Do you think the Bible takes precedence over evidence? - Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

WP Members: > 70,000

New Today: 9
New Yesterday: 28

Do you think the Bible takes precedence over evidence?

Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Wrong Planet Autism Forum Index -> Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Do you agree with the statement that "The authority of the Bible should never be compromised by mankind’s ‘scientific’ proposals." (Full quote below)

I am a YEC and believe there is only one interpretation of the Bible, and it has precedence over any evidence or scientific theory.

[ 1 ]

I am a YEC and believe there can be different interpretations on the Bible, but because there can be only one truth, scientific theories may sometimes help identify that truth.

[ 1 ]

I am a YEC and believe that science and religion deal with different questions and are not in conflict

[ 1 ]

I am a YEC and believe something not listed in the poll.

[ 2 ]

I am a Christian but not YEC and believe there is only one interpretation of the Bible, and it has precedence over any evidence or scientific theory.

[ 2 ]

I am a Christian but not YEC and believe there can be different interpretations on the Bible, but because there can be only one truth, scientific theories may sometimes help identify that truth.

[ 6 ]

I am a Christian but not YEC and believe that science and religion deal with different questions and are not in conflict

10%

[ 7 ]

I am a Christian but not YEC and believe something not listed in the poll.

[ 1 ]

I am neither Christian nor YEC but feel the urge to click on something

69%

[ 47 ]

Total Votes : 68

Gromit
Phoenix
Phoenix

Joined: May 20, 2006
Posts: 1052
Location: In Cognito

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 6:06 pm Post subject:

DentArthurDent wrote:

I would have thought my quote from Kurt Wise goes some way to explaining this attitude

You're right. Sorry.

Orwell wrote:

No one is willing to admit that they believe things that are directly contradicted by observable reality, no. What answer can you expect?

Between the quote from Kurt Wise that DentArthurDent found and the quote in that book from the site iamnotaparakeet keeps quoting, I am wondering how widespread the attitude is. I think I saw the same sentiment expressed in at least one more article on that site. The authors appear to be proud to say this is their attitude to evidence. Is it perhaps an essential part of young Earth creationism? Are there YECs whose attitude to evidence is not determined by biblical literalism, or more broadly scriptural literalism, if we want to include Muslim and Jewish YECs? It is logically possible, but does it happen?

Orwell wrote:

I have heard YECs say that if any evidence is contrary to Scripture (in reality meaning their projections onto Scripture), that evidence is wrong.

That is the reason for separate poll options for those who believe only one interpretation is possible (and of course it's their interpretation) and those who think the intended meaning can be ambiguous. I wonder whether there are YECs who think there is some ambiguity.

psychohist
Phoenix
Phoenix

Joined: Feb 24, 2010
Age: 53
Posts: 1623
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 11:42 pm Post subject:

Gromit wrote:

I wonder whether there are YECs who think there is some ambiguity.

Evidently yes, since the only young earth Christian vote so far is for the choice with that ambiguity.

I think it's notable that the majority of Christians don't think science and religion are in conflict; creationism really seems to be a minority view among the religious.

pandabear
Fleeting Body
Phoenix

Joined: Aug 17, 2007
Age: 54
Posts: 9629

Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:52 am Post subject:

DeaconBlues wrote:

Okay, for those who believe the Christian Bible is inerrant and correct in all respects: How do you reconcile the two differing timelines for Creation given in Genesis ch 1 and Genesis ch 2?

The four Gospels give three different "last lines" for Jesus on the cross, at least one of which (in John) is totally incompatible with any interpretation of the other three (all of which involved shouting). How can they all be "correct" and "inerrant", while still factual?

If faith (unlike that unreliable old science) always gives the same answers and never changes, how can the loving, forgiving God described in Job and the Gospels be reconciled with the punitive, angry SOB who sent two bears to tear forty children to bloody gobbets for the mortal sin of making fun of a prophet's baldness in 2 Kings?

I think that the standard counter-argument is that God allowed Satan to insert seemingly self-contradictory passages into the Bible in order to test our faith.

