Author Michael35 Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 Michael, can you lay out the way you would like to see science taught in public schools? You've mentioned "the real role of reason and science in the world...is to serve the gospel". Do you have a plan to reconcile that role of supporting and favoring the Christian gospel with the US Constitution, or would we need to amend the Constitution? Would the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution need to be amended to make the gospel primary? Or would we just incorporate the totality of the Old and New Testaments into our Constitution? (That would give judges and legislators a lot more fundamental law to interpret when deciding cases or formulating laws and regulations.) I'm looking to hear the practicalities. Thanks! I am only for telling the students that science does not produce facts, it produces theories that are useful to produce experiences with an acceptable level of accuracy. It would also be beneficial to tell the students that how Christianity views science, and what its role is, where it is valid or not. I would be happy if they also explain the position of other faiths and beliefs on the matter, say Islam or Buddhism. This doesn't require any amendment to the Constitution. Link to post Share on other sites
Radu Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Here we go again. Please define for me exactly what the scientific method is, what its criteria for application are, as well as its limitations. (Hint: the scientific method is not synonymous with science.) Anything that does not require a massive leap of faith with no real [tangible and accountable] proof. OP, what makes you believe that Christianity is the right religion anyway ? Link to post Share on other sites
Radu Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Also OP, if you are going to even attempt to change the ppl's views on this, a good idea might be to not use philosophical language that is known only to a select few, but something that is logical, coherent and uses common language that is understood by most. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
TheFinalWord Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) Scientific theories do not undermine our beliefs, some of them are used incorrectly by atheists an an attempt to undermine our beliefs. Sure, I can buy that. The word faith in the new testament is the Greek word pistis. It means to be persuaded. In context, faith is persuasion given from God. Strong's Greek Concordance:Faith (4102/pistis) is always a gift from God, and never something that can be produced by people. In short, 4102/pistis ("faith") for the believer is "God's divine persuasion" – and therefore distinct from human belief (confidence), yet involving it. The Lord continuously births faith in the yielded believer so they can know what He prefers, i.e. the persuasion of His will (1 Jn 5:4). If persuasion to accept Christ is given by God, no man-made argument can denigrate it. That's why questions such as evolution, multi-verse, etc. do not impact my faith in Christ. To me, science can help us to solve problems and understand the mechanisms of the creation. But science cannot give us faith and similarly cannot take it away. In Romans 1, Paul describes a concept we call general revelation. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. In essence he states the creation itself testifies that God exists. IMHO, the most we could hope for from science is general revelation. You might get closer to special revelation with philosophical arguments, e.g. the cosmological argument as you could argue for a personal creator. We can get into general revelation, special revelation, and natural theology if you wish. I do not think science could provide special revelation (unless you want to consider textual criticism an application of the scientific method to analyzing text of the bible). Edited January 7, 2015 by TheFinalWord Link to post Share on other sites
Robert Z Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Yes that's all I'm complaining about - people who don't understand the epistemology of science seem to have a monopoly on how it's conducted in schools and universities to our children. The belief that the world is made of cheese does not result in a self-authenticating experience with the holy spirit, so no, your belief is not a properly basic belief and science and reason can indeed take a majestically approach on that, refuting the claim. You can only take a ministerial approach on a properly basic belief. That is not reasonable. Why do you wish to impose your faith on other people's children at the tax payers expense. That's why we have private schools. And why do you think your faith has some special place. Why is not every other faith deserving of being taught alongside yours? What about Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and all of the other religions represented. And whose version of Christianity is to be taught, Catholic, Protestant, Lutheran... born again, bible belt fundamentalism...? I am not making any claims, apart from the properly basic self-authenticating witness of the holy spirit. Scientist or I should say atheists should stop treating science as though it is giving them facts and truth, it does not. While something is not true, it should not be treated as such. In bold, that is simply not a rational statement. You are the one claiming to have divine truth, not science. I think your problem lies more in the mirror than the classroom. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
todreaminblue Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) why is there an inherent desire for so many to prove or disprove anything....i think acceptance is key....acceptance of people and what they believe to be truth...is their truth...... i think that should be taught more in schools...is acceptance and freedom of thought......that religion should be given as an elective over the age of accountability.........you cannot force a child to believe any more than you can force an adult to believe...they believe or they dont...i think and feel a curriculum that offers electives .....on science based learning and religious based learning should be offered.......scientists can also be christians.......I love science but i also love god....god is first...... I think there should be a study room at school where respect is taught......respect for all....animal and human......maybe even ethics.....doesnt matter if you teach religion to kids....if they havent been taught how to respect the teacher .for all adults for that matter.....non