Evidence for God from Science

There is no need for a Christian to be close-minded when it comes to science, because science is nothing more than the discovery of the universe that God made. When science appears to be contradicting the Bible, then we're either misinterpretting the Bible or much more likely, science just doesn't have it right yet.

This, a quote from Felgar in the post by Joey titled "questions from an agnostic," is my idea of closed-mindedness. If you are unwilling to accept something solely because it goes against your beliefs, it is closed-mindedness. This quote is classic--it means we are supposed to disbelieve anything (in other words, close our minds to anything) in science that goes against the Bible, right? Or, if at all possible, we are supposed to re-interpret the Bible when it has been factually proved that science was right after all.

The sun rises because the earth is round-ish and spins on its axis...the Catholic Church finally allowed this to be considered a fact in the early 1990s. Why did it take so long? Because they had a heck of a time trying to re-interpret the Bible to fit the facts.

The question: isn't it about time to stop discrediting science on the grounds that it sometimes interferes with your religion? Collectively, you can damage the education system if you really feel it's necessary to put America further behind other countries...simply tell your local Board of Education (with a lot of signatures) that your children need to learn that the ultimate truth is the Bible, and that a correct interpretation of science requires a thorough understanding of the Bible in order for the observed facts to be, in fact, a fact. It might upset the scientific community that the children will not be learning science as it has been learned for centuries, but what the hay? A billion Catholics can't be wrong, right?

Also, "Doctor" Kent Hovind is a crackpot. He's a security blanket, but he's a crackpot. I wouldn't cover up with him during the coldest of arguments.

skoobieschnax wrote:The question: isn't it about time to stop discrediting science on the grounds that it sometimes interferes with your religion?

I don't need to discredit science at all; it will do that all by itself in time. That is my belief. The very quote said that I'm NOT close-minded when it comes to science - I embrace it actually.

skoobieschnax wrote:Collectively, you can damage the education system if you really feel it's necessary to put America further behind other countries...

You should spend some time learning where your roots are buddy, and learning how it happened that America became (arguably) the best nation that's ever existed.

The fact is that Religion provides a foundation for society; it does not stiffle it as you are claiming. Need evidence? How did the Roman empire fare with all their freedoms? How well did communism work out as it was denying its people the right to their own religious beliefs?

Hi Felgar.

I don't need to discredit science at all; it will do that all by itself in time

But the earth is still rotating. What gives? (Please don't take my weirdness as offensive...just goofy.)

You should spend some time learning where your roots are buddy, and learning how it happened that America became (arguably) the best nation that's ever existed.

That's relative to the observer. All the nations are (arguably) the best nation that's ever existed. (I like Australia, personally. Oh, and Canada is also beautiful and filled with friendly and entertaining people. So is Iraq, believe it or not! Germany is pretty fun, too. So is Japan. Ah, what the heck...China wasn't bad, either. Or Korea (South.)) Also, I am quite confident I do know where my roots are, and I respect those who died/fought to get me here. What does that have to do with open mindedness? I'm a little confused. Also, what does the roots of this country have to do with the fact that our education system is a liiiiiiittle bit lagging and that the children of this country are a taaaaaaad more aggresive/hateful than most other countries/ continents? Simply because a lot of people have "UNDER GOD" on their bumper stickers means zilch to me as far as the Godliness of the country...I think we're still a far cry from perfection, though perfection is a relativistic term

Oh, yeah.

The very quote said that I'm NOT close-minded when it comes to science - I embrace it actually.

Saying and proving through behavior are two different things. The quote didn't make it seem you embraced science at all, but instead give it a backseat pass to your religion.

Did you answer the poll at the beginning of the post? I'm curious!

Actually, from the Earth's point of view, the Sun is rotating around it. Remember, motion is relative.

Wow, Mastermind! I was making a joke, and I'm pretty sure you were joking back, but the backlash of it was awesome! Thanks! You knocked me out of my socks. (Not relative or absolute, but simply cliche metaphor.)

