Does the God of the Bible contradict Science?

[jaswa]

I will attempt to show, using passages from the Bible that God and Science are compatible. When I think of the arguments science often tries to bring against Christianity, 3 things spring to mind; the Big Bang Theory (BBT), Evolution and the Age of the Earth (AoE). Might I suggest we keep the debate to these 3 main topics?

BBT:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth

The Bible does not define how God formed creation, merely that he created it. There is plenty of scope for God to have set the BBT into motion. The New Testament (NT) also gives us a form of teleological argument, ie.

For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything.

If the BBT is infallible or not - this doesn't contradict what the Bible says about God.

Evolution:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Again, the Bible doesn't explicitly mention the process God used to create mankind. It doesn't say that they both popped into existence or anything, he could've well used a process of manipulating matter/animals over a period of time. This of course would be feasible within his omnipotence. Despite this, there are still huge grey areas withing macroevolution and abiogenisis.

If Evolution is infallible or not - this doesn't contradict what the Bible says about God.

AoE:

God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning - the sixth day.

Using Genesis 5, Genesis 10, Genesis 11 and Matthew 1, some theologians have traced back the creation of Earth to be less than 10,000 years ago. The problem with this view is that the 'days' in Genesis 1 are taken literally by them - however most people accept early Genesis as a poetic form.

Clearly not all the Bible is meant to be read literally for example:

He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge; his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart.

would suggest that God is physical, hence requiring a prior cause, etc.

Science has deduced that the Earth has existed a lot more than that of the aforementioned figure, so Christians should accept that.

The AoE doesn't contradict with what the Bible says about God (only what fundies think )

The fundamentals of science is using reason to deduce truth and hence a wonderful tool for analysing God's creation. Therefore, using the above passages and my underlined conclusions I believe that God and science can co-exist and that theists and atheists alike should embrace the wonders that science displays for us.

 

[Dre89]

You should probably also show that the Bible wasn't taken literally until the advent of science. People like Augustine can be quoted to prove this.

 

[jaswa]

You should probably also show that the Bible wasn't taken literally until the advent of science. People like Augustine can be quoted to prove this.

You mean some Old Testament (OT) scripture? I'm pretty sure that at the least all the NT minus Revelation has always been taken literally, ie. things that Jesus said and did, letters Paul wrote to other early Christian areas.

 

[El Nino]

Just a quick question. If the natural processes of the universal are just examples of God's work, then what is the difference between atheism and theism?

 

[jaswa]

Just a quick question. If the natural processes of the universal are just examples of God's work, then what is the difference between atheism and theism?

Umm... theism prescribes the natural processes of the universe as created and maintained by an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, eternal, divinely simple and self-necessary otherwise than being.

Atheism rejects the belief in the existence of such a deity/deities.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

The Bible does not define how God formed creation, merely that he created it. AND Again, the Bible doesn't explicitly mention the process God used to create mankind. It doesn't say that they both popped into existence or anything, he could've well used a process of manipulating matter/animals over a period of time. This of course would be feasible within his omnipotence. Despite this, there are still huge grey areas withing macroevolution and abiogenisis.

Assuming a literal approach to the Holy Bible (i.e. Biblical inerrancy) denies the existence of evolution.

And the Lord -od formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

And the Lord -od caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord -od had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.

Not sure why you omitted these two passages from the initial conversation.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

It all comes down to how you interpret the bible. If you subscribe to interpreting the Bible literally, then god is not compatible with science. World wide floods and a 6,000 year old earth are not compatible beliefs with modern science. However, if you believe that the Bible is mythology; that the stories have symbolic value, it doesn't have to contradict science.

 

[El Nino]

Umm... theism prescribes the natural processes of the universe as created and maintained by an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, eternal, divinely simple and self-necessary otherwise than being.

Atheism rejects the belief in the existence of such a deity/deities.

Yes, but atheism does not reject the universe.

My point is, if a supreme deity acts through natural processes, and if atheism addresses these processes without acknowledging the Creator's presence, what is the difference between that approach and the theist approach? Whether you acknowledge the Creator's presence or not, the universe is the same in either approach, assuming that the theism we're discussing here is compatible with science and interprets religious text figuratively.