religious and religious alike....as having merit in learning all that is taught even to areas they dont believe in or follow or really understand....to have an open and accepting mind......is a far greater way to expand a child's intelligence ..let a child speak on what is real....rather than with big words and possibilities in musings of adults who themselves feel superior often than to another.....what do any of us really know...not much.....well i dont anyway...i love to learn though...........deb Edited January 7, 2015 by todreaminblue 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Author Michael35 Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 Anything that does not require a massive leap of faith with no real [tangible and accountable] proof. OP, what makes you believe that Christianity is the right religion anyway ? Witness of the holy spirit in my heart. Also OP, if you are going to even attempt to change the ppl's views on this, a good idea might be to not use philosophical language that is known only to a select few, but something that is logical, coherent and uses common language that is understood by most. I guess that's a valid point. The current generation is relatively uneducated on these matters. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Michael35 Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 Sure, I can buy that. The word faith in the new testament is the Greek word pistis. It means to be persuaded. In context, faith is persuasion given from God. Strong's Greek Concordance:Faith (4102/pistis) is always a gift from God, and never something that can be produced by people. In short, 4102/pistis ("faith") for the believer is "God's divine persuasion" – and therefore distinct from human belief (confidence), yet involving it. The Lord continuously births faith in the yielded believer so they can know what He prefers, i.e. the persuasion of His will (1 Jn 5:4). If persuasion to accept Christ is given by God, no man-made argument can denigrate it. That's why questions such as evolution, multi-verse, etc. do not impact my faith in Christ. To me, science can help us to solve problems and understand the mechanisms of the creation. But science cannot give us faith and similarly cannot take it away. In Romans 1, Paul describes a concept we call general revelation. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. In essence he states the creation itself testifies that God exists. IMHO, the most we could hope for from science is general revelation. You might get closer to special revelation with philosophical arguments, e.g. the cosmological argument as you could argue for a personal creator. We can get into general revelation, special revelation, and natural theology if you wish. I do not think science could provide special revelation (unless you want to consider textual criticism an application of the scientific method to analyzing text of the bible). The way we are persuaded is, first and foremost, by the witness of the holy spirit in our hearts. That gives us a self-authenticating knowledge about the truth of our beliefs, something that other means of knowledge gathering are not able to do. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Michael35 Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 That is not reasonable. Why do you wish to impose your faith on other people's children at the tax payers expense. That's why we have private schools. And why do you think your faith has some special place. Why is not every other faith deserving of being taught alongside yours? What about Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and all of the other religions represented. And whose version of Christianity is to be taught, Catholic, Protestant, Lutheran... born again, bible belt fundamentalism...? In bold, that is simply not a rational statement. You are the one claiming to have divine truth, not science. I think your problem lies more in the mirror than the classroom. I do not want that, as I said, I'm fine if the retrospectives of other faiths are also taught. The constitution says that the government cannot endorse a religion, doesn't mean they should IGNORE all religions. I do not think that Christianity should have a spacial place, nor do I accept that Atheism have a special place, which seems to be the case in the school system. We're going in the direction of Soviet Union by forcing religion out of the public arena and persecuting anyone who dares to challenge this. Link to post Share on other sites
BC1980 Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 But science does not produce truth, it only produces theories that are useful to predict some experiences, with a level of accuracy that is acceptable for the desired application. Using the bible to comment on the truth validity of some scientific theories does not undermine science, as science doesn't make a claim that the scientific theories are facts or truths. We talk about different things. So no, it doesn't work both ways. Okay, but the big problem here is that you can't quantify TRUTH in the way you are using it. Truth is often a nebulous concept, especially when it comes to religion. Facts are black and white, something wholly different. Link to post Share on other sites
central Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 undermines the authority of the word of God? I'm not sure that God even exists, and I am sure that his word hasn't been through the peer review process, so hasn't been independently validated. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
evanescentworld Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 The way we are persuaded is, first and foremost, by the witness of the holy spirit in our hearts. That gives us a self-authenticating knowledge about the truth of our beliefs, something that other means of knowledge gathering are not able to do. Problem is, it's only true for those who believe it is. You still have to agree that it's purely theory/conjecture to everyone else. So that doesn't work either. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
pureinheart Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 The current approach, where science plays as a judge to rule on the validity of Christianity, is mutually exclusive with Christianity. Science and reason are only valid in a ministerial role. Yep. Throw Islam in this mix and all of a sudden Christianity becomes valid. Not valid in the sense that it's something one should follow, but valid in the sense of Islamaphobia. Link to post Share on other sites