The thing is, in science, relativity cannot be used in a philosophic sense. (Though I did like your statement. That was truly unexpected and I got a good laugh out of it!) The reason why it cannot be used in a relativistic sense is because people take relative philosophy as literal interpretations that everyone should believe as absolute, in which case I see arrogance as opposed to a desire to connect to other people and teach them philosophies/ intelligence.

I really do want to learn about Christian philosophies, but I think it should be fun and humorous as opposed to bashing of each other. I know it's hard to understand how goofy I am, vvart, because writing from two ends makes it difficult to know who is serious and who is messing around. Just try to remember that I mix a lot of serious with messing around because I think it's more fun. I just need to realize that others might not feel the same way, and I need to respect that...I'm learning, though.

Ah, time for sleep. Good night, y'all!

skoobieschnax wrote:

There is no need for a Christian to be close-minded when it comes to science, because science is nothing more than the discovery of the universe that God made. When science appears to be contradicting the Bible, then we're either misinterpretting the Bible or much more likely, science just doesn't have it right yet.

This, a quote from Felgar in the post by Joey titled "questions from an agnostic," is my idea of closed-mindedness. If you are unwilling to accept something solely because it goes against your beliefs, it is closed-mindedness.

Err... I see no reason for this post. What you've just done I believe could be understood as relativist intolerance. That is, people aren't entitled to their beliefs, unless they accord with the beliefs of an enlightened relativist (i.e., your own).

skoobie wrote:The sun rises because the earth is round-ish and spins on its axis...the Catholic Church finally allowed this to be considered a fact in the early 1990s. Why did it take so long? Because they had a heck of a time trying to re-interpret the Bible to fit the facts.

Irrelevant, considering it only backs Felgar's point that one's interpretation of the Bible was at fault, that is, if the cause of belief was ones interpretation of the Bible (which it wasn't). It is also deceptive considering Galileo and Copernicus were also Christian. This was as much a debate amongst Christians, and lets not forget that Scientists also backed geocentricism, while others pushed for the heliocentric theory. Additionally, I wish to quote Francis Schaeffer who better explains the reason why the RCC attacked Copernicus and Galileo:
<blockquote>When the Roman Church attacked Copernicus and Galileo, it was not because their teaching actually contained anything contrary to the Bible. The church authorities thought it did, but that was because Aristotelian elements had become part of church orthodoxy, and Galileo's notions clearly conflicted with them. In fact, Galileo defended the compatibility of Copernicus and the Bible, and this was one of the factors which brought the trial (Schaeffer, Complete Works. Vol. 5, Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1982, p.156).</blockquote>I've given you some leeway here on the boards, but if you're going to shovel dirt on Christian beliefs (which you shouldn't be), then please at least get your facts right. It actually means being skeptical about your skepticism, including the anti-Christian propaganda around. Though I can imagine for a relativist, this might be quite hard . It was because of the nonsense brought up in posts like yours, that the change in boards occurred to focus more heavily upon towards Christians and true seekers, rather than the normal debating style of Christians vs. non-Christians.

Skoobie wrote:Also, "Doctor" Kent Hovind is a crackpot. He's a security blanket, but he's a crackpot. I wouldn't cover up with him during the coldest of arguments.

I'm not sure of your reason for this, but crackpots can be crackpots regardless of their belief or affiliation to a group.

Kurieuo.

Good points all Kurieuo.

skoobieschnax wrote:Also, I am quite confident I do know where my roots are, and I respect those who died/fought to get me here. What does that have to do with open mindedness?

It has to do with open mindedness because you are asserting that religious beliefs will stiffle advancement. I'm pointing to America as possibly THE most Christian nation over the last 200 years, and also the one that's advanced the most. Christian values helped to build America into a great nation - I'm saying that you should remember that the next time you attack faith under the premise that Religion stiffles advancement.

skoobieschnax wrote: Did you answer the poll at the beginning of the post? I'm curious!

