Science or faith

MonkeyFire · Oct 15, 2021

Even omnipotent perfection couldn’t damn the savior, and the fantasy of war, if faith ever suffered its happiness would increase. God can’t be seduced into marriage, but must have created some sort of event, and for the sake of warriors shed blood.

Trinity Stooge · Oct 15, 2021

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1 RSV

Faith is our confidence in the axioms that justify our method. Axioms are "things not seen", but we are confident that each expresses a fundamental truth about our world, and so they inform our thinking, our decision making, and ultimately our actions. Theists atheists and scientists, all have faith, but not necessarily in the same axioms.

It's a mistake to assume that there is no overlap or commonality between the axioms of any two groups. Especially if there's neither knowledge nor the will to know what all of those axioms are.

Samantha Rinne · Oct 15, 2021

This is a fairly new theory, known as the Conflict Thesis.

Conflict Thesis

By fairly new, it came out in the 19th century,in spite of historical support for science within the church to the contrary. Basically they just picked and chose particular stories where scientists ran afoul of church officials and are like "See? See?!?"

No, I don't see. Because for the most part, the churxh accepts abour 80% of science rejecting only the immoral (experimentation on human bodies) or the blatantly atheistic.

Valjean · Oct 15, 2021

Conflict thesis:
There is knowledge or belief derived from observed facts, analysis and testing, and there's belief based on tradition, revelation and emotion.
The former has greatly expanded our technology and understanding of the world, and has produced a unified consensus.
The latter has produced little progress over thousands of years; has produced no consensus, and has resulted in endless wars, conflict and human misery.

So which one to go with......

RestlessSoul · Oct 15, 2021

Valjean said:
Conflict thesis:
There is knowledge or belief derived from observed facts, analysis and testing, and there's belief based on tradition, revelation and emotion.
The former has greatly expanded our technology and understanding of the world, and has produced a unified consensus.
The latter has produced little progress over thousands of years; has produced no consensus, and has resulted in endless wars, conflict and human misery.

So which one to go with......

Good question, that. Do we go with the advanced technology which gave us the H Bomb, or the advanced sensibility which gave us Handel's Messiah?

Or do we abandon the adversarial perspective, and recognise the whole vast and often contradictory spectrum of human experience, with all it's majesty and terror?

1213 · Oct 15, 2021

IndigoChild5559 said:
All true. Nevertheless, it has factual errors. ...

Please give one example of "factual error"?

Valjean · Oct 15, 2021

1213 said:
Please give one example of "factual error"?

The exodus from Egypt
The worldwide flood.
Pi = 3.0
Rabbits chew their cud
Sticks peeled to look striped or mottled will cause goats to have speckled kids.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors

There are a lot of contradictions, as well:
50,000 Errors and Biblical contradictions

Windwalker · Oct 16, 2021

1213 said:
Where does the Bible say it is a matter of faith?

The entire NT pretty much:

"You are saved by Grace through faith"
"Your faith has made you whole"
"So that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith"
"For we live by faith, not by sight."
"A righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”"
"So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith"

Etc., ad infinitum.

1213 said:
What do you think faith means? I have understood faith means loyalty (=faithfulness). Bible tells eternal life is for righteous, and they live because they are loyal to God, they don’t reject God.

Loyalty is not the core understanding of Christian faith. Someone may follow every rule in the book, be loyal to the religion rules and regulations to a T, but still not have faith. Faith issues from the heart. Jesus said of the pagan Roman Centurion, "Greater faith have I not seen in all of Israel". Clearly, he was not loyal to the law of Moses! Yet, Jesus called his faith greater than all those who followed the religion as a way of life. He was anything but loyal to the religion's laws.

Jesus pointed out the difference when he challenged the religious loyalists of the Pharisees, who would boast they never broke the law. He said in essence that you can say you keep the law, or are "loyal to God", by not committing adultery, stealing, murdering, etc, yet if you ever lusted after another man's wife, coveted their goods, or hated them in your heart, you have sinned. It's not about being loyal, but about being a good person internally. He further taught, "Make clean the inside of the cup, and the outside will become clean".

