science vs. religious text part 2?

Question

each is presented in text as someone's first hand account of what they've observed. science is presented to us as scientists observations. the life of jesus is presented to us as people's observations. either way, we never actually see it directly ourselves. so then, how do we KNOW that science is telling us the truth? we learn about it through what people tell us. does anyone see what i'm saying? i'm not arguing that religion is above science, or vice versa, i am merely stating that they are both just what we are told by other people.

i understand that the experiments are replicable...but how many average people can go out and use the equipment required to do so. for example, dating fossils and archaeological finds is time consuming, expensive and requires special equipment. only very few people can go out and do this...therefore, WE GO OFF OF WHAT WE ARE TOLD!

eri-i've taken several college science courses. all we did was conduct dinky little experiments that told us little about our planet or universe. never once did i replicate carbon dating of fossils to determine the age of our earth, or any such important thing. been there, done that. i still have questions.

Answer 1

Scientific truth is outward, more obvious. Religious truth is subtle, inward, less-obvious. Still they are two ways to look at reality for reality is one. Knowledge is one. Science and religion go hand in hand. Each informs the other. Science keeps blind superstition out of religion. Religion keeps science in service to humanity. Both are valid, both are necessary.

Answer 2

The point is you CAN. And further other scientists do it all the time. If a scientist is wrong about something the peer review process will catch it pretty fast and they will have withdraw the paper. It happens several times a year.

And many of those experiments are done in undergraduate labs. I've done experiments to measure the speed of light for instance. If you really think something is wrong you can prove it.

I will give you a great example. Christians complain about carbon dating all the time. There are plenty of known age samples around from Egyptian tombs and such that they could put it to the test and prove it doesn't work. They never actually do this, because when they try it the labs GET IT RIGHT. But that doesn't stop them from claiming the method is flawed.

Answer 3

Eri is essentially right about the replication principle, whether you had a chance to do it or not. I understand what you are saying. So here's another approach. Evaluate the legitimacy of science and religion by how their "truths" are determined. Religion is ancient myth and folkore, passed down for many generations, transcribed and edited by dogmatic authorities who were asserting their authority on the grounds that God gave it to them. And in religion, dissent is not encouraged. For many centuries, in Christianity, and even in some religions today, you can lose your life for challenging the dogma.
Science does not permit this kind of authority. Dissenters can become famous if they are able to support their arguments. The rules of science require rational investigation and open criticism. Ancient authority is useless and knowledge is derived from what can be found in the natural world. And if any new evidence is found which undermines any idea, then that idea must be challenged.
Now if you believe the bible is the word of God and an accurate description of natural history, then you are deliberately blinding yourself to the mountains of evidence against it. Science doesn't allow that kind of irrationality. Only religion.
Sorry, but science and religion are NOT two equally valid ways of looking at the physical world. They are not complimentary. Science is the ONLY way to know about the real world. The bible is based on myth and superstition, and therefore wrong on nearly every matter of nature it cites.

Answer 4

First of all all the gospels were written well after the death of Jesus. They may be written as eyewitness accounts but they definitely are not.


As for science, this is the scientific process of peer review. You do this when you do a science course as you mentioned, but as you say a lot of it you do not do, usually because of the cost of equipment etc.

However, other scientist that do have the equipment do repeat these tests, they do verify them. When a scientist discovers something they write a paper, before it is published that paper is reviewed by a bunch of other scientist picked by the publisher and they look it over to see if it make sense to them and is consistent with what they know.

So it could be that carbon dating is all made up. But for that to happen literally thousands of scientist would have to be in a vast conspiracy to produce fake results. Since other methods are often used thousands of geologists and biologists would also need to be in on the conspiracy with the physicists to keep it all going. Hundreds of people would need to be indoctrinated into conspiracy every year. There have been no deathbed confessions, no people seeking huge fame from being the one that reveals the truth, no indoctrinates who have revolted against the idea.

Which is more plausible. That this vast and convoluted conspiracy exists?

Or that the scientist are telling the truth?

Yes, we go off of what we are told. But what science tells us is not just pulled out of thin air. There is a transparent process that shows us it is reliable and anyone can read the papers and metaphorically look over the scientist shoulders.

What the bible tells us we are told Just Is and told to ignore the contradictions and are not told about the times it has been changed and edited.


Science has repeatedly shown it can be trusted by producing useful information and by discovering the few fakes by itself.

If you want to take the bible as allegorical and as a story, fine go ahead. But do not pretend that it is a totally accurate history because it is not, and if you care to look it has been shown to be inaccurate in several matters, discovered not by theologians who should have found these things, but by historians and archaeologists who are prepared to believe the evidence in front of them rather than that they have been told in the past.

Answer 5

What exactly are you asking? You seem to be asking "how do we KNOW that science is telling us the truth?" As an answer to that question, we don't ever really KNOW unless we figure it out ourselves, but scientists have proven it and those who know more than us have proven it. For example, we can definitely say that pi is (22/7) or 3.14...... because it has been proven. But on the other hand, science can be changed. Like when they found that the Earth was round, not flat. With the whole "the life of jesus is presented to us as people's observations. either way, we never actually see it directly ourselves" thing, taking a spiritual standpoint, i would be saying "you have to have faith. faith is knowing something you can't see. you can't see the life of Jesus, you just have to have faith that it's true. You can get faith from keeping an open mind and going to church."

Answer 6

What a load of nonsense you write in your question. First of all, nothing in the Bible is a first hand account. If you had read it you would know that. Secondly, religion of any kind is always a matter of faith, of belief without evidence to support that belief.
On the other hand there is absolutely nothing preventing you from trying your hand at a little basic science. You don' t have to believe anyone, just the evidence of your own senses. Why don't you give it a try - who knows, you might learn something.
There are lots of people and organisations who would be able and willing to help you. Check it out!

Answer 7

I don't know what school you go to, but at the one I went to I personally performed experiments that confirmed almost all of the important basic principles of science. These included Newton's laws, the laws of thermodynamics, the laws of optics, interference, quantum mechanics, electricity etc.

Yes, we learn from what we are told, but we can test and reproduce these things. And we learn who we can trust to be truthful because life is just too short to reproduce every experiment.

I have been unable to confirm or reproduce a single thing at all that I was told of religion. Yet I am told to trust people who seem dishinest on the basis of their interpretation of a book written about a man of whose very existence there is no evidence outside that book.

This is hardly a level playing field.

Answer 8

If you take a science course, you will take a lab in which you repeat the classic experiements so you can see for yourself that they work. That's how college science works - they don't expect you to just believe them, they expect you to do it for yourself. And since you know that millions of college students have replicated these experiments, you can be sure that they worked. Or you can go take a college class and do it yourself to be sure.

Answer 9

In fact, you can prove that science is not above religious text: Look at the rules for determining infections that need to be quarantined , being clean, eating, etc.

You'll notice that it matches the scientific findings (and it came first)

Answer 10

Religion wins hands down.

It was thoth that taught the mysteries of the universe. That is why the Egyptians knew that the universe expanded and was not infinite. Stephen Hawking (science) didnt explain that untill much much later...

another example was that the Egyptians knew the earth was round unlike the Greeks (science)...