I didnt answer the poll - I don't know who he is off-hand.

Ok, now answer a very important question. You keep saying that I'm close-minded. Answer me this though: Suppose I gave up my belief system so as to be open to new ideas and open to an entirely new way of life. Tell me how that would gain me? How exactly would I, as an individual, be better off in this life if I were to abandon my belief system and become open-minded? What is your perspective of my situation? What do you feel I stand to gain by abandoning my beliefs? Because from my perspective I have everything to lose and nothing to gain.

the bible has never really been proven wrong by science. i don't think it ever will.

i grew up believing that evolution, cavemen, the age of the earth and all this other stuff was true. i learned they weren't. when i hear about new scientific discoveries that contradict the bible i don't give them much weight, because they really do end up proving themselves wrong.

i don't think that anyone in the early church really believed the earth was flat. that's a myth. i can find you sources if you want.

i know i'm very open-minded. i research everything that doesn't quite make sense. it all leans toward God. i'm a new christian, i don't really have a religion, i haven't even gone to church yet. experience and research have brought me to my conclusions and my belief in God.

A couple of random thoughts, courtesy of my immensely evil maths homework

Colors: Regards the belief in a flat earth, you might want to check out this url: http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/SciRefGui ... earth.html. It's important to realise that pretty much everyone, Christian or not, thought the world was flat at the time - it wasn't til Newton came along that there was a mechanism to explain why, for example, all the water didn't fall off a round world.

Skoobieschnax and Kurieuo: it looks like, when you're talking about tolerance and openmindedness, Kurieuo is referring to tolerance of people, whereas Skoobieschnax is referring to tolerance of ideas. To support this hypothesis, I offer the following quotes:
Kurieuo: What you've just done I believe could be understood as relativist intolerance. That is, people aren't entitled to their beliefs, unless they accord with the beliefs of an enlightened relativist (i.e., your own).
Skoobieschnax: If you are unwilling to accept something solely because it goes against your beliefs, it is closed-mindedness.
Note that Skoobieschnax is discussing the internalisation of beliefs and selection processes thereof, whereas Kurieuo is talking about attempts to project one's own beliefs onto others.

I thought I'd point it out cos it seemed to be causing some problems. If I understand correctly, Scoobieschnax wasn't trying to dump on Christians, he was only trying to evaluate their beliefs critically. He could probably have been a bit more careful about the phrasing - he is talking about faith, rather than belief.

Actually, from the Earth's point of view, the Sun is rotating around it. - Mastermind

Since I'm feeling pedantic, I should probably point out that rotational motion is not, in fact, relative. This is why slingshots and centrifuges work.

You should spend some time learning where your roots are buddy, and learning how it happened that America became (arguably) the best nation that's ever existed. - Felgar

As a Brit raised by agnostic parents, my main experience of religious (pseudoreligious, in this case) groups in day-to-day life is news reports about the IRA and co. (although that seems to have died down now). One of my cousins barely missed being caught in the Omagh bomb attack, for example. Possibly that's why I'm so cynical about religion.

There was a point in there somewhere and that is that we evidently can't look to efficacy at nation-building as an indicator of the general importance of religion. Another counterexample would be the old Chinese empire, which was meritocratic and (mostly) non-deistic and lasted quite happily for thousands of years til the arrival of opium.