True righteousness is in a changed heart, not in the keeping of the rules with religious loyalties. Keep the rules externally, can only be truly genuine if they come from the heart. A changed heart, the heart of faith, has no desire to steal, or cheat, or lie, or kill. "Love works no ill", says Paul in Romans. He is right. That is what faith is.

1213 said:
In that faith is not about believing, but about being loyal to God. It would not be useful for you, if you believe, but are not loyal to God. And I think, when person is loyal to God, it means person keeps His commandments.

But where is that coming from? Is it coming from a fear of punishment? Then that 'faith' is not coming from within your heart, it's coming from a place of fear. If you love, you won't sin. And if and when you act outside of love, then Grace covers sin, if embraced by the heart of faith, knowing that "God is Love". All of this is very different from coming from a place of fear.

Simply believing with the mind, at best takes you to the door, but does not take you inside. Faith is what transforms, not beliefs, nor simply following the rules hoping that will get you inside.

1213 said:
And this does not mean that person is saved because of faith. People are saved (from the judgment that comes because of sin), because God has declared sins forgiven, freely, without anything from the people.

"Your faith has made you whole", said Jesus to the woman who came to him for healing.

1213 said:
If we understand faith as loyalty to God, it is a matter of understanding and reason. Person is loyal to God when he thinks it is good and right.

But the Pharisees were loyal to God, and yet Jesus declared that was all like whitewashed tombs, all clean and righteous on the outside, but inside it was full of rot and dead bones. So it does not appear to be a matter of understanding and reason or what we think with the ideas of the mind. It has to do with the love of the heart, and a yearning to connect with the Spirit of God. Salvation, is a changed heart, not a convinced logic argument about the existence of God.

1213 said:
Believing in God’s existence is a different issue. I believe God exists, because of logic and reason.

I believe in God's existence because of Love. Logic and reason can take us astray. Faith has to do with the heart, not logic and reason.

1213 said:
To me faith means loyalty. Those facts are facts only for a person if he believes they are correct. And if person is faithful to the scientists, he keeps their teachings.

Fact are not facts only for a person. Who told you this? Facts are facts, regardless of whether or not someone chooses to accept them. There is no such thing as 'alternative facts'.

1213 · Oct 17, 2021

Windwalker said:
…

Loyalty is not the core understanding of Christian faith. Someone may follow every rule in the book, be loyal to the religion rules and regulations to a T, but still not have faith. Faith issues from the heart. Jesus said of the pagan Roman Centurion, "Greater faith have I not seen in all of Israel". Clearly, he was not loyal to the law of Moses! …

Sorry, I think it is, because it is said “…will live by faith. If he shrinks back…”. I understand that “shrinks back” means person rejects God and so is not faithful to God.

But the righteous will live by faith. If he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him.
Hebrews 10:38

Windwalker said:
…Jesus pointed out the difference when he challenged the religious loyalists of the Pharisees, who would boast they never broke the law. He said in essence that you can say you keep the law, or are "loyal to God", by not committing adultery, stealing, murdering, etc, yet if you ever lusted after another man's wife, coveted their goods, or hated them in your heart, you have sinned. It's not about being loyal, but about being a good person internally. He further taught, "Make clean the inside of the cup, and the outside will become clean".

Windwalker said:
…But the Pharisees were loyal to God,

I think Jesus shows they were not really loyal to God, because:

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cumin, and have left undone the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy, and faith. But you ought to have done these, and not to have left the other undone.
Matt. 23:23

For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, there is no way you will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.
Mat. 5:20

The core of God’s law is to love God and neighbor, and apparently, they didn’t really love.

Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not give false testimony," "You shall not covet," [TR adds "You shall not give false testimony,"] and whatever other commandments there are, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love doesn't harm a neighbor. Love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.
Romans 13:8-10

Windwalker said:
…I believe in God's existence because of Love. Logic and reason can take us astray. Faith has to do with the heart, not logic and reason.