evanescentworld Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Yep. Throw Islam in this mix and all of a sudden Christianity becomes valid. Not valid in the sense that it's something one should follow, but valid in the sense of Islamaphobia. I have absolutely no idea what on earth you mean here..... 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Author Michael35 Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 ? I'm not sure that God even exists, and I am sure that his word hasn't been through the peer review process, so hasn't been independently validated. Again, you are using the peer-review process as a judge on God's word, that undermines the authority of the word of God. If I put you in charge of peer-reviewing the word of God, I'm saying you are the judge. But you are not the judge, God is the judge. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Michael35 Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 Problem is, it's only true for those who believe it is. You still have to agree that it's purely theory/conjecture to everyone else. So that doesn't work either. That's fine, as long as they will explain the truth, that those nonbelievers are using science and reason as a judge on God's word. Link to post Share on other sites
pureinheart Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 I have absolutely no idea what on earth you mean here..... Granted, this is an off-the-wall statement according to thread topic, although relevant nonetheless. Ironically 'Atheists' don't believe in any 'god' yet typically 'believe' in science, which I agree with M30, it is a religion. Where my statement comes in is 'bash' the Christians and their irrelevance and support Islamic tolerance. It just doesn't make sense to me at all. Link to post Share on other sites
M30USA Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) Anything that does not require a massive leap of faith with no real [tangible and accountable] proof. OP, what makes you believe that Christianity is the right religion anyway ? Incorrect. Most people should have learned about the scientific method, along with its steps and limitations, in high school. It's worth touching up on. Past events, such as creation or evolution, do not fit the requirements for the scientific method--since it lacks absolute repeatability (a criteria of scientific method which cannot be argued). I've had this debate many times on LS. You must use other forms of proof when discussing origin theory. These include court room type evidence, science conjoined with assumption, etc. The SM is best suited for fields such as medicine, pharmacology, etc. In other words, things which can be tested under current (not past) conditions, where confounding variables can all or mostly be controlled, and where assumption is either zero or minimal. Edited January 7, 2015 by M30USA 1 Link to post Share on other sites
BlueIris Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) Again, you are using the peer-review process as a judge on God's word, that undermines the authority of the word of God. If I put you in charge of peer-reviewing the word of God, I'm saying you are the judge. But you are not the judge, God is the judge. This doesn't make sense to me. The problem, in my view, is that it all comes by and through people- scientific analysis or proclamations of what God said. A completely level playing field. People are judging and concluding. You judge by saying that God is the judge just as much as a skeptic judges by saying he isn't. It's all judgment by a person. Edited January 7, 2015 by BlueIris Link to post Share on other sites
Eddy Street Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Religion needs to evolve and adapt to our improved observational capacity. Religious texts were written by humans to glorify god. Saying that it was god who wrote these texts is more than just a little arrogant is tantamount to ex-deification. It's hard enough to imagine the distance from one town to another in the same country. Now try to imagine the distance from the earth to the moon, the earth to the sun, the earth to Jupiter. Even if you traveled at the fastest speed ever attained by a man-made object, it would take something like 70,000 years to get to the nearest star. JUST THE NEAREST star. It's not just us... we are nothing in the grand scheme of things. If there is a god, it transcends all OUR understanding of "intelligence". It is not even an entity, it is not even a consciousness, it is beyond that. Maybe the universe itself is god? Maybe it's even beyond that... Long story short, religion needs to adapt if it wants to survive. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
M30USA Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) Religion needs to evolve and adapt to our improved observational capacity. Religious texts were written by humans to glorify god. Saying that it was god who wrote these texts is more than just a little arrogant is tantamount to ex-deification. It's hard enough to imagine the distance from one town to another in the same country. Now try to imagine the distance from the earth to the moon, the earth to the sun, the earth to Jupiter. Even if you traveled at the fastest speed ever attained by a man-made object, it would take something like 70,000 years to get to the nearest star. JUST THE NEAREST star. It's not just us... we are nothing in the grand scheme of things. If there is a god, it transcends all OUR understanding of "intelligence". It is not even an entity, it is not even a consciousness, it is beyond that. Maybe the universe itself is god? Maybe it's even beyond that... Long story short, religion needs to adapt if it wants to survive. The Bible was written by mortal men who were filled with (ie, inspired by) the Holy Spirit, who is God. People are technically correct when they say the Bible was not written by God. However, it is the TRUE writings of people who KNEW God and saw him work. The Bible is not the primary agent of salvation--therefore it's not "the Word of God". The Word of God is only Jesus Christ. If the Bible were the Word of God, then any and all experts who study it would know who Christ is and would accept Him. Clearly this wasn't the case with the Scribes in Jesus' day who, in knowing Scripture better than anyone, couldn't recognize who Christ was. Christ said to them, "You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me..." (John 5). The Holy Spirit (God) is living. The Bible, while true, is not living. But anyone who disregards the Scriptures, even though they are not technically The Word of God, is rejecting TRUE testimony ABOUT The Word of God, which is dangerous. Hopefully everybody sees my point. So in this regard I agree with the previous