I'm pointing to America as possibly THE most Christian nation over the last 200 years - Felgar

Surely Vatican City is the most Christian nation? (I'm aware that I'm now being picky, and will try to rein it it... it's the terrible effect of maths overload)

Ok, now answer a very important question. You keep saying that I'm close-minded. Answer me this though: Suppose I gave up my belief system so as to be open to new ideas and open to an entirely new way of life. Tell me how that would gain me? How exactly would I, as an individual, be better off in this life if I were to abandon my belief system and become open-minded? What is your perspective of my situation? What do you feel I stand to gain by abandoning my beliefs? Because from my perspective I have everything to lose and nothing to gain. - Felgar

This is an extremely good question, and it's had me racking my brains all evening. You know how it is when you're almost certain there's a good answer but you can't quite think of it? Thanks for the mental workout

I guess the counterargument is, if you think your beliefs conflict with objective reality, then can they really be called beliefs? If they're beliefs then (by definition) you believe that they won't conflict with reality.

So, you go out into the world and let your mind open. Either you'll find a lot of evidence that contradicts your belief system, in which case you won't be able to believe in it anyway, or you'll find a little evidence that contradicts, in which case you'll have a wonderful opportunity to refine your beliefs, or you'll find no evidence which contradicts, in which case you haven't lost anything but whatever ignorance you may have had. Only the first case could easily be considered bad and, if you truly believe in your belief system, then you must be sure that that situation won't arise, right?

There's no need to be defensive about contradictions between religion and evidence if you know that such contradictions aren't possible. It would seem to me that the only truly religious approach to the discovery of such an inconsistency would be to accept it as a best guess until you figure out which of God's Word and God's handiwrok you were misinterpreting.

Hmm, this is quite an interesting theological point. Any thoughts/counterarguments, anyone?

"Since I'm feeling pedantic, I should probably point out that rotational motion is not, in fact, relative. This is why slingshots and centrifuges work."

Actually, no. From a rock's point of view, it is the slingshot that gets knocked back. We did plenty of "point of view" questions in physics, many of which dealt with rotational motion. Centrifuges work based on the force applied. Because of laws that have nothing to do with the motion itself, we consider the devices mentioned about to be stationary while the projectile is in motion. From the projectile's point of view, it is stationary and the rest of the universe is in motion. If you've read analogies to einstein's theory of relativity(like the moving train), you would realise pretty much all motion is relative.

It was because of the nonsense brought up in posts like yours, that the change in boards occurred to focus more heavily upon towards Christians and true seekers, rather than the normal debating style of Christians vs. non-Christians.

I had a strange suspicion my "nonsense" (i.e., non-Christian beliefs) had at least, in small part, to due with the changes in the boards.

then please at least get your facts right

I try my best. What I DO NOT do is purposefully spread half-truths about YOUR religion in order to spread my non-religion.

Please, K, answer me the question I've asked a few times...if the purpose of these boards is meant to show evidence for God from science, then why is it that science is allowed to be skewed intentionally and whenever I UNINTENTIONALLY skew your dogma, I get branded for it? I am very confused about that. I thought acceptance and tolerance were supposed to work both ways.

if you're going to shovel dirt on Christian beliefs (which you shouldn't be)

Why am I being accused of shoveling dirt on Christian beliefs? Again? I was writing in response to this, from Felgar:

When science appears to be contradicting the Bible, then we're either misinterpretting the Bible or much more likely, science just doesn't have it right yet.

Please show me where in the Bible Jesus (or anyone else) explains that in order to be a Christian, you must discard any notions that are not in complete agreement with Christian doctrine. Why is that not considered closed-minded, if you would like to further expound upon my original question (which you did not, but instead chose to accuse me of bashing Christians.) Argh! Someone please remind me of the propaganda technique where one person in a group of like-minded people accuses an outsider of "bashing the beliefs" in order that the outsider is not taken seriously...this is not the first time I have been accused of bashing beliefs--I just like to challenge them because if they are perfect beliefs and are better than anyone else's beliefs, there really should be no problem defending them.

BTW--Thank you, life wish, for trying to find a common ground and helping one of us to realize that a misinterpretation of what is written is (again and again and again, it seems) the cause for any animosity. Your response was well-written as well.