Theists may say that there's a guy pulling the strings, while atheists may say that the strings pull themselves. But I see that as a difference in interpretation only. When you physically pull a string, I may interpret you as an extension of the string, in which case I could say that the string pulls itself. The muscles in your arms and your neurochemical processes that allow you to commit the act, including the processes that allow you to hold conscious thought, are not necessarily separated from universal chaos unless I interpret them to be.

No I don't know where I was going with that. Just a thought, I guess.

 

[Dre89]

Bob- Biblical literalism is just a modern thing, which came about as a result of scientific thinking.

Interpretations aren't equally valid, there is evidence to suggest the Bible wasn't intended to be interpretted literally.

 

[rvkevin]

I would just like to point out that this approach relies on an unconventional view of science. Science does not equal the Big Bang Theory. If the Big Bang model was disproved tomorrow, science would still continue. This shows that science is more than a collection of ideas, it is a method of learning, of thinking, of knowing. If you want to say that the Bible is a competing method of knowing things, then you have a problem. In order to do so, you have to place some authority on the authors of the Bible as you have done, which is forbidden in the arena of science. Herein lies the contradiction. Religions value authority (at least in some respects), while science does not. At most you would be able to say that the Bible is compatible with what is known, but that does not make it compatible with science.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Bob- Biblical literalism is just a modern thing, which came about as a result of scientific thinking.

Are you sure of that? I thought the Catholic Church supported the Geocentric model of the solar system for quite some time, before it was disproved by science.

Interpretations aren't equally valid, there is evidence to suggest the Bible wasn't intended to be interpretted literally.

Which is reassuring. If it is interpreted literally, it looses its symbolic value.

 

[Dre89]

I'm not sure what scientific models the Church used to support, but we have historical evidence that it wasn't taken literally.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I'm not sure what scientific models the Church used to support, but we have historical evidence that it wasn't taken literally.

Would you mind providing such evidence? I thought that before many of the advances in science, the bible was taken literally, to a greater extent.

 

[Dre89]

I can only give vague references. For example, I know Augustine (about 400 AD) said that the 7 days weren't to be taken literally, and that he believed God could have planted potencies which would the develop over a number of years. I also know that in the Confessions, he speaks about how he used to believe God was a physical creature (The Confessions is about him apologising for his bad ways in the past).

Also, according to my lecturer, there's historical evidence of the Jews not taking it literally, before the NT was put together, but I don't know the specific authors.

 

[El Nino]

I'm not sure what scientific models the Church used to support, but we have historical evidence that it wasn't taken literally.

In 1633, Galileo was sentenced to house arrest by the Roman Inquisition (an organization of the Catholic Church) for believing in the studies of Copernicus and rejecting the geocentric model of the universe. Giordano Bruno was tried, condemned, and burned at the stake by the Inquisition for the same offense in 1600.

 

[Dre89]

I've heard a hundred different stories about Galileo, so I don't know what to believe anymore.

 

[jaswa]

On my phone, but I read a book from a history PhD I think (from UNSW Dre) and she wrote how in those times professors or whatever would teach and debate. Galileo got to join in with the debates and was always right but was a bit of a tool about it. Ie. He'd pose logic against there's that they couldn't refute, then just tease them for fun as well. He struck a chord with a bishop who then had it in for him, and some ******** priest helped out because he liked causing conflict.

Galileo was religious himself and friends with a few higher-ups in the Catholic Church. There was a quote I liked as well along the lines of 'not only did the church give philosophers/scientists space to work, but encourages it.'

This all would've been easier with the book on me But whether this is right, or he got a slap on the wrist because of how supposes heresy - because of the contention it's probably not a solid enough example.

 

[El Nino]

I've heard a hundred different stories about Galileo, so I don't know what to believe anymore.

Setting aside the specifics of that case, do you deny that the Catholic Church of the time supported the geocentric model of the universe in which the Earth was at the center, and that it banned a book by Copernicus, who proposed the heliocentric model of the universe?

Galileo was religious himself and friends with a few higher-ups in the Catholic Church. There was a quote I liked as well along the lines of 'not only did the church give philosophers/scientists space to work, but encourages it.'

Considering that this took place during the Roman Inquisition, I'm not sure how much "space" philosophers and scientists were allowed. Bruno was executed for heresy, and if I'm not mistaken, so was Domenico Scandella, who had the idea that God was born from chaos.

 

[Dre89]

I don't have an answer, because I don't know what the Church supported.

 

[Faithkeeper]

Yes, but atheism does not reject the universe.

