Science And The Bible

[DLH]

Science and the bible were somehow on equal footing in terms of their value to the human race. In reality, the bible is just another book; a fiction masquerading as some universal truth but which has given us nothing. Whereas science, well, science has given us just about everything. It's hard to see how the bible can stand toe-to-toe with a discipline that's given us everything from computers to men on the moon and cures for a thousand different diseases.

Dystopian seems to suggest there is no real conflict with the Bible and science because the Bible is completely irrelevant. Would you agree?

Let's start with the beginning. What is your take on the conflict, if any, assuming that you acknowledge one given the title of the forum, between science and the Bible. Notice I said the Bible because the primary focus of my perspective is the Bible rather than religious. However, I also think that the primary problem with any real conflict between the two is religious misinterpretation of the Bible. We will get into that later in the thread if there is any interest in the subject, but for now, where did the conflict begin in earnest? Galileo?

 

[Malintent]

Science and the bible were somehow on equal footing in terms of their value to the human race. In reality, the bible is just another book; a fiction masquerading as some universal truth but which has given us nothing. Whereas science, well, science has given us just about everything. It's hard to see how the bible can stand toe-to-toe with a discipline that's given us everything from computers to men on the moon and cures for a thousand different diseases.

Dystopian seems to suggest there is no real conflict with the Bible and science because the Bible is completely irrelevant. Would you agree?

Let's start with the beginning. What is your take on the conflict, if any, assuming that you acknowledge one given the title of the forum, between science and the Bible. Notice I said the Bible because the primary focus of my perspective is the Bible rather than religious. However, I also think that the primary problem with any real conflict between the two is religious misinterpretation of the Bible. We will get into that later in the thread if there is any interest in the subject, but for now, where did the conflict begin in earnest? Galileo?

I didn't get what you infer from what you quoted... but I feel like there is quite a simple answer to what you are asking. Knowledge. The source of knowledge, prior to the existence of the scientific method, was scripture. Then along came science and out with the old and in with the new and improved.

 

[DLH]

The source of knowledge, prior to the existence of the scientific method, was scripture. Then along came science and out with the old and in with the new and improved.

When did this take place? After all, science and education began with theologians quest for knowledge.

 

[Juma]

The source of knowledge, prior to the existence of the scientific method, was scripture. Then along came science and out with the old and in with the new and improved.

When did this take place? After all, science and education began with theologians quest for knowledge.

No. It didnt. It was stopped by them. Quenched.
Yes, some fluff heads discussed logic, but science? Not realy.

 

[Keith&Co.]

When did this take place? After all, science and education began with theologians quest for knowledge.

No, religion began with a quest for answers. Not the same thing.

 

[dystopian]

Dystopian seems to suggest there is no real conflict with the Bible and science because the Bible is completely irrelevant. Would you agree?

Let's start with the beginning. What is your take on the conflict, if any, assuming that you acknowledge one given the title of the forum, between science and the Bible. Notice I said the Bible because the primary focus of my perspective is the Bible rather than religious. However, I also think that the primary problem with any real conflict between the two is religious misinterpretation of the Bible. We will get into that later in the thread if there is any interest in the subject, but for now, where did the conflict begin in earnest? Galileo?

I didn't get what you infer from what you quoted... but I feel like there is quite a simple answer to what you are asking. Knowledge. The source of knowledge, prior to the existence of the scientific method, was scripture. Then along came science and out with the old and in with the new and improved.

For the record the post he quoted was in response to one in which he was trying to say that we (atheists) and he were essentially the same just on different footing; with us not wanting him to propagate his scientific ignorance and him not wanting us to propagate what he thinks is an ignorance of the bible (post found here). My response was to point out that they're not on equal footing and that the propagation of scientific ignorance is of considerably greater concern than any (real or imagined) propagation of biblical ignorance.

At no point does this translate to me saying there's no conflict between the bible and science; there obviously is. It's just that it's not a conflict between equals.

 

[Valjean]

Thousands of years of theology and no progress on understanding the world, no improvement in the human condition, just endless fighting over trivia. Religion hindered progress and promoted war and misery.

As soon as we abandoned "faith" and began empirically testing our notions of cause and effect, technology took off. We saw more progress in 200 years than we'd seen in the previous 10,000.

 

[Ford]

The source of knowledge, prior to the existence of the scientific method, was scripture. Then along came science and out with the old and in with the new and improved.

When did this take place? After all, science and education began with theologians quest for knowledge.

