A Concern for Applying the Bible to the Natural Sciences

[Jayne]

13 minutes ago, Diamond said:

You are entitled to your opinion. My father was a medical doctor. Half the people would NOT be alive today if they had not been vaccinated as children. I know modern medicine is a lot different today from what it was. One of my doctors just retired because he can not practice medicine they way this new generation does it.  

My brother has done medical missionary work. If you go to a third world nation that does not vaccinate there is a much higher death toll. Look at the chart to see the improvements they are making. 

https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/life-expectancy/

Brother, I am going to have to take my leave of you here.

You are NOW talking about the medical field and vaccinations.

You WERE speaking of understanding what the Bible says via the scientific method.

That's what I was answering.  The Bible is either believed or not believed.  The scientific method cannot teach the Bible.

[Diamond]

29 minutes ago, Jayne said:

The scientific method cannot teach the Bible.

Archeology offers one of the best evidence for the Bible that science has to offer. There is a LOT of scientific evidence for the Bible. There is ZERO science to show that the Bible is NOT 100% accurate and true. 

[Michael37]

On 8/13/2024 at 10:01 AM, Diamond said:

Archeology offers one of the best evidence for the Bible that science has to offer. There is a LOT of scientific evidence for the Bible. There is ZERO science to show that the Bible is NOT 100% accurate and true. 

I like the analogy of the fishing net. 

You have a fishing net which catches a bunch of fish, which you measure and conclude there are no fish smaller than the smallest one in your catch living in that part of the ocean.

What scientific method captures is not all there is to capture.

[Diamond]

11 hours ago, Michael37 said:

What scientific method captures is not all there is to capture.

Something is better than nothing. People have enough of a problem with what we do know. So what good would it do to add more to it when they do not study and learn what is already known?

[Michael37]

55 minutes ago, Diamond said:

Something is better than nothing. People have enough of a problem with what we do know. So what good would it do to add more to it when they do not study and learn what is already known?

The Bible is not primarily concerned with scientific proof, but with trust in God Himself. 

Noah was not relying on scientific proof when he built the ark, but trusted God and did as He directed.

[RV_Wizard]

7 minutes ago, Michael37 said:

The Bible is not primarily concerned with scientific proof, but with trust in God Himself. 

Much of what the Bible records is contradicted by the physical laws of the universe, which is the boundary of science.  That's why they are miracles.  Science can neither prove nor disprove miracles, only to confirm they cannot happen naturally.  For example, Jonah spent three days in the belly of a "great fish."  Jonah said that his spirit went to Shoel, the place of the dead, and that God restored him from there.  Science cannot account for this, but it happened. 

Science tells us that without medical assistance the dead cannot come back to life, and and then you have only four minutes to prevent tissue damage.  The Bible recounts 10 separate times when the dead were restored, and there wasn't a single defibrillator or a shot of adrenaline used.  While evidence of Bible miracles may be found, like chariot wheels in the Red Sea, the process of how they happened can never be discovered through science.

[Diamond]

10 hours ago, Michael37 said:

The Bible is not primarily concerned with scientific proof

The Bible is Truth. Science is based on Facts. The Bible is more subjective and science is objective. 

[Tristen]

On 8/12/2024 at 10:45 AM, Diamond said:

Science has a method and if you want to apply Science then you have to use Science to interpret or understand the Bible. This is different from Biblical hermeneutics.

"Biblical hermeneutics" defines logically sound methods of Biblical interpretation.

Scientism is the religious belief that "science" is the supreme authority by which all other standards must be interpreted (including the Bible).

The Christian belief holds that the Bible is the highest authoritative source governing reality - not "science". In fact, "science" could not exist without the premise of a rational creation that acts in accordance with certain fundamental, created, natural laws - i.e. a premise provided by the Biblical paradigm.

The Scientific Method is a logically robust approach to investigating the current state of the natural universe. It is therefore not possible to use the Scientific Method to study historical claims (nor supernatural claims) - as these fall logically outside of the purview of the Scientific Method.

To study the past, one must adopt a modelling approach - which is a logical departure from the Scientific Method. That is, attempting to build a picture/story/model of what might (repeat might) have happened in the past based on currently available facts (e.g. archaeology, forensics, geophysics, cosmology etc. commonly apply this modelling method). The modelling approach is largely anecdotal (in that the most it can ever tell us is what might be true about the past) - and is therefore far less robust than the Scientific Method.

Historical modelling is usually also regarded as "science". However, we should be careful not to conflate the two investigation approaches - i.e. giving the false impression that modelling "science" is equally robust to the Scientific Method.

 

 

[Tristen]

On 8/15/2024 at 6:57 AM, Diamond said:

On 8/14/2024 at 8:33 PM, Michael37 said:

The Bible is not primarily concerned with scientific proof

The Bible is Truth. Science is based on Facts. The Bible is more subjective and science is objective. 

There is no such thing as "scientific proof". "Proof" is an absolutist mathematical term that is commonly misused in a scientific context to exaggerate confidence beyond what is scientifically possible.

There are both "objective" and "subjective" elements in "science". The facts are "objective" - however interpretations, presuppositions, hypotheses, theories, conclusions etc. are "subjective".

Any time you insert a human into the process, you insert "subjective" elements (including the potential biases of the human).

For a Christian, the Bible is God's Word - and therefore the highest authority.

 

[Diamond]

On 8/14/2024 at 6:33 AM, Michael37 said:

The Bible is not primarily concerned with scientific proof, but with trust in God Himself. 

God gives us the Bible and Science. I would not be alive to have this conversation if it were not for science. 

As for Noah's ark, he had to follow all the the laws of Science to float his boat. God restores but He does not violate the laws of Science. 

There is no conflict and there is no contradiction between Science and the Bible. Science gives us overwhelming evidence that the Bible is perfectly accurate and true.