This appears to be the last unaddressed post before the Catholic Church tangent. I might be missing something but I'm unsure as to how that really affects the core point. I guess it's all about whether Dre has proof the Bible shouldn't be interpreted literally. Anyway, That's not interesting to me, but this post is, so I'll address it.

First off, this is a cool point. I know you don't know where you were going with it, heck, I don't know where I'm going with this, but the concept is interesting enough to get me to post.

My point is, if a supreme deity acts through natural processes, and if atheism addresses these processes without acknowledging the Creator's presence, what is the difference between that approach and the theist approach? Whether you acknowledge the Creator's presence or not, the universe is the same in either approach, assuming that the theism we're discussing here is compatible with science and interprets religious text figuratively.

If we are speaking scientifically, I grant you this. And if we limit ourselves merely to a scientific perspective, then this is really the whole story. But let's not. I'll say more after included the rest of what you said.

Theists may say that there's a guy pulling the strings, while atheists may say that the strings pull themselves. But I see that as a difference in interpretation only.

When you physically pull a string, I may interpret you as an extension of the string, in which case I could say that the string pulls itself. The muscles in your arms and your neurochemical processes that allow you to commit the act, including the processes that allow you to hold conscious thought, are not necessarily separated from universal chaos unless I interpret them to be.

I wish to address only the initial part, because I believe that contains your assertion and that the rest is merely clarification. If I am wrong, correct me.

Again, scientifically, I agree with you. But I think there is more to the story if we consider the theist's view. This deity/deities/whatever can be appealed to. I believe prayer would be the most direct form. If I pray to my deity, and he might "pull some strings" for me. Scientifically, there's no difference, but to the theist, this was "God's hand" altering the course of events for the sake of his/her servant. Ultimately, this approach differs because it places "faith" in something beyond science and everything we can prove is real. This viewpoint acknowledges the validity of science while simultaneously believing that there is something more and that that something can influence our reality. (With or without breaking the laws of science. I find most theists I know, including those who place high value in science believe in supernatural "miracles." Events that would be largely impossible without divine intervention.)

So in a nutshell, it is different for the theist, but to the atheist they are the same. This is because the theist takes non-scientific elements into consideration for their viewpoint. I hope I've made this clear.

So... no, this doesn't actually take the discussion forward any, I think this topic was concluded in the first page, but I find theology interesting.

oh and:

Umm... theism prescribes the natural processes of the universe as created and maintained by an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, eternal, divinely simple and self-necessary otherwise than being.

... This may be true of your theistic theology and/or the theistic theology which you feel the majority of the population you address has; however, I can assure you, there are theists (I myself among them) who would not agree with all of these attributes. I would adjust the reply to this:

theism prescribes the processes of the universe as created and influenced by a supernatural being.

Atheism rejects the belief of the existence of such a deity/deities.

 

[Dre89]

Jaswa is reffering to what is commonly perceived to be the most philosophically/logically strong notion of God, one which stems entirely from reason and not from faith. Of course, there are ther non-theological God theories such as pantheism etc., but they're not as prominent.

 

[Faithkeeper]

Jaswa is reffering to what is commonly perceived notion of God. Of course, there are ther non-theological God theories such as pantheism etc., but they're not as prominent.

This, I would agree with.

Jaswa is reffering to what is commonly perceived to be the most philosophically/logically strong notion of God, one which stems entirely from reason and not from faith.

Heck, I might even agree with that, but I do not agree with this assessment of God as the one which is the most rationally strong... I think we might have a God topic we can finally debate on. ( I would encourage nontheists to join in.) With Jaswa's permission, I will quote him and make a new thread on that topic where I will make my case. However I can only debate if we refer to this deity as the Christian God as described, say, from the canonical text of the Bible? Unless you want me to pull out some devils advocate.

 

[Dre89]

Jaswa will be cool with it, you don't need to ask him trust me. Even if he did have an issue, he's Protestant so his feelings don't matter.

I'm confused, which notion of God are you arguing for? Regardless, just make the thread and argue your case. If no one else objects to it, I'll play devil's advocate whatever your argument is.

 

[Namaste]

I'm not sure what scientific models the Church used to support, but we have historical evidence that it wasn't taken literally.

I'm going to say, from everything I know about history, that while some thinkers and intellectuals throughout history might of not taken the stories literal, the vast majority of them, laypersons or not, definitely did.