Do you think the Bible takes precedence over evidence?

Post Reply New Topic

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.

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.

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

ruveyn

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

2 Samuel 24 begins:

...and 1 Chronicles 21 begins:


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.

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

ruveyn

Which version of events is more likely to be true?

"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

And how do you account for inconsistencies within the Bible?

As opposed to religion?

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.


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.

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.

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


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.

Never!! !

now that I am actually awake, I THINK the point I was trying to make is that "IF" the soul actually exists, it would probably be just a quantum level affect we have on the fabric of existence itself. And all that is a very big IF. I don't have the means to test for it anyways, its just all a thought i have had. In fact you could potentially substitute soul for consciousness. I have no clue if anyone has ever decided to research the whole consciousness is just a whole quantum state within the whole interconnectivity of the brain.

Yeah, I am also the sort of person who will throw random ideas out where other people can see them, in hopes of sparking an interesting discussion. As for my religious beliefs, I really dont fit anything, Id like to say agnostic, if it can allow for multiple gods as well (yes, I find the whole greek/roman religion interesting, you know, with zeus and all of them XD. the same goes for Native American spiritualism, ive been considering researching it some simply because I am an 8th native american, cherokee, and the last person within my family that still knew all of the myths and stuff was my mothers father, but he died a few weeks before I was born. I still have a few "artifacts" if you would call them that, mainly a ceremonial pipe, a dreamcatcher, and an old outfit they would have worn for special occasions. So yeah, native american sppiritualism is kind of a part of me, so i do think it would be interesting to read about it. If anyone knows of any good resources, would they mind sharing?)

but yeah, I dont think sleep deprivation is the only thing to blame for me posting this random stuff to spark discussion, I also think I might listen to too much TOOL while in those states of mind.

The vote came in after my post, and it's still the only one from a young Earth creationist. I don't think I'll get a large enough sample for a meaningful comparison.


Could you say more about what distinction you are making here? If asked for the difference in the context of empirical science, I would say a fact is a conclusion very much favored over all known alternatives by rigorous reasoning about good empirical evidence. I don't understand why you would put evidence in scare quotes if you agreed that facts about the world must be based on evidence. Therefore I conclude that you may be thinking of a different meaning of evidence, fact, or both. Would you explain?

I took for granted that evidence always needs interpreting, so I did not, in the title or the original post, include a distinction that appears to be important to you. But until you explain what you have in mind, I can't respond.


Can you think of any combination of argument and data that could change your mind?