Why shouldn't I take a scientist's word over a two-thousand year old piece of literature?

Answer 1

i assume you're talking about the Bible.

I dont know if the Bible is "literature".

Not all scientists would tell you that the bible is wrong.

There are some things in the Bible which have obvioulsy been disproven by science, but there are other things that are more just a matter of faith.

No one's, telling you to do anything.

You need to make your own decisions.

Answer 2

I don't believe literature is the right word. The worlds biography would be a better term! The problem is the scientists don't even all agree with evolution, therefore exactly which group of scientists are you going to believe? If science can't prove it, why are people falling all over them selves trying to say they believe in it. Evolution is not fact. Has never been. Any scientist will tell you this. It is a THEORY. IDEA. Interesting notion maybe. But not provable and not truth. So why are you asking such a strange question. Are we going back to the time when - the world was flat because the SCIENTISTS said so?

Answer 3

Good news my friend, you don't have to! (except when it comes to the theory of evolution)

These are verses that were revealed to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) more than 1400 years ago. How could anyone at that time have specific knowledge about the stages of the creation of a baby inside the womb?

O you mankind, in case you are suspicious as to the Rising again, then surely We created you from dust, thereafter from nutfah (a sperm-drop), thereafter from `alaqa (a clinging mass, clot), thereafter from mudghah (a chewed up morsel) in shapely created form and other than shapely created (from) that We make (it) evident for you. (Surah Al-Hajj – Verse No. 5)

Thereafter We made him (the offspring of Adam) as a nutfah (a sperm-drop), in an established residence. Thereafter We created the nutfah (sperm-drop) into a `Alaqa (a clinging mass, a clot), then We created the `Alaqa into a nutfah (chewed up morsel), then We created the nutfah (chewed up morsel) into bones, then We dressed the bones (in) flesh; thereafter We brought him into being as another creation. So Supremely Blessed be Allah, The Fairest of creators. (Surah Al-Mu’minun – Verses Nos. 13 - 14)

All this is proven to be absolutely true by today's scientists.

There are more scientific proofs inside the Quran... about clouds, oceans, etc. So in Islam.. science does go along with our Islamic beliefs.

Read more about Darwin and his theory of evolution here: http://www.wasdarwinright.com/darwin.htm

Answer 4

What if that "two-thousand year old piece of literature" is the inspired word of God? You won't know until you read it.

Answer 5

Precisely because of that! It's well informed, up-dated scientists, against an ancient old-fashioned and ill-informed piece of writing? Or else, you start believing in the kryptonite, and that there's a guy somewhere wearing in blue, white and red, who can fly if he changes in a phone booth.

Answer 6

Because science is constantly being updated - it represents critical analysis and doubt, which is difficult and confusing.
Ancient books represent stored-up knowledge - if it survived for so long, it "must be true." Religion represents sureness - it makes life much easier.

All shall tremble in fear before the mightly legions of the Invisible Pink Unicorn!

Answer 7

Are you referring to The Bible Vs History or Science? Do your research, you'll see there is no archeological evidence of scientology's theory of evolution.

Answer 8

I take some scientists word that there is a God and the Bible is divinely inspired writings and Jesus Christ is the Word of God. Some of the most brilliant scientists in the history of the world believed in God: Newton, Pascal, Pasteur, Galileo, Faraday, Kepler, and so on. It is the scientists who cannot find HARMONY between science and religion that has the problem of connecting the dots.

ARTICLE 2. Whether It Can Be Demonstrated That God Exists?
I Answer that, Demonstration can be made in two ways. One is through the cause, and... The other is through the effect... When an effect is better known to us than its cause, from the effect we proceed to the knowledge of the cause. And from every effect the existence of its proper cause can be demonstrated, so long as its effects are better known to us, because since every effect depends upon its cause, if the effect exists, the cause must pre-exist. Hence the existence of God, in so far as it is not self-evident to us, can be demonstrated from those of His effects which are known to us.
ARTICLE 3. Whether God Exists?
I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.
The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion.... [Newton’s second law of motion] whatever is moved must be moved by another. If that by which it is moved be itself moved, then this also must be moved by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover, seeing that subsequent movers move only because as they are moved by the first mover... Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover which is moved by no other. And this everyone understands to be God.
The second way is from the notion of efficient cause.... There is no case known (nor indeed, is it possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself, because in that case it would be prior to itself, which is impossible.... Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect.... Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
The third way is taken from possibility and necessity... [or] to be or not to be. ...If everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. [FACT: Matter can not be destroyed nor created; at most it changes form i.e. solid, liquid, gas. Physical Law: the first law of Thermodynamics.] Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence -- which is clearly false. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary.... Therefore we must admit the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.
The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble, and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things [like a match in comparison to the sun]... Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being [a Supreme Being], goodness, and every other perfection. And this we call God.
The fifth way is taken from the governance of things. We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end... Hence it is plain that they achieve their end not by chance, but by design. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence, as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are ordered to their end; and this being we call God.

Answer 9

from websters:
3 a (1) : writings in prose or verse; especially : writings having excellence of form or expression and expressing ideas of permanent or universal interest

I think the bible fails the definition of literature, as it is a badly written confused muddle of self contradiction.

Answer 10

ok i dont know if you are christian or not. i beleive in god. i do not however beleive in the church. the bible in my opinion is a book full of stories to teach lessons and is not to be taken literally. also that is like arguing that if someone finds a copy of harry potter 1000 years from now will they think is true?