Hey skoob,

Not that the post is directed at me, but since, by your definition, I'd be considered "closed minded," I thought a response would be appropriate

First things first, we have to differentiate between Truth and observations. Dismissing, for the sake of argument, skeptical positions that deny any correspondence between reality and sense experience, there appears to be no reason to reject the notion that our sense experiences are reflective of truth. For example, I feel a keyboard under my fingers because there really is a keyboard under my fingers. When I say, then, "I am touching a keyboard," I am making two claims. First, I am claiming that I have observed a keyboard. Second, I am claiming that the Truth is that there is, in fact, a keyboard.

Now, suppose I am in a room with several other people, and I begin to discuss with them the mural painted on the wall. But, as it turns out, absolutely no one else in the room sees the painting. I'm the only one. What is the logical conclusion? Well, obviously, I am hallucinating. The Truth of the matter is that there is no painting, regardless of what I may be experiencing! But, would you accuse the other people in the room of being closed minded for telling me that my observations are incorrect? Obviously not. We are dealing with objective reality.

We, then, see this general truth: Truth is that which is reflective of actual reality, and actual reality can be observed.

The waters become even murkier when dealing with subjective statements concerning observations. All observations are subjective, but what do we do with interpretations of observations? For instance, both you and I can look at the "Cambrian Explosion" and observe exactly the same thing. However, we will interpret what those observations mean differently. That is the entire reason that we have a jury system. Two sides present the same evidence and fight for their interpretation as being True (that is, reflective of reality). These decisions are easy to make when we are dealing with direct sense experience, because unless there is some sort of malfunction, Truth (that is, reality) is directly revealed to the "experiencer". That just isn't the case, though, when dealing with interpretation.

Now, to apply these concepts to the Christian world-view:

We suppose that the Bible is the Word of God. For better or for worse, like it or not, that is what we believe. We believe that the Christian God exists, and we believe that He has revealed Himself to us. Therefore, what is in the Bible is reflective of Truth. That is, it is Revealed Truth, rather than Observed or Experienced Truth (this is a common way for humans to learn. I've never been to Australia, but K seems to think it's real!) You, of course, do not have that same presupposition. Yours is that the Bible is NOT God's Word, because the Christian God doesn't exist (at least, you can't assume He does).

You certainly can't prove that situation, can you?

If not, then it is POSSIBLE that the Christian is right. Now, I ask you this: what is it that makes him "closed minded" for weighing out subjective, interpretive experience and data ("science"), when he has a source of revealed Truth? Is it not just as closed minded for you to assume that he is closed minded? Who is to say that he is not right? Who is to say that the Bible does not accurately reflect Truth? If it is, then the person who rejects it is like me and my fictitious painting.

In closing, then, I argue that it is not "closed mindedness" at all, but rather the logical outflow of certain presuppositions built into all of us. You have yours, the Christian has his. That isn't a bad thing. It's the way the human mind works: rationally.

On a side note, what is the difference between being closed minded and convicted of a truth?

lifewish wrote:You should spend some time learning where your roots are buddy, and learning how it happened that America became (arguably) the best nation that's ever existed. - Felgar

As a Brit raised by agnostic parents, my main experience of religious (pseudoreligious, in this case) groups in day-to-day life is news reports about the IRA and co. (although that seems to have died down now).

I understand your aversion. But honestly that is not what religion is about. What that is, is religion being corrupted by humans who are so easily swayed. And once the corruption starts it becomes rooted. Does a 16-year old who wants to fight in the IRA really understand Jesus' message? I don't think so. I'd point to the crusades as well as the dark ages of the Catholic system as further examples of the same thing. Note too, that it's Religion that is a human-made institution and is prone to corruption - it's for this reason that you will mostly see me refer to my Faith (capital) rather than my religion. Does that distinction hold meaning to you or shall I elaborate?

To get a better idea what embodies the fundamentals of Christianity, study the work that World Vision does around the world.

lifewish wrote:There was a point in there somewhere and that is that we evidently can't look to efficacy at nation-building as an indicator of the general importance of religion.

