For the Theists...?

Question

Do you suppose that your forefathers were as dismissive of the Germ Theory of Disease as being "just a theory", when it was so OBVIOUS to them that demonic possession and curses were the cause of all disease?

Do you think they asserted that it took as much faith to believe that the earth was round as it did to simply accept the holy scripture that "proved" it was flat?

Do you suppose they claimed that the proposed heliocentric solar system was "just as much of a religion" as the commonly accepted belief that the Earth was the center of the universe?

In any one of a MILLION instances where the evidence of scientific inquiry clashed with established religious dogma, do you suppose what people BELIEVED made one whit of difference as to what the factual REALITY of the universe was?

"Science is a very effective means of gaining knowledge whereas revelation and scriptural study is not, and this fact is less surprising under atheism than theism." --From EbonMusings.org

Answer 1

Nicely put. *applauds*

Answer 2

The issues you mention are classified as observable science. Anyone with the appropriate tools may validate those statements. You can create experiments and reproduce the results.

On the other hand, evolution is a historical science. There is no way to experiment and reproduce evolution in a controlled laboratory environment or anywhere for that matter. So far, each "fact" that was used to prove evolution has been proven false (The pepper moths, fetus vestigial evolution, the "hobbits", etc...)

As far as belief vs reality goes. Each scientist evaluates the facts based on presuppositions of what they were expecting. This is why the "hobbits" were immediately labeled as human ancestors among other things. Everyone has their preconceived ideas about everything, that is basically their belief whether scientific or religious.

Answer 3

There are areas in science that specifically support the theory that God is there. I see nothing in scripture that dismisses real (proven) science as wrong. If you want to start pointing fingers about the ignorance of man in the prescientific era then you have to defend the bleeding process that Doctors did to let out the bad blood. Come on play fair.. The Bible as already stated agrees with the idea that the world in round. The areas that talk about the four corners, well that is a natter of speech. It is said often to mean the remote places on the earth... Can your idea of science deal with chirality of proteins in regard to biologic creation? NOPE... What science teaches about the beginning of life on this planet is so far fetched that excepting it is akin to believing that Thor's hammer causes thunder... Jim

Answer 4

When all the great minds believed the world was flat, the prophet Isaiah wrote,"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth"
Isaiah 40:22

This was written, circa 690 B.C.

Therefore your assumption that holy scripture proved it flat is false.

I encourage you to really read the Bible, you will be surprised at the knowledge you will find.

Grace and Peace

Answer 5

I'm not sure what you're aiming at. Nothing wrong with science, it merely reveals what is.

Where I turn away from science is when it goes against what I believe is true, the bible, which I believe is the word of God. If that upsets you...sorry, that's the way it is for me.

Answer 6

Belief and reality are completely separate.

Reality is based on.... well.... reality.

Belief is based on faith.

I could give all sorts of scientific evidence as to why the sun rises and sets, and some people would still argue that it was proof that god exists.

Answer 7

You are comparing apples with oranges.
You think that something that should be spiritually discerned is supposed to be reasoned out where as His thoughts are higher than your thoughts.His ways are unknown to you. You trust in your eyes and not in the spiritual to quide you. You cant help it because you are spiritually blind to His ways. It may not always be that way. God Bless you!!!!

Answer 8

There are some subtleties at work, which seem to escape the notice of most people. They have to do with the nature of 'belief'.

A rational person might say "I believe in the Big Bang." A religious person might say "I believe in creation, as described in Genesis." But these statements are not even remotely similar, with respect to what is meant by the word 'believe'.

For the rational person, the statement of 'belief' in the Big Bang means that they understand that the concept provides a scientifically and mathematically consistent explanation, congruent with the evidence, which accounts for the evolution of the universe from a fraction of a second after the initiating event, up until the present. When the 'inflationary model' came to the fore, rational people said "Well, good... that clears up a few questions and makes things even more coherent." NOBODY threw up their arms and wailed "Oh, no... oh, no... ain't so... ain't so... the Big Bang is the inerrant truth... not this ridiculous, atheistic 'inflationary' model."