poster about needing to "adapt". I say, sure, as long as it's through the Holy Spirit and consistent with the written testimony of Scripture. Edited January 7, 2015 by M30USA 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Eddy Street Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 The Bible was written by mortal men who were filled with (ie, inspired by) the Holy Spirit, who is God. People are technically correct when they say the Bible was not written by God. However, it is the TRUE writings of people who KNEW God and saw him work. The Bible is not the primary agent of salvation--therefore it's not "the Word of God". The Word of God is only Jesus Christ. If the Bible were the Word of God, then any and all experts who study it would know who Christ is and would accept Him. Clearly this wasn't the case with the Scribes in Jesus' day who, in knowing Scripture better than anyone, couldn't recognize who Christ was. Christ said to them, "You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me..." (John 5). The Holy Spirit (God) is living. The Bible, while true, is not living. But anyone who disregards the Scriptures, even though they are not technically The Word of God, is rejecting TRUE testimony ABOUT The Word of God, which is dangerous. Hopefully everybody sees my point. So in this regard I agree with the previous poster about needing to "adapt". I say, sure, as long as it's through the Holy Spirit and consistent with the written testimony of Scripture. These were men of morals, but the logic behind morals is just one way in which the "spirit of god" makes itself known to us. And morals are subjective, because even though they adhere to logic - the underlying language of the universe (and mathematics) - they nonetheless are biased, as they are the product of our human emotions, something other intelligence in the universe need not share, as other intelligence could have evolved along a less hostile path than we have. Innate good might be more common, and if you have innate good, you have no need for morals. Furthermore, something as pure as logic can only take the form of morals in our minds, and there still exist infinite possibilities which are all different, and some being the opposite, which are just as valid. In short, these men being moral doesn't prove anything. God is around, whether atheists like it or not, however the scriptures are just a human interpretation and not a direct one at that. To get an idea of what I'm trying to say, imagine trying to understand what your body looks like if all you had was your hands (no sight, nobody's reaction to base your ideas on, nothing but your hands). You'd get somewhere, but not very far. Now with the advent of technology (sight) we can get much farther, so religion needs to take that into account. Link to post Share on other sites
Eddy Street Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 To be fair, a lot of what Christians believe is not scientifically accurate, and this is because their beliefs are based on observational knowledge form ancient times. It made sense for the world to be created in 7 days, back then, because the face of the earth is constantly changing (think wind and weather which leads to erosion and things being buried) and these ancient people, seeing only the most recent layer of the earth came to a very good logical conclusion. It's also not surprising, for the same reasons, that a person who spends all their time indoors, like most religious people do, clings to this same belief system, because the man-made room in which they spend their lives is not very old. But we, collectively, know better. Actually we know a lot now about how the world actually formed. We even know that the universe (and the world we live in) was CREATED, but not by a human-like god, rather by a confluence of forces that science is currently trying to understand. Teaching that the world was created in 7 days is contrary to common sense and not a good idea. Teaching ignorance will turn us away from wanting to explore and understand the creation of the universe. It will cause knowledge that we already have to be forgotten, bringing about a dark age. Ironically, creationism can lead us away from God. Link to post Share on other sites
M30USA Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 These were men of morals, but the logic behind morals is just one way in which the "spirit of god" makes itself known to us. And morals are subjective, because even though they adhere to logic - the underlying language of the universe (and mathematics) - they nonetheless are biased, as they are the product of our human emotions, something other intelligence in the universe need not share, as other intelligence could have evolved along a less hostile path than we have. Innate good might be more common, and if you have innate good, you have no need for morals. Furthermore, something as pure as logic can only take the form of morals in our minds, and there still exist infinite possibilities which are all different, and some being the opposite, which are just as valid. In short, these men being moral doesn't prove anything. God is around, whether atheists like it or not, however the scriptures are just a human interpretation and not a direct one at that. To get an idea of what I'm trying to say, imagine trying to understand what your body looks like if all you had was your hands (no sight, nobody's reaction to base your ideas on, nothing but your hands). You'd get somewhere, but not very far. Now with the advent of technology (sight) we can get much farther, so religion needs to take that into account. I disagree. I see the Scriptures (especially the Gospels) as witness testimony of historical events. And since God is living and works via time/space, the Scriptures are records of what he has done, how he has presented himself, and what he foretells. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Eddy Street Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 I disagree. I see the Scriptures (especially the Gospels) as witness testimony of historical events. And since God is living and works via time/space, the Scriptures are records of what he has done, how he has presented himself, and what he foretells. Records of what the force of god has done in our minuscule portion of the universe, and our human interpretation of that. Actually, our interpretation of human relations during that minuscule instance of space-time. I'm not saying there isn't truth to it, I'm just saying it's given too much credit. What about the dinosaurs? How do our morals apply to them? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts