Current approach to science is wrong and undermines the authority of the word of God

[Michael35]

A lot of my fellow Christians have been in situations where people, usually science-believing atheists and secularists, tell us that our beliefs and religion is not scientifically accurate or even they go so far to call us anti-science, merely for not accepting certain theories that undermine our religious beliefs or the fact that we may want equal representation of competing theories in schools for our children.

 

I think the root of the problem is the way they use science and reason, as Martin Luther suggested:

 

The magisterial use of reason occurs when reason stands over and above the gospel like a magistrate and judges it on the basis of argument and evidence. The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason submits to and serves the gospel. In light of the Spirit’s witness, only the ministerial use of reason is legitimate.

 

I think the way science is being approached and taught in our schools and universities is the magisterial approach, which sometimes leads to conflicts between our faith and scientific findings, and therefore atheists usually rush to claim that our faith is invalid, but they fail to understand that on such matters, only a ministerial use of science and reason is valid. I think the correct approach to reason and science needs to be put back again on school and university agendas, as more and more people are failing to understand the real role of reason and science in the world, which is to serve the gospel.

[M30USA]

It's all BS. Science is a religion. It has its own set of assumptions and the people who tout "science science" are driven by agenda. True science is merely observation. That's what it literally is.

 

My sister was one of these until age 45. She has a PhD in reproductive biology at an Ivy Leage school. Suddenly she has become a believer and follower of Jesus Christ and she has officially rejected unguided macroevolution.

Edited January 5, 2015 by M30USA

[d0nnivain]

That makes no sense if you are not Christian. It fails to account for other beliefs.

 

I always had my own way of reconciling science & religion. One, God made scientists & other smart people. Second, looking at something along the lines of creation which the Bible says happened in 7 days, well 6 & on the 7th day He rested. While we know how long one of our days is (24 hours) how do we know how long one of God's days is? So the millennium science says it took for evolution could have been 6 days for God.

[Michael35]

It's all BS. Science is a religion. It has its own set of assumptions and the people who tout "science science" are driven by agenda. True science is merely observation. That's what it literally is.

 

My sister was one of these until age 45. She has a PhD in reproductive biology at an Ivy Leage school. Suddenly she has become a believer and follower of Jesus Christ and she has officially rejected unguided macroevolution.

 

Why is it all BS? I agree that some people are believers in science as though it's a religion, but not anything with some assumptions can be defined as a religion. I think scientists make some assumptions to make science work, like uniformitarianism, but they are not claims to truth, they're merely what they have to do to make it work, while some people misunderstand the nature of the assumptions and assume that science proves naturalism or atheism, I don't think it makes it a religion. If you use science to justify atheism, that's a religion.

 

That makes no sense if you are not Christian. It fails to account for other beliefs.

 

I always had my own way of reconciling science & religion. One, God made scientists & other smart people. Second, looking at something along the lines of creation which the Bible says happened in 7 days, well 6 & on the 7th day He rested. While we know how long one of our days is (24 hours) how do we know how long one of God's days is? So the millennium science says it took for evolution could have been 6 days for God.

 

It makes sense when we as Christians are approached by atheists who want to use science to undermine our beliefs. We only consider it valid in a ministerial sense, only when it serves the gospel. We don't look up at science as the judge or magistrate on the truth of the gospel, that's the holy spirit and anything else undermines the authority of God.

[M30USA]

The fact that people put bumper stickers on their cars with a "Darwnism" fish...is proof that it's a religion.

[Michael35]

The fact that people put bumper stickers on their cars with a "Darwnism" fish...is proof that it's a religion.

 

So Darwinism is a religion, I agree, that's not science. Scientists don't even say that it's a fact, at least not in the neo-darwinist sense.

[M30USA]

So Darwinism is a religion, I agree, that's not science. Scientists don't even say that it's a fact, at least not in the neo-darwinist sense.

 

Wow. Someone finally admits this. I get into a lot of debates with people who claim that it's already "proven".

[Michael35]

Wow. Someone finally admits this. I get into a lot of debates with people who claim that it's already "proven".

 

I don't really see what the fuss is with some atheists, they're always in our faces with Darwinism as though it completely disproves Christianity. It's not a fact and it doesn't disprove God.

