Science or Scripture? (tradition, prophecy, scriptures, Christian, Christ)

[GeneCosta]

If the scientific community promotes an idea that goes against scripture, which should you rally yourself behind?

[FerventGodSeeker]

Originally Posted by GeneCosta

If the scientific community promotes an idea that goes against scripture, which should you rally yourself behind?

Scientific theories and ideas are constantly being changed, updated, outdated, etc. From a Christian perspective, if some new idea appears to contradict Scripture, the test of time will show the truth, and I believe God's words will stand true forever.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by FerventGodSeeker

Scientific theories and ideas are constantly being changed, updated, outdated, etc. From a Christian perspective, if some new idea appears to contradict Scripture, the test of time will show the truth, and I believe God's words will stand true forever.

That's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[FerventGodSeeker]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

That's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It's an observation...man's words change, God's don't.

[Random]

Scripture generally is constructed to be possessed of a depth that enables it to be reinterpreted if necessary. Science can therefore only promote an idea that goes against traditional interpretation of Scriputre, not scripture itself.

[YmirGF]

I would go with the scientific model every time, as that model, by its very nature, backs up what is proposed without insulting my intelligence.

I watched good ol’ Larry King last night and the show was about debunking so-called “psychics”. One fellow on the show (through his foundation) has put up $1,000,000 US to anyone who can prove their psychic abilities. The offer has been standing for years apparently. The “psychic”, a rather charming, kind looking and warm lady simply offered nothing more than a blubbering “Well, some people are just born with this gift”. She seemed to think that her “say so” was good enough a “reason” and that it was almost unseemly that some folks required more concrete proof.

I don’t see religious so-called “scriptures” as being so different. They are offered on a “take it or leave it” basis and offer no actual proof. None of them do. I tend to look at religious works and often wonder, “Where’s the beef?” All I see is sanguine sauces that act almost like narcotics.

[Random]

Originally Posted by YmirGF

I would go with the scientific model every time, as that model, by its very nature, backs up what is proposed without insulting my intelligence.

How do you know science wouldn't insult your intelligence? Isn't scientific analysis confounded in some regards by the weight of expectation? Where there's big money, titles, egos and a male peerage involved, don't expect the whole truth and nothing but the truth, I say...

[Ody]

Originally Posted by GeneCosta

If the scientific community promotes an idea that goes against scripture, which should you rally yourself behind?

Depends on how credible Science is. In the end, truth prevails, if it is scientific in nature so be it.

[PureX]

I personally don't see any way for science to contradict scripture. I do not believe that scripture was ever intended to be taken as factual, but rather was always intended to be taken symbolically/metaphorically. So scripture is not making any kind of assertion that science could possibly contradict. And the kinds of assertions that scripture is making, are not concepts that science has the capacity to even address, let alone contradict. So for me, they're not in contention. In fact, I personally tend to view them as complimentary.