You know there was science being done before the Bible existed, right?

 

[DLH]

When did this take place? After all, science and education began with theologians quest for knowledge.

You know there was science being done before the Bible existed, right?

Some have been of the opinion that those earlier scientific examples I gave from the dark ages and prior to some of the Bible verses having to do with science in a general way were not doing science.

When were the first books of the Bible written and when did, I don't know, "real" scientific inquiry begin?

[ETA] I would thing that there has always been religion and science.

 

[DLH]

Thousands of years of theology and no progress on understanding the world, no improvement in the human condition, just endless fighting over trivia. Religion hindered progress and promoted war and misery.

As soon as we abandoned "faith" and began empirically testing our notions of cause and effect, technology took off. We saw more progress in 200 years than we'd seen in the previous 10,000.

Not that I entirely doubt part of your statement, but I wonder why such generalities are always given without any examples. The statement is made but no evidence is provided.

Also, why do you think that part of the world has enjoyed such a remarkably prolific expansion of science and technology while other parts of the world remain pretty much the same. Except for maybe digital watches.

- - - Updated - - -

For the record the post he quoted was in response to one in which he was trying to say that we (atheists) and he were essentially the same just on different footing; with us not wanting him to propagate his scientific ignorance and him not wanting us to propagate what he thinks is an ignorance of the bible (post found here). My response was to point out that they're not on equal footing and that the propagation of scientific ignorance is of considerably greater concern than any (real or imagined) propagation of biblical ignorance.

At no point does this translate to me saying there's no conflict between the bible and science; there obviously is. It's just that it's not a conflict between equals.

Not a conflict between equals. Who is winning the conflict?

- - - Updated - - -

When did this take place? After all, science and education began with theologians quest for knowledge.

No, religion began with a quest for answers. Not the same thing.

Religion, you say, without evidence I might add, began with a quest for answers. Science and education began with religion.

- - - Updated - - -

When did this take place? After all, science and education began with theologians quest for knowledge.

No. It didnt. It was stopped by them. Quenched.
Yes, some fluff heads discussed logic, but science? Not realy.

If there was no science how was it stopped? When was it stopped and how was it stopped?

 

[Keith&Co.]

After all, science and education began with theologians quest for knowledge.

No, religion began with a quest for answers. Not the same thing.

Science and education began with religion.

That's kind of hard to accept. Look at creationism. They value the answers of The Books far more than any actual results of research.
The religious belief in the Resurrection hampered science for centuries by outlawing the dissection of human bodies in order to keep them whole. This did not advance scientific knowledge.
The Books says the Earth rests on Pillars and does not move. People used these verse to reject the theory of continental drift. That's not 'the beginning of science,' it's valuing superstition over actual science.
The Books blames disease on demons. It would have really helped a lot more people to have advised them to change the bedsheets between patients or weekly.

 

[DLH]

That's kind of hard to accept. Look at creationism. They value the answers of The Books far more than any actual results of research.

Of course they do. They have God on their side. Who are they going to believe, God or crazy mad scientists digging around in graveyards and hanging around morgues? You ever see Mel Brook's Frankenstein? I like that part when Marty Feldman is hiding in that shelve of decomposing faces. Goddamn that's funny.

The religious belief in the Resurrection hampered science for centuries by outlawing the dissection of human bodies in order to keep them whole. This did not advance scientific knowledge.

Okay. But remember that I''m anti organized religion, so my question for you is if the religious outlawed the dissection of human bodies what biblical support had they for doing so? After all, this is Science and the Bible, not Science and religion.

The Books says the Earth rests on Pillars and does not move. People used these verse to reject the theory of continental drift. That's not 'the beginning of science,' it's valuing superstition over actual science.

1 Timothy 3:15 uses the pillar as symbolic of the Christian congregation, Revelation 10:1 gives the same symbolic comparison to an angel's legs, Galatians 2:9 gives James, Cephas, and John as symbolic pillars, Revelation 3:12 with the temple, and Isaiah 19:19 uses the term Pillar to Jehovah. What makes you think that the Pillars you mention are literal?

The Books blames disease on demons. It would have really helped a lot more people to have advised them to change the bedsheets between patients or weekly.

You are not familiar with the hygenic laws of Moses?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Okay. But remember that I''m anti organized religion, so my question for you is if the religious outlawed the dissection of human bodies what biblical support had they for doing so? After all, this is Science and the Bible, not Science and religion.

Oh, fuck off.
I was responding to you saying

Science and education began with religion

Not

Science and education began with The Bible.