Really? I don't believe that America would have become what it has, were it not for the positive influence of Religion. You disagree and that's fine, but I believe that history would back me on that.

lifewish wrote:There's no need to be defensive about contradictions between religion and evidence if you know that such contradictions aren't possible. It would seem to me that the only truly religious approach to the discovery of such an inconsistency would be to accept it as a best guess until you figure out which of God's Word and God's handiwrok you were misinterpreting.

Please quickly re-read the original quote of me by Skoobie to start the thread. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I agree and this is in fact my position, and really that is what my statement was trying to express. It's the reason that I am pretty open-minded to science (objective facts) - despite being accused of closemindedness. Do we agree then on this matter? (btw I'm so excited about Huygens!!! I can't wait to see what's on Titan!)

But being open-minded to physical realities is one thing. Forget that entirely; what I'm really asking is why should I abandon my Faith in order to adopt a viewpoint that truth is relative and that there is no such thing as absolute good and evil, right and wrong? What benefit to me is there to believe that there is NO God?

lifewish wrote:Skoobieschnax and Kurieuo: it looks like, when you're talking about tolerance and openmindedness, Kurieuo is referring to tolerance of people, whereas Skoobieschnax is referring to tolerance of ideas. To support this hypothesis, I offer the following quotes:
Kurieuo: What you've just done I believe could be understood as relativist intolerance. That is, people aren't entitled to their beliefs, unless they accord with the beliefs of an enlightened relativist (i.e., your own).
Skoobieschnax: If you are unwilling to accept something solely because it goes against your beliefs, it is closed-mindedness.

Note that Skoobieschnax is discussing the internalisation of beliefs and selection processes thereof, whereas Kurieuo is talking about attempts to project one's own beliefs onto others. (bold emphasis mine)

Note that Skoobie is basically saying we should "accept" beliefs that go against our own beliefs. This is the total opposite of closed-mindedness, it is open-mindedness to the point of gullability. It is also a call to embrace no truth, as if all beliefs are on par with your own, then none are really true. Therefore Skoobie is definately trying to force his relativistic beliefs onto others by implying those who do not embrace his position are closed-minded or arrogant (the latter being mentioned in his other posts on this board).

I'd like to additionally add that if one accepts beliefs that go against their own original beliefs, then no tolerance can be shown towards such beliefs. Tolerance implies recognising and respecting the beliefs of others depite their being different. If someone accepts the beliefs of others (as Skoobie advocates), then there is nothing anymore to be tolerant of. Therefore Skoobie isn't calling for tolerance, he is calling for acceptance (and "blind" acceptance at that) of all beliefs being on par with ones own. This is also a call to embrace his relativist position, which he appears to be forcing onto others here (however minimally) through the use of labelling names upon those who disagree with him. Why doesn't Skoobie take up his own advice, and accept objectivism, a belief that is against his own. Skoob, aren't you also being closed-minded here? What's good for the gander is good for the goose!

Skoobie wrote:I try my best. What I DO NOT do is purposefully spread half-truths about YOUR religion in order to spread my non-religion.

Ahh... So you're the one that knows all truth then. Sorry, I did not know. I can now understand how it is you know we spread half-truths.

Skoobie wrote:Please, K, answer me the question I've asked a few times...if the purpose of these boards is meant to show evidence for God from science, then why is it that science is allowed to be skewed intentionally and whenever I UNINTENTIONALLY skew your dogma, I get branded for it? I am very confused about that. I thought acceptance and tolerance were supposed to work both ways.

You appear to be under some misconceptions. I recommend you read the purpose of this board that you agreed to, and the exchanges that follow thereafter. If you can't respect this board as being the home of Christians, then you shouldn't be here (and that goes for anyone else). I strongly recommend also reading New Board. Why?, which should go a long way to answering your complaints.

Kurieuo.