We're meant to believe everything in the Bible as being inerrant, and we're not meant to examine the material overly-closely--especially the stuff that appears to contradict the other stuff. If we start asking questions about seeming Biblical contradictions, that is just Satan catching us in his snare for the purpose of dragging us down to Hell.

We are, however, supposed to be on the lookout for discrepancies between science and scripture, and to be ready with a handy Bible verse to disprove any and all scientific theories.

ruveyn
Phoenix
Phoenix

Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29311
Location: New Jersey

Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 5:20 pm Post subject:

pandabear wrote:

I think that the standard counter-argument is that God allowed Satan to insert seemingly self-contradictory passages into the Bible in order to test our faith.

Anyone who would entertain an ad hoc piece of bullsh*t like that is incapable of judging the truth of anything.

ruveyn

pandabear
Fleeting Body
Phoenix

Joined: Aug 17, 2007
Age: 54
Posts: 9629

Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:23 pm Post subject:

I assume that you are familiar with the two versions of the story of King David's Census?

2 Samuel 24 begins:

Quote:

Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go and take a census of Israel and Judah."
So the king said to Joab and the army commanders [a] with him, "Go throughout the tribes of Israel from Dan to Beersheba and enroll the fighting men, so that I may know how many there are."

...and 1 Chronicles 21 begins:

Quote:

Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel. So David said to Joab and the commanders of the troops, "Go and count the Israelites from Beersheba to Dan. Then report back to me so that I may know how many there are."

According to Chronicles, is was Satan, and not the Lord, who incited David to take the Census. While the authors disagreed on who exactly was behind it, both agreed that it was an ill-intentioned supernatural being that caused David to take the Census.

According to 2 Samuel, the final tally was 1,300,000 men capable of military service (800,000 in Israel and 500,000 in Judah).

According to Chronicles, on the other hand, the final tally was 1,100,000 (of which 470,000 were in Judah)

If you read further, you'll find that the Lord was displeased with this Census, and, as a result, 70,000 Israelites perished in a 3-day epidemic.

Now, how does one account for the differences in the two accounts?

One might opt for the position of the Chronicler, and attribute these apparent differences to the influence of Satan in what should have been (or was) inerrent text.

ruveyn
Phoenix
Phoenix

Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29311
Location: New Jersey

Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:58 pm Post subject:

pandabear wrote:

Now, how does one account for the differences in the two accounts?

.

Both are folk tales and at least one must be false.

ruveyn

pandabear
Fleeting Body
Phoenix

Joined: Aug 17, 2007
Age: 54
Posts: 9629

Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 9:00 pm Post subject:

Which version of events is more likely to be true?

JetLag
California Condor
Phoenix

Joined: Aug 08, 2008
Age: 63
Posts: 5044
Location: California

Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:01 pm Post subject:

"Do you think the Bible takes precedence over evidence?" I believe that the Bible is grounded not only in "evidence" but also in facts - both scientific and historical; and so I personally don't think that the Bible necessarily takes precedence over evidence nor that evidence necessarily takes precedence over the Bible. I do believe, though, that the Bible takes precedence over evolution, since the evolution of species is not a scientific fact but just one hypothesis on top of another. The founding fathers of modern science, Newton, Kepler, Boyle, Faraday, et al., worked within a creation framework as outlined in the Bible, not within an evolutionary framework. They were able to invent modern science because they believed that God is the source of truth, that He is a rational Being, and that His world is a rational world. And it was their worldview - based on the Bible - that brought about the discovery of scientific laws. "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being." - Sir Isaac Newton _________________ Stung by the splendor of a sudden thought. ~ Robert Browning

pandabear
Fleeting Body
Phoenix

Joined: Aug 17, 2007
Age: 54
Posts: 9629

Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:23 pm Post subject:

And how do you account for inconsistencies within the Bible?

CaptainTrips222
Phoenix
Phoenix

Joined: Mar 31, 2009
Age: 31
Posts: 3019

Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:00 pm Post subject:

zer0netgain wrote:

I don't know if I should call myself a YEC or not. I'm never quick to trust what science says because too often it makes a proclamation then has to do a 180 when it later learns it's not correct.

