Bible vs. Science: Both Sides Are Wrong

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by NYCmitch25, Feb 20, 2013.

  1. NYCmitch25

    NYCmitch25 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2013
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    First off, I have been responding very arrogantly because of the level of "attackivism" by both sides of this debate towards me and I'll be the first to admit it, and also say that it's probably not helpful to my cause. Sorry for that.

    Anyway, I am also familiar with the "essential" connection Newtonian physics proclaimed with regard to the "elegance of the Universe" (the heavens and planets). Though now we know the Universe is anything but elegant, it is random and rough, thank God! We exist for this reason. Where you conclude here is that Copernicus put the final nail in the religious coffin, I'm saying there is more. I agree with you, this is what happened but the point (never made) is that Newton shouldn't have drawn the connection to begin with. It didn't make things better that the new hard-line Vatican pulled in the reigns and forced folks to believe ONLY what they believed. Note: Copernicus's theory was actually accepted AND Gallileo believed that you should NOT mix mythos and ethos, but he liked to do it to stir up trouble, and the Vatican changed it's mind on Copernicus. Look if I told you that God did X and you found it not to be the case, it does not therefore mean there is no point to religion, it infers that I was wrong. Hence, killing Newton's God does not infer you killed God.

    PS I should point out that I am not religious, and think that there are other major problems with religion which I could explain in great detail.
     
  2. NYCmitch25

    NYCmitch25 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2013
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is a larger point to be made here beyond the fact that religious doctrine, creation myths in particular, counter established scientific based conventions. There has been an assumption (far too often, here and in general) that one must be in either camp. Ethos Vs Mythos, to use the Greek terms. I am just trying to illustrate that the logic around these notions with regard to religion are contemporary only. Pre-16th and 17th century, the creation myths for example were malleable, and were changed, as the spiritual connection to that notion of a God, that THING beyond what words alone can ever illustrate. For instance, HOW can you put God into earthly terms, hence write them down on paper or understand what God thinks, feels, believes is good or righteous? All religions when you peel back the nonsense get to these questions. That is why I asked you to answer that question, because I knew you would answer it incorrectly. I would have too. Because the real answer is that you can't answer it. Though I give you a lot of points because you touched on that later in your post.

    PS> I am sorry for my tone, however, I don't think it was entirely unwarranted. I should also point out that I'm not religious, for other reasons. I'm just trying to point out a major misconception atheists try to point out daily. Even worse are the fundamentalists who believe in this more unhealthy form of their faith.
     
  3. NYCmitch25

    NYCmitch25 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2013
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think you are one smart monkey .. (profile pic) ;-). I can appreciate your inspiration from scripture, I see a lot of it myself, I think one has to shed a lot of the dogmas and really look at it for what it is. Really the point I am getting at is not should one believe or not believe but not to simply assume that Science was intended to be the replacement for Religion. More precisely, that the fundamentalist view strangely forged during the age of reason is a contemporary notion of religion, one driven by the need to appear infallable. The Bible for instance can only lead you so far, the notion of God can not be confined to mere scripture alone, this is what all of the major religions try to elude to. I think you are right, the fundamentalist movement could further drive a wedge in this great divide. Thank you for your sound opinions. It was a treat, espeically on these forums.
     
  4. cupid dave

    cupid dave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    17,005
    Likes Received:
    80
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Religion is slow to change and resists new ideas that oppose the traditional bible interpretations.

    That was the truth which Jesus was pointing out when religion opposed him.
    Especially when a religion manages to establish itself as a Political Institution, too.
    The two institutions, one the Institution of Religion and the other, the Institution of Law and Order become a Theocratic government, as we see in Islamic countries today.

    When this happens, freedom of speech disappears and change in idea can not be tolerated.
    But the crucifixion of people by inquisitions of rabbi will not stoo the Truth from rising again and again, until chnage does come.
    The Bible WARNED the RCC of this long before the Protestant movement cut her numbers in half:


    Revelation 3:18
    18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.


    But, the Protestants in America are in the same position as the Pope in 1630.
    They are Stone Walling, while the Pope accepted that Evolution is correct, in 1998.


    Rev. 3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold,... (the golden spiritual insights of the irrepressible idea of psychic Consciousness emerging from scripture) ... tried in the fire... (of time),... that thou mayest be rich... (in continued church leadership); and (re-interpret upon) white (yet unwritten, new pages), raiment,... (of revised books of your evermore obvious misinterpretations), ...that thou mayest be clothed... (and protected in thine thinking with secularly acceptable scriptural confirmations), ...and that the shame... (as visited in Geocentricism does not reoccur concerning magical Creationism, impossible literal world-wide floods, genealogies of individuals who lived inordinately long personal life times, Sun and Moon and Stars absent from the Heavens while light shines through the Cosmos, etc) ...of thy nakedness... (of your unsupportable intuitive irrationalities) ...do not appear... (and confront you as happened before The Reformation); ...and anoint thine eyes...(awaken!)... with (the) eyesalve... (of reality!), ...that thou mayest see... (socio-psychologically).
     
  5. cupid dave

    cupid dave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    17,005
    Likes Received:
    80
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Yep, that IS the side you are trying to maintain,...