Sorry, I disagree with that and I think also you make that choice with your own logic and reason. I don’t think anyone makes really any decision without some logic and reason.

Windwalker said:
…Fact are not facts only for a person. Who told you this? Facts are facts, regardless of whether or not someone chooses to accept them. There is no such thing as 'alternative facts'.

It is simply logical truth. Person can choose not to believe real facts and not all facts are real facts, even if people think so. For example, some think old earth is a fact, for them it is, but for some people it is not, for example because there is nothing undisputed to support it. No one can really test is it true fact, but still some think it is a fact. Obviously, real facts are facts, even if people would not believe them to be facts. then they are just not facts for the person who doesn’t believe them to be real facts. It is interesting how people decide what is a real fact.

1213 · Oct 17, 2021

Valjean said:
The exodus from Egypt
The worldwide flood.

Why you think it is not a fact?

Valjean said:
Pi = 3.0

Bible doesn't say "Pi=3.0".

Valjean said:
Rabbits chew their cud

That is the error of atheists, or people who are against the Bible, not really an error in the Bible. Rabbits chew the cud. (Chew = bite and work (food) in the mouth with the teeth, especially to make it easier to swallow. Cud = partly digested food returned to the mouth for further chewing).
Here is a good writing on this issue:

Do Rabbits Chew the Cud?

Valjean said:
Sticks peeled to look striped or mottled will cause goats to have speckled kids.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors

That is surely an readers error. I recommend to read the whole scripture. Bible tells the sicks were so that they were on the drinking water of the animals. Now, to say can it really work, we would need to make a test in that same way and look does the drinking water affect on the color of the animals, before that it can't really be said can it be an error.

Valjean said:
There are a lot of contradictions, as well:
50,000 Errors and Biblical contradictions

By what I know, all of them are at the same level as these "errors" you gave, they tell more about the errors of the people than about the Bible.

Valjean · Oct 17, 2021

I said:
The exodus from Egypt
The worldwide flood.

1213 said:
Why you think it is not a fact?

There are whole libraries on this.
Both would have left clear evidence. Neither did.

Exodus: There are no records, Egyptian or otherwise, of Israelite slaves.
How would half the population of Egypt suddenly leaving not have collapsed the economy? How would there be no records, Egyptian, Roman or any, of this momentous event happening.
How would millions of people, with families, livestock and household goods, lived in a desert for forty years, and not left a single archæological trace?
So, 1: apart from Hebrew folklore, there is absolutely no evidence of this happening.
2: Such a huge event would have left physical evidence and worldwide commentary. There is none.

The flood? This is so absurd that it makes the Exodus look believable. I can't begin to list all the evidence against, and lack of evidence for, this event.
If you're seriously interested, I'd recommend Aron Ra's series of videos, outlining the objections from the points of view of several different disciplines. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=aaron+ra.+flood

Bible doesn't say "Pi=3.0".

So how do you interpret the passage?

That is the error of atheists, or people who are against the Bible, not really an error in the Bible. Rabbits chew the cud. (Chew = bite and work (food) in the mouth with the teeth, especially to make it easier to swallow. Cud = partly digested food returned to the mouth for further chewing).
Here is a good writing on this issue:

Do Rabbits Chew the Cud?

This article doesn't refute the passage. The Bible got it wrong.

That is surely an readers error. I recommend to read the whole scripture. Bible tells the sicks were so that they were on the drinking water of the animals. Now, to say can it really work, we would need to make a test in that same way and look does the drinking water affect on the color of the animals, before that it can't really be said can it be an error.

Again, the Bible reports folklore as fact. It uncritically reflects the ignorance, folklore and magical thinking of the time.

By what I know, all of them are at the same level as these "errors" you gave, they tell more about the errors of the people than about the Bible.

Wouldn't the Quran more reliable than the Bible? After all, it's a unified work, by a single author, rather than an anthology composed by disparate peoples over a thousand years, then cherry-picked by the clergy of a single sect.
I suspect you aren't critically analyzing. I suspect that if you'd been born in Riyadh, you'd currently be Muslim. Had you been raised in Calcutta, you'd be Hindu.
You're a conventionalist.

metis · Oct 18, 2021

Valjean said:
the Bible reports folklore as fact. It uncritically reflects the ignorance, folklore and magical thinking of the time.

