Board index ‹ Science and the Bible

[Goat]

Christianity and science: Are they compatible? God, the human soul, Satan, heaven, hell, the virgin birth, the resurrection, people dying and being brought back to life, an afterlife, miracles, anything supernatural (whatever that means), angels. There isn't one thing on this list that we can even detect, let alone examine, using the scientific method. The scientific method has a stellar track record in every other field, but here it has nothing. What's up with that?

[jimwalton]

You ask if Christianity and science are compatible (which they are), but then you use illustrations of things that are not subject to scientific inquiry (souls, hell, etc.) As any scientist, or even common sense, would advise, we have to use the proper measure for the task at hand. No one would use a thermometer to test miles per gallon, or a beaker to determine the temperature. Each unit of measure works to measure its category, but not matters outside of its category.

For instance, while a lawyer can use science in support of his case, science is not what determines "guilty" or "not guilty". It's not the appropriate measure of proof. And while I may use "science" to create a recipe, I can't use science to determine if it was good or not. "Good" is in a different category not provable by a science lab. Obviously, it's a value judgment dependent on personal tastes.

As to your post title, Christianity and science are perfectly compatible. There is nothing in either field that by necessity excludes the other or is in direct contradiction. Actually, science and theism go hand in hand quite well.

But as far as the existence of a soul or the reality of hell, science is an inappropriate measure for the determination of reality or even credibility in those fields, just as science can't tell me who's going to win the World Series this Fall, or the power of "Numb" by Linkin Park.

There are different kinds of reasoning (inductive, deductive, abductive, intuitive), and the scientific method is just one of them. Science can't tell me anything about the beauty of a sunset, the justice of a verdict, the compassion of a nurse, the drama of a play, the depth of a poem, the terror of a war, the excitement of a symphony, the significance of history, or the love of a woman. Not only is science not all the knowledge there is, it may not be even the most important knowledge. The stellar track record of science can't teach me anything about law, it can't do lab tests on history, and politics (pragmatism and public opinion) is a complete contradiction of what scientists seek in nature. It's foolishness to think that science is the catch-all.

Like the logic of law, spiritual fields are outside of the purview of science. This doesn't discredit them, nor does it discredit science. Science is stellar in its own arena, but doesn't lend itself to every discipline.

[J Lord]

If you are accepting the truth of things that have not been demonstrated to be true, then I think your methodology is incompatible with science. Just because science has not proven something to be false, doesn't mean it is compatible with science to accept it as true.

[jimwalton]

> If you are accepting the truth of things that have not been demonstrated to be true

I'm not. Truth needs to be demonstrated.

> Just because science has not proven something to be false, doesn't mean it is compatible with science to accept it as true.

I agree.

[Willie Henders]

It's fine to say that science cannot detect or measure the existence of a "thing", as long as there is no assertion that the "thing", more often than not, produces any significant effect upon other things—because when a "thing" effects other things, that effect can be detected and measured by science.

[jimwalton]

My understanding of dark matter is that it is considered to be a "thing" that produces effects upon other "things", and yet it cannot be detected and measured by science, but only inferred from its gravitational effects. Physicists "estimate" and astrophysicists "hypothesize" about it, but it remains a mystery and other hypotheses have been presented to try to explain the related phenomena.

But even that is in the area of science. Suppose we want to measure the effect that President Roosevelt had on the state of the world in 1905. His effect on the world is undebatable; detecting it and measuring it by science is a misfit. Instead, it has to be analyzed and theorized by political analysts, anthropologists, economists, and historians. While Teddy Roosevelt was a "thing" that existed, and produced a "significant effect upon other things," that effect cannot be detected and measured by science. It is the wrong application of measure for the causes and effects under study.

[Willie Henders]

> My understanding of dark matter is that it is considered to be a "thing" that produces effects upon other "things", and yet it cannot be detected and measured by science, but only inferred from its gravitational effects. Physicists "estimate" and astrophysicists "hypothesize" about it, but it remains a mystery and other hypotheses have been presented to try to explain the related phenomena.

And if a scientist asserts that dark matter, more often than not, produces a specific significant effect upon another thing, the scientist will use science to (attempt to) detect and measure that effect.

If you wish to place God in the category of things we theorize may possibly exist but have no clear understanding of, you must dismiss much of the Bible.

> But even that is in the area of science. Suppose we want to measure the effect that President Roosevelt had on the state of the world in 1905. His effect on the world is undebatable; detecting it and measuring it by science is a misfit. Instead, it has to be analyzed and theorized by political analysts, anthropologists, economists, and historians. While Teddy Roosevelt was a "thing" that existed, and produced a "significant effect upon other things," that effect cannot be detected and measured by science. It is the wrong application of measure for the causes and effects under study.

What application do you suggest to measure the current effects of God (not religion, but God)?

[jimwalton]

> If you wish to place God in the category of things we theorize may possibly exist but have no clear understanding of, you must dismiss much of the Bible.

I was only contending that there are such things that produce effects upon other things that are not subject to material detection and measurement.

> What application do you suggest to measure the current effects of God (not religion, but God)?

Juries deal not with scientific proof but with the burden of proof: the greater weight of credible evidence. Logically speaking, it's defined as "What is more likely than not?" "What is more reasonable to believe?" Reasoning, meaning rational arguments (though not to the complete neglect of empirical evidence), is more appropriate measure for the existence of God.

Why do we eat animals but not people? The answer isn't in science, but in our perspectives of human nobility and dignity. It's reason that takes us to such a conclusion, not science.

[J Lord]

Do you think the things listed in the original post have been demonstrated to be true?

[jimwalton]

I think that the arguments for the existence of God are by far stronger and more logical than the argument against his existence, and if it can be established that belief in God is an inference that leads us to the most reasonable conclusion, then the existence of the other items in the list is just a small step.