[central]

This all sounds like preaching to the choir. Carry on patting each other on the back. I'll rely on the scientific method to discover truth.

[M30USA]

This all sounds like preaching to the choir. Carry on patting each other on the back. I'll rely on the scientific method to discover truth.

 

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.)

[Michael35]

This all sounds like preaching to the choir. Carry on patting each other on the back. I'll rely on the scientific method to discover truth.

 

I do think you are misunderstanding the validity of the scientific method. Scientific method does not find truth, rather finds theories that are useful to predict experiences. Science can never make a claim to truth, and scientists never do. In science we only have theories that are either proven wrong, or theories yet to be proven wrong. Science does not, and in fact cannot, prove anything right because it cannot observe all the universe: past, present or future. You cannot make a claim that any theory will predict all of the future experiences correctly.

 

Therefore in a contingent hypothetical situation, when the scientific findings that are yet to be proven wrong somehow or in some way contradict the witness of the holy spirit, it cannot magistrate its validity and can only submit to the gospel.

Edited January 5, 2015 by Michael35

[SycamoreCircle]

I think it's foolish to prop schools and universities up as the Last Word. Your children are going to be exposed to education from many different sources. Hopefully, with guidance, they will grow up with the ability to pick and choose what they value and believe.

 

If I consider what has shaped me strongly as a person, what gives me sense of self, insight and determination, it's the things that I struck out and discovered seemingly on my own. We can all be explorers and adventurers. We get to all discover new worlds. So why bother blaming some institution for what they don't emphasize? All the more reason to discover it on our own.

[M30USA]

Sycamore, nice Lao Tzu quote. The modern church could learn a lot from this pagan philosopher.

[Rejected Rosebud]

That makes no sense if you are not Christian.

It doesn't make sense if you ARE Christian as well!! Christianity and science are really not mutually exclusive, some people just believe that they are.

[Michael35]

It doesn't make sense if you ARE Christian as well!! Christianity and science are really not mutually exclusive, some people just believe that they are.

 

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.

[Robert Z]

If the religious community had a competing theory it would be recognized. But theories require evidence and extensive verification. It is a complete misunderstanding of science to claim that religious beliefs or doubts about evolution are in any sense science. There is no comparison. There are mountains and mountains of hard evidence for evolution and no qualified competing theories. Faith arguments are for church, not the classroom.

 

 

Also, SCIENCE has nothing to say about God or religion. The notion that "science says" this or that about religion is simply not true. It is a complete misunderstanding of science to make this claim. The only thing "science" has to say about a god is that there is no evidence for one. That is not the same as claiming there is no god.

[Michael35]

If the religious community had a competing theory it would be recognized. But theories require evidence and extensive verification. It is a complete misunderstanding of science to claim that religious beliefs or doubts about evolution are in any sense science. There is no comparison. There are mountains and mountains of hard evidence for evolution and no qualified competing theories. Faith arguments are for church, not the classroom.

 

 

Also, SCIENCE has nothing to say about God or religion. The notion that "science says" this or that about religion is simply not true. It is a complete misunderstanding of science to make this claim. The only thing "science" has to say about a god is that there is no evidence for one. That is not the same as claiming there is no god.

 

While I agree that science does not claim that there is no God, it is in fact true that people use science to claim to disprove God, and we are against that since science is valid as long as it is utilized to serve, not to judge, our beliefs. So even if science did make such a claim, it would still be invalid epistemologically.

 

Regarding your comments on evolution, sure, there are mountains of evidence for a lot of theories and no competing ones, but that doesn't validate the position that the current theory is in fact 100% accurate and will be correct in all of the future observation that are about to follow. Science has only failed to prove evolution wrong, it can't in fact be proven true using the scientific method, the method is not capable of finding facts or truths.

[Robert Z]

While I agree that science does not claim that there is no God, it is in fact true that people use science to claim to disprove God, and we are against that since science is valid as long as it is utilized to serve, not to judge, our beliefs. So even if science did make such a claim, it would still be invalid epistemologically.

 

 

So then you are complaining about the misapplication of science. But also that it shouldn't be used to judge your beliefs. Okay fine, I believe the world is made of cheese. Should science contradict my belief? Should I be allowed to teach this alongside geology in classrooms?