That's not what you said. Scroll on back up if you don't believe me.

NOW you're retconning your side of the conversation?
If you're going to play silly games like that, never fucking mind.

 

[DLH]

Oh, fuck off.
I was responding to you saying

Science and education began with religion

Not

Science and education began with The Bible.

That's not what you said. Scroll on back up if you don't believe me.

NOW you're retconning your side of the conversation?
If you're going to play silly games like that, never fucking mind.

Take it easy, buddy. My mistake. Sorry.

While the topic is Science and the Bible, much of religion is influenced by the Bible. No big deal.

 

[Juma]

Not that I entirely doubt part of your statement, but I wonder why such generalities are always given without any examples. The statement is made but no evidence is provided.

Also, why do you think that part of the world has enjoyed such a remarkably prolific expansion of science and technology while other parts of the world remain pretty much the same. Except for maybe digital watches.

- - - Updated - - -

For the record the post he quoted was in response to one in which he was trying to say that we (atheists) and he were essentially the same just on different footing; with us not wanting him to propagate his scientific ignorance and him not wanting us to propagate what he thinks is an ignorance of the bible (post found here). My response was to point out that they're not on equal footing and that the propagation of scientific ignorance is of considerably greater concern than any (real or imagined) propagation of biblical ignorance.

At no point does this translate to me saying there's no conflict between the bible and science; there obviously is. It's just that it's not a conflict between equals.

Not a conflict between equals. Who is winning the conflict?

- - - Updated - - -

When did this take place? After all, science and education began with theologians quest for knowledge.

No, religion began with a quest for answers. Not the same thing.

Religion, you say, without evidence I might add, began with a quest for answers. Science and education began with religion.

- - - Updated - - -

When did this take place? After all, science and education began with theologians quest for knowledge.

No. It didnt. It was stopped by them. Quenched.
Yes, some fluff heads discussed logic, but science? Not realy.

If there was no science how was it stopped? When was it stopped and how was it stopped?

It was stopped by too much dependency on books (the bible and the greeks(aristotle etc)) instead of performing actual observation. The examples is so numerous that your ignorance is telling. (Sunspots, projectile trajectories," number of legs on flies etc).

 

[dystopian]

Not a conflict between equals. Who is winning the conflict?

They're in conflict in the same way that the claim one might put forth that unicorns can only be killed by a silver sword dipped in onions is in conflict with the fact that neither silver nor onions have any special properties that would allow them to kill creatures that could otherwise not be killed, and the fact that unicorns don't fucking exist.

They're *not* in conflict in the form of a 'battle' that can be won by one or the other side. *That* battle, has already been fought. Science won.

Religion, you say, without evidence I might add, began with a quest for answers. Science and education began with religion.

Neither science nor education began with religion, though this is a claim often favored by Christians who want to lay some sort of claim to them. Both however, obviously, predate the rise of Christianity.

 

[Kharakov]

They're in conflict in the same way that the claim one might put forth that unicorns can only be killed by a silver sword dipped in onions is in conflict with the fact that neither silver nor onions have any special properties that would allow them to kill creatures that could otherwise not be killed, and the fact that unicorns don't fucking exist.

Do you know how many unicorns on Omicron Persei 8 laugh at atheists who use unicorns as an example of something that doesn't exist? All of them.

 

[Bill Z. Bub]

I imagine a person, long ago, who while watching a priest utter magic formulas for absolution (or good crops or whatever) dipping yarn and hyssop in to a bowl of dove blood, that person thinking "this is utter bullshit".

Humans have always had the same inquisitive nature. Thousands of years ago we would have been just as likely to be skeptics as we are now.

Unfortunately, we would have also been just as likely to have been ruled by the robes with the magic incantations, etc.

In that sense, yes, religion and science have always been at odds.

 

[credoconsolans]

The Books blames disease on demons. It would have really helped a lot more people to have advised them to change the bedsheets between patients or weekly.

You are not familiar with the hygenic laws of Moses?

Mostly to do with women and their periods, aren't they?

The Romans brought the concept of bathing regularly to most of the Middle Easterners.

 

[skepticalbip]

Much science can be learned from the Bible. For example, the light of day has nothing to do with the Sun. On the first day, god created light and divided it from the dark giving us day and night. It wasn't until the fourth day that he created the Sun to preside over the day and the Moon and stars to preside over the night.

I have to laugh at those fools who trust modern science that tells us the Sun is what gives us light.