Why science will not (and cannot) replace faith

[The Barbarian]

1 minute ago, farouk said:

1 Timothy 6.20 refers to "oppositions of science falsely so called"....

It doesn't refer to science as we know it.    That objection is on AIG's list of "arguments we think creationists should not use."

[farouk]

1 minute ago, The Barbarian said:

It doesn't refer to science as we know it.    That objection is on AIG's list of "arguments we think creationists should not use."

Science as in presumed knowledge.

It's interesting that in the 17th century the Royal Society from which much scientific advance came actually used Protestant theological works as examples of clear and precise wording.

[nebula]

As a science major, I learned that the whole concept and function of science has been corrupted in out perspectives. Science is a tool, not a philosophy; yet we treat it as a philosophy.

Science relies on questions and challenges to grow, yet humans like to protect their beliefs of how things are that we stifle such. Here's an example: over two decades ago, we believed that ulcers were caused by stress. But one man came to suspect that ulcers were actually caused by a bacteria. So, he went through the process of applying for grants so as to conduct a scientific investigation and experimentation of this theory. However, "the science was settled" in everyone's minds about ulcers, and so his requests for grants were denied. As a result, he made the extreme decision to experiment on himself (!). Long story short, he succeeded in convincing the scientific community that his theory was correct, but he had given himself some horrible ulcerations in the process.

So how this relates to the topic, a part of the science vs religion fight is a result of atheists and the like turning science into a philosophical tool to destroy religion.

A famous atheist, Dawkins, I think it was, debated the existence of God with  - believe it or not - Al Sharpton(!). It was quite amusing. Dawkins kept going on and on about how God doesn't exist because a loving God wouldn't operate such-n-such a way or allow such-n-such to happen and all that jazz. Each time, Sharpton would reply, OK, you challenged what Christians believe about God, but nothing you said gives any proof that a higher power spiritual being doesn't exist. The whole debate went that way!

[farouk]

4 minutes ago, nebula said:

As a science major, I learned that the whole concept and function of science has been corrupted in out perspectives. Science is a tool, not a philosophy; yet we treat it as a philosophy.

Science relies on questions and challenges to grow, yet humans like to protect their beliefs of how things are that we stifle such. Here's an example: over two decades ago, we believed that ulcers were caused by stress. But one man came to suspect that ulcers were actually caused by a bacteria. So, he went through the process of applying for grants so as to conduct a scientific investigation and experimentation of this theory. However, "the science was settled" in everyone's minds about ulcers, and so his requests for grants were denied. As a result, he made the extreme decision to experiment on himself (!). Long story short, he succeeded in convincing the scientific community that his theory was correct, but he had given himself some horrible ulcerations in the process.

So how this relates to the topic, a part of the science vs religion fight is a result of atheists and the like turning science into a philosophical tool to destroy religion.

A famous atheist, Dawkins, I think it was, debated the existence of God with  - believe it or not - Al Sharpton(!). It was quite amusing. Dawkins kept going on and on about how God doesn't exist because a loving God wouldn't operate such-n-such a way or allow such-n-such to happen and all that jazz. Each time, Sharpton would reply, OK, you challenged what Christians believe about God, but nothing you said gives any proof that a higher power spiritual being doesn't exist. The whole debate went that way!

@nebula Are you into apologetics?

I guess I'm not so much; I do think Hebrews 1.3 is very relevant: "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

[nebula]

2 minutes ago, farouk said:

@nebula Are you into apologetics?

A little.

 

Quote

I guess I'm not so much; I do think Hebrews 1.3 is very relevant: "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

OK, but that's another angle that I hadn't dug into.

Science is about understanding the natural world. The Bible is about understanding God and God's relationship with man. Turning Genesis 1-3 into a scientific study screws up the purpose the text was written.

[farouk]

5 minutes ago, nebula said:

A little.

 

OK, but that's another angle that I hadn't dug into.

Science is about understanding the natural world. The Bible is about understanding God and God's relationship with man. Turning Genesis 1-3 into a scientific study screws up the purpose the text was written.

I don't think we can dispense with an objective Creator.

Hebrews 1.3 speaks of the Lord Jesus as "upholding all things by the word of his power"; having affirmed in v. 2: "by Whom also He hath made the worlds".

[nebula]

3 hours ago, farouk said:

I don't think we can dispense with an objective Creator.

Hebrews 1.3 speaks of the Lord Jesus as "upholding all things by the word of his power"; having affirmed in v. 2: "by Whom also He hath made the worlds".

I'm not disputing this.

What I'm disputing is reading Gen. 1-3 to understand the earth rather than to understand God and His relationship with man.

[farouk]

12 minutes ago, nebula said:

I'm not disputing this.

What I'm disputing is reading Gen. 1-3 to understand the earth rather than to understand God and His relationship with man.

Well, I would strongly identify with inerrancy.

[The Barbarian]

10 hours ago, nebula said:

As a science major, I learned that the whole concept and function of science has been corrupted in out perspectives. Science is a tool, not a philosophy; yet we treat it as a philosophy.

Today's winner.

10 hours ago, nebula said:

A famous atheist, Dawkins, I think it was, debated the existence of God with  - believe it or not - Al Sharpton(!). It was quite amusing. Dawkins kept going on and on about how God doesn't exist because a loving God wouldn't operate such-n-such a way or allow such-n-such to happen and all that jazz. Each time, Sharpton would reply, OK, you challenged what Christians believe about God, but nothing you said gives any proof that a higher power spiritual being doesn't exist. The whole debate went that way!

Ultimately, Dawkins has admitted that God might very well exist, but isn't a very nice person.   He continues to be gobsmacked by the Problem of Evil.

 

[The Barbarian]

6 hours ago, nebula said:

I'm not disputing this.

What I'm disputing is reading Gen. 1-3 to understand the earth rather than to understand God and His relationship with man.

Yes.   Scripture is about God and man and our relationship.    Trying to make something else of it is a serious error.