 

Regarding your comments on evolution, sure, there are mountains of evidence for a lot of theories and no competing ones, but that doesn't validate the position that the current theory is in fact 100% accurate and will be correct in all of the future observation that are about to follow. Science has only failed to prove evolution wrong, it can't in fact be proven true using the scientific method, the method is not capable of finding facts or truths.

 

That is correct. We can never have 100% confidence in any theory. In science, there really is no such a thing as proof. But that doesn't lend credence to counter claims for which there is no evidence. Not having 100% confidence doesn't open the door to faith based arguments that lack any evidence whatsoever. One is still based on evidence, and the other is based on stories that some guys wrote down almost 2000 years ago that aren't even logically consistent.

[Robert Z]

Why can't you just keep your faith in church and leave science for the classrooms? Or do you require that science should ignore the hard evidence and instead agree with your faith before you think it should be taught?

 

 

And what about the Church of Tattoos? Do we teach their faith in schools as well. I think it involves getting stoned a lot.

[Michael35]

So then you are complaining about the misapplication of science. But also that it shouldn't be used to judge your beliefs. Okay fine, I believe the world is made of cheese. Should science contradict my belief? Should I be allowed to teach this alongside geology in classrooms?

 

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 correct. We can never have 100% confidence in any theory. In science, there really is no such a thing as proof. But that doesn't lend credence to counter claims for which there is no evidence. Not having 100% confidence doesn't open the door to faith based arguments that lack any evidence whatsoever. One is still based on evidence, and the other is based on stories that some guys wrote down almost 2000 years ago that aren't even logically consistent.

 

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.

 

Why can't you just keep your faith in church and leave science for the classrooms? Or do you require that science should ignore the hard evidence and instead agree with your faith before you think it should be taught?

 

And what about the Church of Tattoos? Do we teach their faith in schools as well. I think it involves getting stoned a lot.

 

Because science is being taught in the classroom as though the findings of science are fact, they are not. I do not mind teaching the Church of Tattoos faith in some schools, I won't put my child there but I don't mind if others do. The thing is, since the experience that others have, if they have any, is merely a psychological experience that breaks down while scientific evidence is presented, it proves not to be properly basic, therefore the individual will leave the faith and become either an atheist or a believer in another faith, one with self-authenticating experience such as Christianity. So I don't mind if other beliefs are taught, science-loving atheists do mind since they are afraid that if we put counter narratives out there, the children will be believers.

 

We're not the ones indoctrinating children, you are. You push to them an interpretation of science without explaining when it is valid and when it is not, without explaining the magisterial and ministerial uses of reason and their difference, and by pushing the idea that the findings of science are proven facts which indeed they are merely theories yet to be proven wrong.

[TheFinalWord]

...usually science-believing atheists and secularists, tell us that our beliefs and religion is not scientifically accurate or even they go so far to call us anti-science, merely for not accepting certain theories that undermine our religious beliefs or the fact that we may want equal representation of competing theories in schools for our children.

 

I do not really know of any scientific theories that undermine my beliefs. I think God gave us science as a tool. For example, the first clinical trial is recorded in the book of Daniel. Paul said to test everything and hold fast to what is good. There are many other tools God provided man that many people use without giving God any credit (e.g. philosophy, art, etc.).

Edited January 6, 2015 by TheFinalWord

[Michael35]

I do not really know of any scientific theories that undermine my beliefs. I think God gave us science as a tool. For example, the first clinical trial is recorded in the book of Daniel. Paul said to test everything and hold fast to what is good. There are many other tools God provided man that many people use without giving God any credit (e.g. philosophy, art, etc.).

 

Scientific theories do not undermine our beliefs, some of them are used incorrectly by atheists an an attempt to undermine our beliefs.

[evanescentworld]

Scientific theories do not undermine our beliefs, some of them are used incorrectly by atheists an an attempt to undermine our beliefs.

 

....In exactly the same way as some religious people use the Bible/religion, in an attempt to undermine Science.

 

It works both ways.

[Michael35]

....In exactly the same way as some religious people use the Bible/religion, in an attempt to undermine Science.

 

It works both ways.

 

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.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Michael35

[SoleMate]

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!