As anyone who doesn't believe in biblical inerrancy should understand, all scrptures in all religions were written as being subjective, not objective. Therefore, we should look for "the meaning behind the words" and try to better understand what the author(s) may have been trying to communicate.

Needless to say, it's a very imprecise art.

1213 · Oct 18, 2021

Valjean said:
...
Exodus: There are no records, Egyptian or otherwise, of Israelite slaves.
How would half the population of Egypt suddenly leaving not have collapsed the economy? How would there be no records, Egyptian, Roman or any, of this momentous event happening...

I think the Famine Stela is about the things that happened when Joseph was in Egypt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_Stela

And the Tempest Stela seems to be about the time of Moses.

“after the power of the god was manifested. Then His Majesty arrived in Thebes ... this statue; it received what it had desired. (15) His Majesty set about to strengthen the Two Lands, to cause the water to evacuate without (the aid of) his (men?), to provide them with silver, (16) with gold, with copper, with oil, with clothing, with all the products they desired; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempest_Stele

Valjean said:
...The flood? This is so absurd that it makes the Exodus look believable. I can't begin to list all the evidence against, and lack of evidence for, this event.

There is no real evidence against it and lot of evidence for it. By what the Bible tells, the flood happened when the single original continent was broken and sunk. Results of the event are: modern continents, oil, gas and coal fields, orogenic mountains, vast sediment formations, marine fossils on high mountains, great glaciers, and obviously all the stories around the world.

Valjean said:
...So how do you interpret the passage?

Why not just read it as it is written, without any interpretations?

Valjean said:
...This article doesn't refute the passage. The Bible got it wrong.

Are you claiming rabbits don't chew the cud? (Chew = bite and work (food) in the mouth with the teeth, especially to make it easier to swallow. Cud = partly digested food returned to the mouth for further chewing).

Valjean said:
...Wouldn't the Quran more reliable than the Bible? After all, it's a unified work, by a single author, rather than an anthology composed by disparate peoples over a thousand years, ....

Quran says:

…The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah… …believe in Allah and His messengers…
Surat An-Nisā' 4:171
Surah An-Nisa - 171

I think it confirms the Bible.

Valjean · Oct 18, 2021

1213 said:
I think the Famine Stela is about the things that happened when Joseph was in Egypt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_Stela

And the Tempest Stela seems to be about the time of Moses.

“after the power of the god was manifested. Then His Majesty arrived in Thebes ... this statue; it received what it had desired. (15) His Majesty set about to strengthen the Two Lands, to cause the water to evacuate without (the aid of) his (men?), to provide them with silver, (16) with gold, with copper, with oil, with clothing, with all the products they desired; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempest_Stele

Droughts happen. Floods happen. Literate peoples report them. So what?

There is no real evidence against it and lot of evidence for it. By what the Bible tells, the flood happened when the single original continent was broken and sunk. Results of the event are: modern continents, oil, gas and coal fields, orogenic mountains, vast sediment formations, marine fossils on high mountains, great glaciers, and obviously all the stories around the world.

You have no grounds to make this assertion when you've obviously ignored all the evidence I linked you to previously.
There is overwhelming evidence against it, and no empirical supporting evidence. I can back up my assertion. I challenge you to back up yours.

Are you claiming rabbits don't chew the cud? (Chew = bite and work (food) in the mouth with the teeth, especially to make it easier to swallow. Cud = partly digested food returned to the mouth for further chewing).

Yes, along with every biologist in Earth, I'm saying rabbits don't chew a cud. Rabbits are not ruminants. Digestion In Ruminants - Structure, Function and its Process

Quran says:
…The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah… …believe in Allah and His messengers…
Surat An-Nisā' 4:171
Surah An-Nisa - 171

I think it confirms the Bible.

