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker (1912-2007), in his book, The Relevance of Science (New York: Harper and Row: 1968, p. 163), even went so far as to conclude that modern science is a “legacy, I might even have said, a child of Christianity.”

The foundations of modern science (once it did get off the ground in the 16th century) were overwhelmingly Christian or at least theistic. Other important scientists through the years had religious views that were sub-theistic, such as deism or panentheism (Einstein). To say that science and religion are fundamentally incompatible is literally a nonsensical statement that would obliterate science at its very roots and presuppositions and bedrock premises. It’s a self-defeating proposition. It is “historically illiterate” to propose such a ludicrous notion.

Well, who am I to argue with such distinguished scientists of the past.  OK, I tell you.  I know more than they did.  Not because I'm brilliant, but because we have generally advanced beyond them (though understanding we would not know what we do today without their great steps and broad shoulders and thoughts).  Even some theists had scientific tendencies beyond the standard superstitious believers of their time.  And some were more atheist than you might think, but didn't know how to describe that at the time.

"The inexpugnable belief that every detailed occurrence can be correlated with its antecedents in a perfectly definite manner . . . must come from the medieval insistence on the rationality of God".

"Inexpungible"?  LOL!  Medieval times were times of great superstition.  There were a very few individuals who challenged the superstition of the theists (everywhere around the world) and their suggestions of reality were often punished, sometimes by torture and death.  Medieval thoughts on "the rationality of God" were more that "It must have a reason for the things that happen", not on actual information-oriented rational thought.

Kuhn's book actually seems to describe the escape of some scientists from the prevailing theisms of their time.  Their actually research goes against the grain of their society.  They began to free us from theism, rather than supporting it in any way.

Copernicus was not accepted by theists, as you seem to think.. In 1610, 67 years after the publication of the first edition, the Catholic Church formally declared that Copernicanism was heresy.  It was certainly not "evolved within a learned tradition sponsored and supported by the Church".

In fact, every scientific person has been opposed (bitterly and unrelentingly) by leaders of theisms until they were literally beaten reluctantly into acceptance by accumulated factual evidence.  And many do not accept basic science to this day.  

Creationists (and there are many) actually bought a section a fossil bed with dinosaur tracks and hired some people to chisel fake human footprints next to them.  

You say "Other important scientists through the years had religious views that were sub-theistic, such as deism or panentheism (Einstein)".

That is true.  Even for Einstein, religious matters were difficult to deal with in society.  He went with the least he could get away with.  From HERE.  In his youth, Einstein "developed a deep aversion to the dogma of organised religion that would last for his lifetime.  In later years, he said "But Einstein’s was a God of philosophy, not religion. When asked many years later whether he believed in God, he replied: ‘I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.’"

I leave your claims of religion encouraging scientists with that.

Your entire premise is shot through with holes and false statements.  You are claiming what you wish (maybe) was true, but little of it is.

How many centuries has it been now that the world of science have been trying to prove the Scripture wrong?

How much luck have they had with that? Being it's the worlds oldest and largest history book there should be tons of proven facts it's a lie.

No, my friend, it's in your mind that it a lie because you choose to believe that in order to defy God.

[Aliza]

If you've ever wondered why Christians claim that Atheist's are misusing science, here it is straight from the Apostle Paul's pen. 

Don't blame me, I'm just letting you know it's in Scripture.

! Timothy 6:20-21

"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen."

Why can't Christian Bible quotes ever be written in modern English?

I have no idea what this is saying.

[Charlie24]

If you've ever wondered why Christians claim that Atheist's are misusing science, here it is straight from the Apostle Paul's pen. 

Don't blame me, I'm just letting you know it's in Scripture.

! Timothy 6:20-21

"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen."

Why can't Christian Bible quotes ever be written in modern English?

I have no idea what this is saying.

Well actually they are in the different translations.

I've found through many years of reading and studying the Scripture that there are key words in the KJV that if changed through translation does indeed change the meaning of that Scripture when you go to the original Greek for a definition.

I choose the KJV and often go to the original Greek to understand those key words.

[Charlie24]

Why can't Christian Bible quotes ever be written in modern English?

I have no idea what this is saying.

Well actually they are in the different translations.

I've found through many years of reading and studying the Scripture that there are key words in the KJV that if changed through translation does indeed change the meaning of that Scripture when you go to the original Greek for a definition.

I choose the KJV and often go to the original Greek to understand those key words.

If I'm reading in the Old Testament, I would be referring to the original Hebrew for those key words.