The Bible as scientific evidence.

[Phoenix]

A Concise Introduction to Logic
Hurley
8th Edition
Pg 566


Quote:
Before inquiring further into the need for evidence, however, we must first investigate what counts as evidence. Does the testimony of authorities count as evidence? What about ancient authorities? Does the Bible count as evidence? The answer is that scientific hypotheses are about the natural world, so only observations of the natural world count as evidence. Every scientific experiment is a question the experimenter asks of the world, and the result of that experiment is nature's reply. The problem with the testimony of authority is that we have no certain knowledge that the authority is correct in his or her assessment. The same holds true of the Bible. We have no way of knowing whether what the Bible says about the natural world is true. If someone should reply that the Bible is divinely inspired, then the obvious reply is, How do we know that? Do we have any observational evidence for it? Appeals to authority figures and the Bible amount to passing the explanatory buck.




Can anyone here refute this?

[Mastermind]

If we were to follow their "logic" about asserting the validity of anything, we wouldn't make any progress at all as far as history is concerned (in fact, I have a strong feeling that anything that doesn't fit an atheist's comfort range in terms of evidence is done away with). I no longer trust most atheists to tell me what time it is, let alone take their word on something so vital like history.

[Dan]

The Bible makes certain assertions about the natural world and it also records events in history that can be verified by other sources. If the sources are very similar, it is good to say the Bible is a reliable source of information.

[Kurieuo]

Can anyone here refute this?

The author makes a mistake in his reason for "why" the Bible is given authority by Christians. It isn't given authority for no reason at all. Rather the NT has Apostolic authority, and as the Apostles are directly from Christ, they are obviously more reliable when it comes to matters pertaining to Christ's teachings. And Christ upheld the OT Scriptures as authoritative, and so Christians who follow Christ should do the same.

Additionally, it can be tested on many matters, and we are encouraged by the Bible to test things and hold onto the good. The Bible does not have to be simply accepted on blind faith. And if the Bible is proved reliable then it can be trusted. I find it significant that not one historical piece of evidence found within archeaology or otherwise, pins the Bible down to being at fault. Rather arguments made against the historical accuracy of the Bible are generally on grounds of a lack of evidence for some event or place. For example, it was once thought the kingdom of Edom was 200 years older than the date given in the OT, but recent excavations revealed that the OT date was correct (see http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/edom.html).

Kurieuo.

[Felgar]

Before inquiring further into the need for evidence, however, we must first investigate what counts as evidence. Does the testimony of authorities count as evidence? What about ancient authorities? Does the Bible count as evidence? The answer is that scientific hypotheses are about the natural world, so only observations of the natural world count as evidence. Every scientific experiment is a question the experimenter asks of the world, and the result of that experiment is nature's reply. The problem with the testimony of authority is that we have no certain knowledge that the authority is correct in his or her assessment. The same holds true of the Bible. We have no way of knowing whether what the Bible says about the natural world is true. If someone should reply that the Bible is divinely inspired, then the obvious reply is, How do we know that? Do we have any observational evidence for it? Appeals to authority figures and the Bible amount to passing the explanatory buck.

My only comment is, "so what?" I agree with Kurieuo that we can show the Bible to be reliable... But at the same time, presenting the Bible as evidence to answer a scientific question is kinda dumb. This is basic science - it doesn't matter what anyone says, it only matters what we can test. Ok, fine then. But then by the same reasoning, science has no authority whatsoever making claims about that which it cannot test. Thus, any questions regarding faith and the supernatural are by defintion not within the realm of science.

[Battlehelmet]

A Concise Introduction to Logic
Hurley
8th Edition
Pg 566


Quote:
Before inquiring further into the need for evidence, however, we must first investigate what counts as evidence. Does the testimony of authorities count as evidence? What about ancient authorities? Does the Bible count as evidence? The answer is that scientific hypotheses are about the natural world, so only observations of the natural world count as evidence. Every scientific experiment is a question the experimenter asks of the world, and the result of that experiment is nature's reply. The problem with the testimony of authority is that we have no certain knowledge that the authority is correct in his or her assessment. The same holds true of the Bible. We have no way of knowing whether what the Bible says about the natural world is true. If someone should reply that the Bible is divinely inspired, then the obvious reply is, How do we know that? Do we have any observational evidence for it? Appeals to authority figures and the Bible amount to passing the explanatory buck.




Can anyone here refute this?

Any concrete proof of the evidence mankind desires in logical proof would end up illogicial as a result.God's logic does not equal mankind's logic.

As for your comments on the Bible, there are many Scriptures I can explain about belief and faith. Show me what verses you are skeptical of.