As opposed to religion?

Orwell
Outer Party Member
Phoenix

Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 23
Posts: 13715
Location: Room 101

Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:11 pm Post subject:

JetLag wrote:

I do believe, though, that the Bible takes precedence over evolution, since the evolution of species is not a scientific fact but just one hypothesis on top of another.

Evolution is one of the best-supported scientific theories of all time. There is less doubt among experts about evolution than there is about gravity.

Quote:

The founding fathers of modern science, Newton, Kepler, Boyle, Faraday, et al., worked within a creation framework as outlined in the Bible, not within an evolutionary framework. They were able to invent modern science because they believed that God is the source of truth, that He is a rational Being, and that His world is a rational world. And it was their worldview - based on the Bible - that brought about the discovery of scientific laws.

"The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being." - Sir Isaac Newton

Newton was a heretic- try reading some of his religious writings sometime. As for the rest, it's really not an impressive argument. I can name brilliant scientists and mathematicians who were geocentrists, but it doesn't make geocentrism any more true.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

DemonAbyss10
The Drill That Pierces The Heavens
Phoenix

Joined: Aug 24, 2007
Age: 24
Posts: 2508
Location: The Poconos, Pennsylvania

Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:41 am Post subject:

random quantnum-philosophical statement I think.... my mind is weird because of lack of sleep.... ~Existence to oneself is created when one is first able to observe it through one of the senses. The whole soul thing? It could just be a quantum-level affect we have upon the fabric of existence. All I know for certain is, if there is a god/gods, it/they enjoy playing craps and/or other dice based games. on a more realistic note however, based on my own gathering of info, the universe is much, much older than the 6000 or so years the YEC believe. In fact, the YEC must believe in the whole Mayan apocalypse nonsense, since their "age of the earth" fits neatly into the long count calendar, or it at least appears to. _________________ Myers Brigg - ISTP Socionics - ISTx Enneagram - 6w5 Yes, I do have a DeviantArt, it is at.... http://demonabyss10.deviantart.com/

Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Phoenix

Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 14174
Location: Omnipresent

Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:52 am Post subject:

DemonAbyss10 wrote:

~Existence to oneself is created when one is first able to observe it through one of the senses. The whole soul thing? It could just be a quantum-level affect we have upon the fabric of existence. All I know for certain is, if there is a god/gods, it/they enjoy playing craps and/or other dice based games.

Well, what is the evidence for the soul? To posit a quantum-level effect, then I would think that physical evidence is required first.

Quote:

on a more realistic note however, based on my own gathering of info, the universe is much, much older than the 6000 or so years the YEC believe. In fact, the YEC must believe in the whole Mayan apocalypse nonsense, since their "age of the earth" fits neatly into the long count calendar, or it at least appears to.

Hmmm... I don't think that fundamentalist Christian conservatives are ultimately driven by Mayan beliefs. I could be wrong, but I really really don't think so.
_________________
Plus Alpha-Atheistic anti-theist
Member of the WP Strident Atheists
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt128417.html

DemonAbyss10
The Drill That Pierces The Heavens
Phoenix

Joined: Aug 24, 2007
Age: 24
Posts: 2508
Location: The Poconos, Pennsylvania

Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:59 am Post subject:

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

DemonAbyss10 wrote:

Well, what is the evidence for the soul? To posit a quantum-level effect, then I would think that physical evidence is required first.

Quote:

Hmmm... I don't think that fundamentalist Christian conservatives are ultimately driven by Mayan beliefs. I could be wrong, but I really really don't think so.

As I said, lack of sleep, and somewhat delirious because of it, so Excuse the nonsensical, whimsical thoughts that tend to plague this state of mind.
_________________
Myers Brigg - ISTP
Socionics - ISTx
Enneagram - 6w5

Yes, I do have a DeviantArt, it is at.... http://demonabyss10.deviantart.com/