Science And The Bible

[David Henson]

The clash between science and religion began in the sixth century B.C.E. with the Greek mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras, whose geocentric view of the universe influenced ancient Greeks like Aristotle and Ptolemy. Aristotle's geocentric concept endured for 2,000 years, primarily as a philosophy, even as late as the 16th century when Jean Bodin insisted upon it.

It was adopted by the church due to the scientist Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) who had great respect for Aristotle. In the book Galileo's Mistake, Wade Rowland wrote: "the hybridized Aristotle in the theology of Aquinas had become bedrock dogma of the Church of Rome."

Galileo's heliocentric concept flew in the face of Aquinas' geocentric philosophy, and Galileo had the nerve to suggest that his heliocentric concept was in harmony with Scripture and thus the Inquisition in 1633. It was Galileo's figurative, and might I add, accurate, interpretation of Scripture against Aquinas' and the Catholic Church's literal and inaccurate interpretation. For being right Galileo stood condemned until 1992 when the Catholic Church officially admitted to their error in their judgment of Galileo.

So the static between religion and science was caused by science, philosophy and religion wrongly opposed to science and the Bible.

[Tiberius]

Galileo didn't interpret scripture to come up with the heliocentric view, he simply followed the evidence. He then argued against a literal reading of scripture, since the scripture was literally wrong.

The separation between science and religion / philosophy is caused by far more than one event. It is caused by the numerous scientific ideas that the Bible seemingly rejects, such as Evolution, the Big Bang, etc. Are you saying all the Biblical stories relating to creation are also wrongly interpreted?

[David Henson]

Galileo didn't interpret scripture to come up with the heliocentric view, he simply followed the evidence. He then argued against a literal reading of scripture, since the scripture was literally wrong.

What I said was that Galileo supported his heliocentric concept with a more accurate interpretation of scripture. He wrote to a pupil: “Even though Scripture cannot err, its interpreters and expositors can, in various ways. One of these, very serious and very frequent, would be when they always want to stop at the purely literal sense." The scripture was not literally wrong it was taken literally wrong.

The separation between science and religion / philosophy is caused by far more than one event. It is caused by the numerous scientific ideas that the Bible seemingly rejects, such as Evolution, the Big Bang, etc. Are you saying all the Biblical stories relating to creation are also wrongly interpreted?

The OP stated the beginning of the clash between science and the Bible. That the Bible and science don't always agree should hardly be surprising, science doesn't always agree with science or wouldn't be science. I think that when science becomes dogmatic the importance of the disagreement is naturally more intense. I wouldn't be at all surprised if most Biblical understanding, related to creation or otherwise, is more often than not wrongly interpreted.

[lukec]

David- you're right, scientists often challenge accepted theories with new experiments and ideas. That is what science IS. It is self-correcting, self-improving. The bible, on the other hand, does not change- only our interpretations of it. These "revisions" have to be done to keep up with the world. Of late, interpretations seem to be getting less and less literal and more... metaphorical. This is because in the realm of natural laws etc the bible is almost always wrong, in a very literal sense. That applies to history, as well. It doesn't matter how you interpret, for example, the great flood story- if that is meant to be an historical event, then the bible is wrong in that case.

[David Henson]

David- you're right, scientists often challenge accepted theories with new experiments and ideas. That is what science IS. It is self-correcting, self-improving.

That was my point.

The bible, on the other hand, does not change- only our interpretations of it. These "revisions" have to be done to keep up with the world. Of late, interpretations seem to be getting less and less literal and more... metaphorical. This is because in the realm of natural laws etc the bible is almost always wrong, in a very literal sense.

It sounds to me like you are trying to justify ignorance of the Bible through interpretation for the sake of an argument for what you call "natural laws" which is nothing more than scientific theory and more susceptible to interpretation than the Bible which itself doesn't change.

I think that is typical but you have done it in a most interesting fashion, if that is indeed what you have done. The term "historical inevitability" comes to mind, which is all the more intriguing due to what you say next . . .

That applies to history, as well. It doesn't matter how you interpret, for example, the great flood story- if that is meant to be an historical event, then the bible is wrong in that case.

If we are discussing the relevance of interpretation we seem to agree that the Bible, history, and science are subject to it. I think, though, that we would have to agree that religion, as a general rule, is far less tolerant of interpretation. Having said that, historically speaking there isn't one continent on Earth where the legend of a global deluge doesn't exist in one form or another. What you are really saying, and correct me if I am wrong, is that there doesn't seem to be any scientific evidence of a worldwide flood so a literal interpretation of such a global deluge must be modified due to an intolerance of that scientific lack of evidence.

If that is what you are saying I disagree with it.

[lukec]

Correct. I am exactly saying that there is no scientific evidence for a global flood. None. Disagree with it all you like. However, I am not trying to justify ignorance of the bible at all- I'm in the process of reading it, actually. I think it's important to know my subject matter. What is more important to me is the balancing of evidences- the bible does not weigh heavy on the scale, for me, in comparison to many scientifically verifiable findings.

Also- when I say natural laws I mean things like the earth revolving around the sun, mathematical truths like the Pi ratio, and even the idea that all the animals on earth were within walking distance of Noah's house. All of which the bible is wrong about, interpretation not necessary, it's plainly stated.

[David Henson]

Also- when I say natural laws I mean things like the earth revolving around the sun, mathematical truths like the Pi ratio, and even the idea that all the animals on earth were within walking distance of Noah's house. All of which the bible is wrong about, interpretation not necessary, it's plainly stated.

These are natural laws which the Bible has been wrong about?! I'm going to have to call you out on those and either your interpretation needs amendment or those "natural laws" are going to disappear in a puff of [il]logic.

How was the Bible wrong about the earth revolving around the sun, the Pi ratio, and the animals on earth being within walking distance of Noah's house? If it is plainly stated it should be easy, right?

[Darwinian]

Are you saying that the Bible is completely accurate about all its statements?

[Minimalist]

than the Bible which itself doesn't change.

Can't really argue with that point. Your bible was bullshit when it was written by primitive goatherders and it is still bullshit now.

Why don't you take it up with your talking snake or something?

[David Henson]

Are you saying that the Bible is completely accurate about all its statements?

You mean, inerrant? No. In agreement with most of science, though not a science book? Yes. Vastly misunderstood by believers and unbelievers? Yes.

When the Bible uses terms like four corners of the earth it is misunderstood by most critics to have said the earth is flat. When it says the sun is rising theologians have misinterpreted it to mean the sun revolves around the earth. Things like that.