    Meanwhile, I show you, verse after verse, that YOU are dead wrong.
    The Bible is actually a divine revelation of the whole creation story that directly and often necessarily, uses subtle metaphior to tell every amazing important detail up and until this moment in time:
     
  6. Archie Goodwin

    Archie Goodwin New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2013
    Messages:
    1,826
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Patently absurd. Science endeavors to advance our understanding. Nothing more.
     
  7. GraspingforPeace

    GraspingforPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Messages:
    14,162
    Likes Received:
    1,403
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The metaphors you present from the text are anything but subtle, they are convoluted and just beyond the knowledge of the people who wrote these books.
     
  8. NYCmitch25

    NYCmitch25 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2013
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think you need to say more for me to have a response.
     
  9. Archie Goodwin

    Archie Goodwin New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2013
    Messages:
    1,826
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "More."
     
  10. NYCmitch25

    NYCmitch25 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2013
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You Jack Ass ...(profile pic) LOL
     
  11. Archie Goodwin

    Archie Goodwin New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2013
    Messages:
    1,826
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "More" was all I needed to get a response, apparently. Wahdaya know.
     
  12. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In a nutshell...science is intended to demystify.

    The Bible is intended to mystify.

    Science uses observation and experiment to verify information.

    The Bible(S) stories cannot be observed or verified.



    In my opinion, something driven by data beats out something driven by imagination every time.
     
  13. Vicariously I

    Vicariously I Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    2,737
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Killing Newton's God doesn't have to mean we killed God it simply is another example of God having not existed in the first place.

    This is what the argument you're making in this post fails to understand. It's the same failure that many religious people make all the time (I know you said you’re not religious). You cannot kill something that never existed which means you must first have something to prove that it exists before we can even discuss "killing" it.

    It's a case of focusing on the wrong things.

    1.) Someone says God exists: There is no evidence or support for this postulation and therefore no reason to accept or believe it to be true beyond your own personal reasoning

    2.) Someone else says here is the reason I think this God exists: There is now at least a theory in place as to why this God may exist

    3.) Someone else comes along and proves the reasoning behind the theory invalid: There is once again no evidence or support for the original postulation and therefore no reason to accept or believe it to be true beyond your own personal reasoning

    Every time someone says this is where God lives, this is where God fits, this can only be explained if there is a God, they are attempting to prove the hypothesis for the existence of God meaning to this day he does not exist beyond the minds of those whose personal reasoning says he does.

    To say that there is still room out there for Gods existence is no different than to say there’s still room out there for x’s (insert any fairytale, mythological creature or God) existence.

    The credibility lent to the idea of God’s existence has more to do with the use of fear over the ages than it does about the validity of any of the claims.

    Until there is a valid claim there is no comparison to the bible/religion/God and science.

    One says a man live in a whale for 3 days and the other is letting people laugh at that idea on something called the internet.
     
  14. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    His argument is that science realizes that it is an imperfect explanation, and the role of science is to make yet better and more accurate explanations.

    I personally am a fan of Stephen Jay Gould's Non-overlapping magisterium theory. Science and religion are involved in different things. They should rarely, if ever, contradict each other.

    The problem is that a literalist interpretation of the Bible is anti-science. That said, IMHO, a literalist interpretation of the Bible is heresy or pretty close to it. We see in the Gospels that Jesus often chose to teach in parables. Why wouldn't the Bible (primarily the Old Testament) just be an extended parable?
     
  15. NYCmitch25

    NYCmitch25 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2013
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Interesting comments until the end where you get all Richard Dawkins on me. Note, I am not religious but simply see a truthful response to faith. Anyway, You, like others are asserting that religion purports to have the 'answers'. Enlightenment is beyond "answers". In contemporary times it's hard to understand this broader concept, since after all everything meant to explain the known (though science is afforded inaccuracy), but religions were not ever intended to explain the things we can solve with reason (science). This thread serves as a microcosm of that for both believers or nonbelievers, to the point where what I am saying seems unconventional or untrue with regard to religion. It has all devolved into a childish state, that we try to define the symbol of God is tangible, and should be seen in such a light. To answer your point about the existence of God, it purposely left that out of the debate for a couple of reasons, one, we are all cognizant of the question and have formed our opinions, two, and more importantly Science or Religion (ethos or mythos) can not conclusively substantiate the claim. Anyway, I will end on this point, that religion is hard to do well..

    - - - Updated - - -

    Great points!
     
  16. NYCmitch25

    NYCmitch25 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2013
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well if it makes you feel better, my girlfriend thought your comment was funny. I honestly thought it was really corny stupid. I'll assume from your lacking responses, you don't have a good one.
     
  17. NYCmitch25

    NYCmitch25 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2013
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Interesting, I never knew of thought of considering literal interpretation as heresy. Good points btw. Thanks.
     
  18. Archie Goodwin

    Archie Goodwin New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2013
    Messages:
    1,826
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It seemed appropriate, given it was in response to nothing of substance. Would you have preferred I query, 'More of what?'?
     
  19. NYCmitch25

    NYCmitch25 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2013
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Cute. I'll assume that you don't have anything to say because this thread is out of your league.
     
  20. Archie Goodwin

    Archie Goodwin New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2013
    Messages:
    1,826
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Assume away if that works for you. Meanwhile, "You'll have to say more," is not too helpful. What exactly is it you want more of and/or you think lacking in what I said?

    Care to be specific?
     

Share This Page