It says Jesus was a prophet, not the Son of God, Messiah or savior of man.
Nor is it an authoritative source. It's just a book. Books make lots of claims.

Valjean · Oct 18, 2021

Windwalker · Oct 19, 2021

1213 said:
Sorry, I think it is, because it is said “…will live by faith. If he shrinks back…”. I understand that “shrinks back” means person rejects God and so is not faithful to God.

But the righteous will live by faith. If he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him.
Hebrews 10:38

What I hear you doing is putting the cart (loyalty) ahead of the horse (faith). Of course loyalty, or dedication, determination, devotion, intention, etc., are part of faith, but they follow faith. They do not define what faith is. If you have faith, you will stay the course, because that is where you heart truly lays, upon the destination which is God.

Someone can be loyal to everything in the 'rule book', but not be doing it out of a genuine or sincere faith. They may be motivated by selfish interests, such as wanting rewards from God, like the 'prosperity gospel' nonsense. That is not loyalty, or keeping of the law because of faith. That's loyalty because of greed. And that is not biblical faith. "Your righteousness is as filthy rags", said Isaiah, or as Jesus called that, "whitewashed tombs"

1213 said:
I think Jesus shows they were not really loyal to God, because:

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cumin, and have left undone the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy, and faith. But you ought to have done these, and not to have left the other undone.
Matt. 23:23

For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, there is no way you will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.
Mat. 5:20

The core of God’s law is to love God and neighbor, and apparently, they didn’t really love.

Yes, exactly. Loyalty is not true faith. The Pharisees were loyal to a T, but they did not love. They, like what you are doing, put the cart in front of the horse. True faith, loves. Faith and love, produces loyalty as a fruit. Faith is not loyalty. Loyalty is a fruit of faith.

If you elevate loyalty as the thing itself that defines what faith is, you run the risk of being a legalist, as opposed to a "lovist".

1213 said:
Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not give false testimony," "You shall not covet," [TR adds "You shall not give false testimony,"] and whatever other commandments there are, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love doesn't harm a neighbor. Love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.
Romans 13:8-10

Absolutely. This is why I am saying what I am.

[

1213 · Oct 19, 2021

Valjean said:
...You have no grounds to make this assertion when you've obviously ignored all the evidence I linked you to previously.
There is overwhelming evidence against it, and no empirical supporting evidence. I can back up my assertion. I challenge you to back up yours.....

I think I did that already. We can see modern continents, oil, gas and coal fields, orogenic mountains, vast sediment formations, marine fossils on high mountains, great glaciers, and obviously all the stories around the world. All of those exist and they are exactly what we should expect to find, if the Bible story is true. But, obviously you can make own explanations, if you want. I think Bible has the best and most reasonable explanation. I don't see any reason to take your explanations as truth, sorry.

Valjean · Oct 19, 2021

1213 said:
I think I did that already. We can see modern continents, oil, gas and coal fields, orogenic mountains, vast sediment formations, marine fossils on high mountains, great glaciers, and obviously all the stories around the world. All of those exist and they are exactly what we should expect to find, if the Bible story is true. But, obviously you can make own explanations, if you want. I think Bible has the best and most reasonable explanation. I don't see any reason to take your explanations as truth, sorry.

No. Where did you get this information? Didn't you watch the links from post #51?
As innumerable geologists have explained, the sedimentary geology we find on Earth is not at all what a flood would have produced.

One of the AronRa series, addressing geology, specifically:

Others: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=aaron+ra.+flood

1213, you're going to believe what you're going to believe. You're going to ignore &/or quickly forget all evidence to the contrary. Your theology is not a product of facts or reason, and clearly facts and reason have no impact on it.

1213 · Oct 20, 2021

Valjean said:
...the sedimentary geology we find on Earth is not at all what a flood would have produced.....

That can be true, if the idea of how the flood happened is wrong.

Valjean · Oct 20, 2021

1213 said:
That can be true, if the idea of how the flood happened is wrong.

No. The evidence and science is clear: no flood.

Science or faith

Well-Known Member

.Ii¿⊙?!I.

Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

aged ecumenical anthropologist

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member