See... when we say "I believe in the Big Bang", we don't really mean the same thing as the religious person means when he says "I believe in creation, as described in Genesis," or "I believe in God." Our 'belief' in the Big Bang (or anything else) isn't really a 'belief'... it is more properly a 'paradigm'... a useful way of looking at something, or thinking about something. If additional information is uncovered that adds to the conceptual model, that is a good thing... not a disaster. If part of the conceptual model is discovered to be incorrect, and must be tossed in the trash and replaced with something completely different... that is also a good thing... not the end of the world as we know it. And often, no matter how highly confident we may be of the accuracy or completeness of a particular paradigm, we may have reason to apply a DIFFERENT paradigm to the same thing, in an effort to tease out new insights; for example, we might want to contemplate the potential implications of a change to a theory from the perspective of the Tao Te Ching, the Gaia hypothesis, or ecological homeostasis. We KNOW that all theories are approximations... and that is OK. We KNOW that we don't have all the answers... and that is OK, too. There is nothing wrong with saying "We don't know... yet; but we're working on it."

But these modes of thinking, perceiving, contemplating and understanding are utterly alien to the 'religious' mind. For the religious mind, a 'belief' is not a paradigm... not a useful way of thinking about something... it is an internalized conviction that one knows the absolute 'truth' pertaining to some aspect of existence and/or fundamental reality. 'Beliefs' are one of the key interpretive component filters of the religious person's 'self-description'... a part of what DEFINES them as a person... the very thing that creates their world-view... an underpinning of their 'subjective reality'. Any challenge to one of these internalized 'beliefs' is perceived and interpreted as a vital threat... an attack upon the 'self-description'... and an assault upon their subjective reality.

And here is the key difference: When there is a change in one of the paradigms dealing with a scientific concept, or a new insight into the workings of the universe, to the 'rational' person it merely constitutes an interesting new piece of knowledge and understanding... a new insight, to be appropriately incorporated into one's world-view However, if that same new insight, or piece of information (a feature of the universe, for example) seems to threaten a tenet of Christianity, everybody goes to battle stations, goes into 'damage control' mode, for fear that the whole edifice will come crashing down... and ultimately, it will.

So, when a fundie disparages evolution, for example, it really has nothing to do with a genuine, intellectual dispute regarding scientific details... they are generally scientifically illiterate, anyway. Any 'scientific' arguments that they present are inevitably not even understood... they are just lifted from the pre-packaged lies, misrepresentations and pseudo-science that are found on dozens of 'Liars for Jesus' (LFJ) web sites, and parroted. They are in a battle. They are trying to sink science before science sinks them. They are desperate... and science is (mostly, and unfortunately) oblivious to the fact that they are even in a fight, and that somebody is trying to sink them. They just keep blithely bopping along, doing what science does... trying to figure out how nature works.

No... none of this has anything to do with a mere disagreement pertaining to evidence and understanding. It has to do with minds that deal with fundamental issues in an entirely different way. It has to do with a flexible, open-minded (willing to honestly consider alternative possibilities), intellectually honest (willing to question and doubt one's own presumptions) curiosity about the universe, contending with a rigid, unyielding world-view that depends from a conviction that certain delusional faith-based (willful ignorance and magical, wishful thinking) 'beliefs' represent the absolute 'truth' of reality.

We might as well be talking to an alien species, from a distant planet.

When the religious enter a venue like this one, they are (generally) NOT seeking answers, or new information... these might cause them to QUESTION their beliefs, or might put their beliefs at risk. No... they are closed-minded, seeking only VALIDATION of their beliefs... and hence, of their self-description.

*****************

"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion." ~ Robert M. Pirsig

Answer 9

That's the problem you run into when you try to mix science and religion. It's like oil and water, apples and oranges, dogs and cats, well...you get the picture. :-)

Answer 10

I didn't know the bible says the earth is flat. Point me to that part.

Answer 11

You are confusing theism with religion. Not all theists believe in religion (e.g. Deists, Unitarians, etc).