Why should science make it difficult to believe the Bible?
Published: 19 August 2012 (GMT+10)
The more I read the bible [sic] and try to rationalize what’s in there with what Science [sic] is discovering about our universe, the harder it is to believe in the book.
Of course, and you have just explained why. Secular or materialistic science is your authority. You accept its claims first as the primary axiom. Materialistic evolution has no place for a creator so no wonder it is at odds with the Bible. Both evolution and creation are belief systems about the past that you and I were not there to witness. See ‘It’s not science’.
I wish God would come back down to Earth and just clarify everything up for humanity.
He did already and He explained it to us in His book—the Bible. It seems that rejecting the Bible because of your ‘science’ is preventing you from seeing the big picture of the marvelous Gospel that the Bible is all about.
His book is so old,
That’s a good thing—a strength of it. It’s not a bad thing, because it tells us about history, our origins, what went wrong etc, and written by people of history who were actually there and closer to the events. No one saw evolution happen or a cosmic big bang, for example. It’s interesting too that the Bible has been described as the most accurate historical book ever written when it comes to archaeology; for example, see The walls of Jericho. So if one can verify such historical claims in one area to be true, then that might be a good reason to accept its historical claims in other areas too.
I picture he said things a certain way as to not blow our minds. I’m sure Jesus would have been murdered on the spot like galleleio [sic] if he started off saying "here’s some stuff you should know… the earth is a round ball circling a giant burning sphere called the sun, of which you can see thousands similar in the night sky billions of miles away in a sea of nothing."
Really, that’s not a novel idea, but if you take that approach then how could you know anything in the Bible to be true? Moreover, Jesus and the New Testament authors made some pretty specific claims about the past and particularly Genesis. So they would have to have misunderstood or be misled as well. See Jesus on the age of the earth and also The use of Genesis in the New Testament. BTW it seems that you have swallowed another false history with your comments about Galileo. This was not a matter of science vs faith, but of science vs science. Here’s a really interesting article about it.
They’d burn him before he could go on to give a bunch of moral lessons.
Interesting conjecture but one can speculate anything. It doesn’t add weight to any argument I’m afraid, particularly if you hold a wrong view about what happened to Galileo etc.
But why haven’t they come back to update the word of the Lord.
Because it doesn’t need it. If you accepted its premises it would be entirely relevant to you today, as it is for the billion or more other Christians like me and my colleagues here. We don’t see a problem, but respectfully you do, because you accept, it appears without question, the claims of secular science when it comes to trying to tell us what happened in the past. Your starting assumption is faulty in believing that the ‘science’ you accept is just about facts that can be verified. Nothing could be further from the truth. For example, can science prove the world is billions of years old? Do you actually know where that idea [long ages] came from? If not, please read Did God create over billions of years?
It seems he stopped caring about humanity a while back-he probably does have a more preferred life form on another planet he’s spending all his time with.
Once again, unverified speculation. And as I said, if you took the Bible at face value you would have a better understanding of God’s plan for mankind, which hasn’t finished by the way. You say He stopped caring but there is a future restoration coming up. Have you actually read the Bible properly, I wonder?
If you are genuinely interested in who God is and why we see the things we do, I encourage you to at least start with the articles I have provided. Then there is a free short book online, Refuting Evolution, that will help you understand the limitation’s of operational science in determining history.
@Martin Hadley, you said "I see science as trying to distinguish between reality; and the products of human imagination." If that were true, then you would be forced to conclude that all of history is "human imagination" since we cannot use the scientific method to test for the reality of past events. Also, the scientific method is built on the presuppositions of induction and the uniformity of nature. However, we cannot use the scientific method to prove that induction and the uniformity of nature are even true, so again by your definition, we would be forced to conclude that they are "human imagination" since we cannot test them with science. By your definition, we would be forced to reject the existence of ANY abstract entity, including logic, mathematics, truth, morality, and many other things.
The other problem is that you are merely assuming that all real entities can be detected by scientific testing. However, since you do not know everything that exists, then it is possible that there exists a real entity that cannot be detected by scientific testing, yet you do not know about it. I hope you realize that the belief in science being the arbiter of reality is something that must be accepted by FAITH.
You also said "God may be everywhere always but It only makes contact with humanity when It wants, usually one on one and without witnesses. Don’t blame scientists for not being able to detect that." First of all, God is not called "it"; God is called "He". Second, scientific testing can neither prove nor disprove the reality of God's personal revelation to someone, as such an event would be a non-repeatable, historical event. It is true that some people in the Bible, like the prophets, had personal revelation without eyewitnesses. However, we can be sure of the reality of those revelations because the prophesies they spoke have either come true or will come true in the near future, especially the over 300 prophecies pertaining to Jesus Christ. Third, God has given us general revelation through His creation. Furthermore, if a geologist finds an arrowhead, he would automatically recognize that it was left over from an intelligent human of some sort, even though HE DID NOT SEE THE DESIGNER. Now, the design of the arrowhead I just listed is infinitesimally small compared to the intricacy and complexity of the human body. If a scientist can recognize that a simple arrowhead must have had a designer, then he should REALLY be able to recognize that a human being had an infinitely greater Designer. Therefore, we have every right to blame scientists for not acknowledging that the Designer exists, as they can recognize God's design, yet refuse to.
You claim to have read the bible, perhaps you missed the bit where the Religious rulers tried on several occasions to Kill Jesus because of what he said, but could not because it was not his time. Personally I think Jesus did not say much about the universe etc. because that was not why he came, he came that sinners might be saved, not to give scientific knowledge which cannot save us. Sometimes seeing is believing, but not always, the people of Israel saw all the powerful miracles of God, and still did not believe, all mankind will see Christ come in all his power and glory and rule for 1000 years and still rebel, sometimes you need to believe before you can see.
is a good one. It helped me. This one:
might help too.
That's an interesting question for a title to this article. I once thoroughly enjoyed the science shows, physics and astronomy, on cable TV. I do not enjoy them any longer as I see the errors of their premises from the get-go. The plain language of the Biblical account is the only premise that actually supports seamlessly so many of the "laws" of physics such as those of thermodynamics. In many cases, science makes it hard to believe other areas of science. Science becomes a house divided against itself.
It looks like a cheap shot to say that science rules out a divine Creator and therefore misses the obvious truth of its existence.
I see science as trying to distinguish between reality; and the products of human imagination. If scientific methods ever point to a real Creator, as opposed to an imagined one, then fine. Some people think that the “laws” of the universe do that. Or is that more imagining?
If your specifications for an imaginary concept were: “inspiring; controlling; and untestable”, then God could hardly better fit the bill. God is explained to us by individuals who are free from the burden of having to prove anything. God may be everywhere always but It only makes contact with humanity when It wants, usually one on one and without witnesses. Don’t blame scientists for not being able to detect that.
Jonathan S. is typical of many people who keep saying "if only God came down and proved He exists I will then believe". As you say, He did do that in human form as Jesus, and many of those who interacted with Jesus believed as a result, as recorded in the Bible. Of course this may appear as catch 22 to some who would say "how can we trust the Bible?". Well, the answer is the same as with any other written book. It comes down to an analysis of the Bible alongside our history and archaeology, prophecies that have been fulfilled, how the Bible stands up to consistency and logic, and whether there is a better alternative. To those who study the scriptures, history, logic and reasoning it's clear the Bible is both authentic and believable, albeit not provable. In any case, when Jesus returns there will be no room for doubt any more. There will be those who will still refuse to accept him but that's their decision since they have a free will to choose, which unfortunately for them means a final death from which there is no return.