Who has more faith?

Question

Someone who believes in an invisible God.
OR
Someone who believes that a man will report scientific findings without bias, without pushing his beliefs, without having an agenda, and without trying to get more money for research.

I dont see how anyone could argue that the Bible was written (or compiled) with an agenda in mind when it was written by many different people over many years. The writers could not have known that their reports, letters, or revelations would be put into the book we now call the Bible.

But if you do, then please explain it to me.

Eleventy asks, "Why do you think the authors of the Bible wrote the books if not to be read by others?"

Well some were for record keeping (Chronicles), the law (Leviticus), and historical purposes to name a few reasons. Some were written as letters to a select people or church (Paul's letters), but I dont think they were written with idea that they would be read 2000-6000 years later.

COME ON Parrot!! A 1987 ESTIMATE?!? That was over 20 years ago! How much has changed or been learned since then? I'm sure most of them predicted another Ice Age was gonna happen to, right? Ask Gallup to do the poll again.

From the 23rd footnote (click the link) of the site that Parrot gave: ...40% of biologists, mathematicians, physicians, and astronomers include God in the process [of creation].

Answer 1

Uh-huh. So talking snakes do it for you, hmmm?

Thanks, even if there are problems with peer-reviewed research, I'd be more than happy to take that over goat-herders stories.

And I think you are severely paranoid. Research does have an agenda, to promote new ideas and new research. To challenge old ideas. Not to come up with a certain answer and keep it in spite of flaws.

But how can you say it's biased? Research starts with an observation and leads to a hypothesis, testing, and then either acceptance or rejection of the hypothesis, based on objective, verifiable, repeatable results.

Answer 2

It was written by many people but compiled by a small few during the 12 or 14th centuries. that is why there are many versions of the bible and many edits through out the history of its existence. It's like science, when they find something new they revise it only with science they do it based on fact, in religion they do it to change a moral or control a faction that has gotten out of line.

and you must admit that each section that was written by these individuals could have been written with an agenda and the reasons why some made the final cut and some were detroyed and forbidden were also for an agenda.

Answer 3

the issue of who has more faith is really not a valid one, though I have used that of evolutionist before.

it is not faith that saves you, it is the object of that faith.

Now science may be based on observable events that hold true when done the same way everytime. But if the physics of the universe change a little, they are no longer true, so what do you do, change your faith? change your facts which contradict what was before fact?

I realize that this may be a little tedious for those who have arrived and don't have anything more to learn, but I have this question, which way does a north seeking needle point? the poles of the earth change from time to time, so what do you say about fact, scientific fact as observed.

while i'm not answering the question directly, and i'm not a ph.d., by any means, I define my terms and I look at all the information I can get.

science is valid, faith is valid. Just because you don't like something or feel it is false, is not a reason to decry it.

everyone dies, is it not worth finding out where you will go? kubler-ross (on death and dying) did not report all her findings because it did not agree with the way she sees life but she knew there was a spirit world.

it costs nothing to find out the truth, unless you have already decided the facts apart from what can be known

Answer 4

Three million people witnessed G-d's revelation at Mount Sinai; there's nil doubt that G-d exists. At Sinai, the people "heard what was seen and saw what was heard" meaning that all nature was turned around when G-d revealed his presence; hardly an invisible G-d. The Bible as we know it is the (Written Torah) as dictated by G-d to Moses in the 40 years the Children of Israel were in the Desert, includes the Prophets (named) following Moses and finally; the Bible contains the Writings. Science too is given by G-d to Man, Man's intellect is given by G-d to Man and everything you can possibly think, speak or do is also given by G-d. It is then only a gift from G-d that Man uses G-d's given Science to gain a minuscule insight into G-d's wisdom. G-d does in fact does have an agenda that can only be know to Man through the Torah. It has been said, if you believe in the Torah everything else follows; if you don't nothing else matters.

Answer 5

You not only don't understand that we non-believers don't believe in things that are loony and irrational, people like you keep insisting on trying to make us believe in things that are loony and irrational. It's not gonna happen. The agenda of science is to find out what's really happening, not to analyze the bible and teach that to kids as science. The scientific point of view is based on peer reviewed research. That's not something that can be told from the creationist and ID fake science. And the research they have done, has always been refuted so far, or their conclusions are completely unfalsifiable.
You creationists would like the money as well, bus as it is no science at all, you'll have to do it with the donations that the churches take from their obedient followers. Please rip them off, not me.
And what's the church's agenda? They want to have their foot between every door, so they can always come inside your house to check up on everybody to make them obey to supposedly holy rules and laws. The problem with science is, that science makes this scenario possible. But oh yeah, you don't believe in science. Computers are also fake.

Answer 6

There are many scientists who report scientific findings with bias. Fortunately there are plenty more who are more than happy to call them out and disprove their theories.

That is how the scientific practice works. You pose a hypothesis and your peers (other scientists) tell you that you are full of crap or report back and let you know you are on the right path. Argument is an important part of science, it causes scientists to research as much as possible to back up theory with fact.

The Bible has non of this, because it is a source unto itself. I can argue, both for and against salvation by Grace or by works, because both doctrins can be interpreted from the bible, and St Paul and Jesus aren't available for comment.


The New Testament doesn't include most of the Gospels that early Christians wrote and relied apon. It was created during the cannonization process where preists scribes, church leaders and governmental leaders decided that the gospels had to be organized in order to create a coherent doctrine.

The Cannonization process took place to CREATE Christian doctrine, meaning you are basing your salvation on Catholic interpretation of what books were inspired an what books weren't.

Science has many more input points and relies on things like mathematics, genetics, medicine and technology for factual backup.

Interpretations of the bible rely on human gut feelings and charismatic men willing to state that they have heard from God.

Answer 7

"One 1987 estimate found that more than 99.84% of almost 500,000 US scientists in the earth and life sciences supported evolution over creation science. An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters, estimates that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution". A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that only about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists."

So every single one of those people has an agenda and just wants money? Interesting.

Edit: I don't understand why you're mentioning that... yes, many of them do include God in the process, but that doesn't make them creationists. They believe the process of evolution was guided along by a creator, but they don't doubt the scientific findings.

And, gosh, I don't know... why don't you tell me? What HAS changed since '87? Nothing that I can tell. Evolution is still a totally solid theory that is supported by the vast majority of the scientific community as far as I can see.

Answer 8

what is the question ?

who has more faith ?
OR
Is the bible written without hidden agenda ?

i will answer both
1)I recently learned that theists also have doubts, just like the scientist has over his research.
So i dont know.

2) I dont know either if the bible was written with a hidden agenda. I do know that the original authors dont have profit from the bible now. And that nowadays it is a paid job to spread christianity.

I have an Agenda

.

Answer 9

Why do you think a scientist is pushing his beliefs just because he reports his findings? Those findings are not and cannot be biased. They must be reproduceable, or else they are not considered science.

And I would believe a guy who has concrete proof over a hypoethetical guy in the sky any day.

Answer 10

Well put - I get your point. Yet it might need to be said that faith in God (and his written word) cannot be compared to faith in anything humans do. Scientists are honorable people with integrity (in the main) and their pursuit of scientific truth is admirable. But they are imperfect, they make mistakes, go barking up wrong trees sometimes, and the best of them admit to that. With God, it's rather different.

If God is God, and invisible (nobody seems to argue about that!) then the only way anyone can have faith in him is via God's own self-revelations. If a scientist thinks the universe and everything came about without divine creation, then faith in God is nonsense to him or her. Devotion to intellectualism and science will increasingly make faith in God seem absurd. They might argue that there's no need for faith in human intelligence or science because it just IS... logical, reasonable... there. So perhaps nobody truly puts faith in science and its writings. Perhaps faith (in the sense you mean) is actually limited to the realms of the spiritual.

The authenticity of the Bible can be scientifically checked in some areas (comparing ancient manuscripts with modern translations; archeology; geography etc) but will always be useless for the faith aspects and those things that are God's self-revelations. Interestingly, God's self-revelations are not obvious to people without faith in him. They just can't see them! As faith is a gift from God - we have but to ask him for it - those who pride themselves in intellectualism and science might be totally unable to get off the starting blocks! Shame really, 'cause even a little child can have faith.

Answer 11

Do you mean to tell me that the pharmaceutical companies aren't pushing for an agenda? Aren't pushing for a profit?
Don't these people fall under the "scientific" group you speak of?