This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Welcome to the Faith & Spirituality forum! Here are some guidelines...
- discuss the view that the idea of Purgatory makes more sense than Hell
- christianity and feeling god's presence
- Christianity
- Could Someone Mark My Essay Please? - Constructive Criticism OCR RS Alevel
- Anyone who studied in a Christian school? What is your experience?
- give me an advice about how can i be confident and talk in front of pepeol ?
- christian thingz
- Why are churches not dealing with Bible study?
- OCR A-Level Religious Studies Paper 3 (H573/03) 26th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Feel like I'm left out due to my political beliefs and my religious beliefs.
- Religious Studies and Scripture Reference
- i dont feel close to god anymore
- Religious Studies GCSE 5 Marker
- I am Muslim girl and I had a sexual (not sex) I feel so guilty what should I do
- What is the difference between Grim Reaper and Satan?
- GCSE speaking and listening
- islam and christian
- GCSE speaking and listening
- GCSE speaking and listening
Is the Christian Bible imperfect/flawed?
Scroll to see replies
Also, as has been pointed out by atheist philosopher of science and mathematical physicist Nancy Cartwright, there are huge issues with the idea of a law of nature without notions of God; " if you want to make sense of it you had better not think of science as discovering laws of Nature, for there cannot be any of these without God. That depends of course on what we mean by ‘laws of Nature’. Whatever else we mean, I take it that this much is essential: Laws of Nature are prescriptive, not merely descriptive, and – even stronger – they are supposed to be responsible for what occurs in Nature. Since at least the Scientific Revolution they are also supposed to be visible in the Book of Nature".
the notion of a “law of nature” was originally (in thinkers like Descartes and Newton) explicitly theological, connoting the decree of a divine lawmaker. Later scientists would regard this as a metaphor, but a metaphor for what? Most contemporary scientists who pontificate about philosophical matters not only do not have an answer but have forgotten the question. One contemporary scientist who does see the problem is physicist Paul Davies; " The orthodox view of the nature of the laws of physics contains a long list of tacitly assumed properties. The laws are regarded, for example, as immutable, eternal, infinitely precise mathematical relationships that transcend the physical universe, and were imprinted on it at the moment of its birth from “outside,” like a maker’s mark, and have remained unchanging ever since… In addition, it is assumed that the physical world is affected by the laws, but the laws are completely impervious to what happens in the universe… It is not hard to discover where this picture of physical laws comes from: it is inherited directly from monotheism, which asserts that a rational being designed the universe according to a set of perfect laws. And the asymmetry between immutable laws and contingent states mirrors the asymmetry between God and nature: the universe depends utterly on God for its existence, whereas God’s existence does not depend on the universe…Clearly, then, the orthodox concept of laws of physics derives directly from theology. It is remarkable that this view has remained largely unchallenged after 300 years of secular science. Indeed, the “theological model” of the laws of physics is so ingrained in scientific thinking that it is taken for granted. The hidden assumptions behind the concept of physical laws, and their theological provenance, are simply ignored by almost all except historians of science and theologians. From the scientific standpoint, however, this uncritical acceptance of the theological model of laws leaves a lot to be desired".
So when atheists hostile to the relationship between theism and science confidently proclaim that we can explain such-and-such in terms of the laws of physics rather than God, what they are saying, without realizing it, is: “The explanation isn’t God, it’s rather the laws of physics, where ‘law of physics’ originally meant ‘a decree of God’ and where I don’t have any worked-out alternative account of what it means.” Hence the “alternative” explanation, when unpacked, is really either a tacit appeal to God or a non-explanation. In short, either it isn’t alternative, or it’s not an explanation. The utter cluelessness of this stock naturalistic “alternative explanation” would make of it an object of ridicule if it were not so routinely and confidently put forward by otherwise highly intelligent, educated, and widely esteemed people.
So to assert that science and religion are opposites, is to put yourself in very choppy waters with regards to the laws of nature.
the notion of a “law of nature” was originally (in thinkers like Descartes and Newton) explicitly theological, connoting the decree of a divine lawmaker. Later scientists would regard this as a metaphor, but a metaphor for what? Most contemporary scientists who pontificate about philosophical matters not only do not have an answer but have forgotten the question. One contemporary scientist who does see the problem is physicist Paul Davies; " The orthodox view of the nature of the laws of physics contains a long list of tacitly assumed properties. The laws are regarded, for example, as immutable, eternal, infinitely precise mathematical relationships that transcend the physical universe, and were imprinted on it at the moment of its birth from “outside,” like a maker’s mark, and have remained unchanging ever since… In addition, it is assumed that the physical world is affected by the laws, but the laws are completely impervious to what happens in the universe… It is not hard to discover where this picture of physical laws comes from: it is inherited directly from monotheism, which asserts that a rational being designed the universe according to a set of perfect laws. And the asymmetry between immutable laws and contingent states mirrors the asymmetry between God and nature: the universe depends utterly on God for its existence, whereas God’s existence does not depend on the universe…Clearly, then, the orthodox concept of laws of physics derives directly from theology. It is remarkable that this view has remained largely unchallenged after 300 years of secular science. Indeed, the “theological model” of the laws of physics is so ingrained in scientific thinking that it is taken for granted. The hidden assumptions behind the concept of physical laws, and their theological provenance, are simply ignored by almost all except historians of science and theologians. From the scientific standpoint, however, this uncritical acceptance of the theological model of laws leaves a lot to be desired".
So when atheists hostile to the relationship between theism and science confidently proclaim that we can explain such-and-such in terms of the laws of physics rather than God, what they are saying, without realizing it, is: “The explanation isn’t God, it’s rather the laws of physics, where ‘law of physics’ originally meant ‘a decree of God’ and where I don’t have any worked-out alternative account of what it means.” Hence the “alternative” explanation, when unpacked, is really either a tacit appeal to God or a non-explanation. In short, either it isn’t alternative, or it’s not an explanation. The utter cluelessness of this stock naturalistic “alternative explanation” would make of it an object of ridicule if it were not so routinely and confidently put forward by otherwise highly intelligent, educated, and widely esteemed people.
So to assert that science and religion are opposites, is to put yourself in very choppy waters with regards to the laws of nature.
Interestingly, this issue with laws of nature was cited by Anthony Flew as a major reason for his change from atheism, quoting from his book;
" Oxford philosopher John Foster contends that regularities in nature, however you describe them, can be best explained by a divine Mind. If you accept the fact that there are laws, then something must impose that regularity on the universe. What agent (or agents) brings this about? He contends that the theistic option is the only serious option as the source, so that “we shall be rationally warranted in concluding that it is God—the God of the theistic account—who creates the laws by imposing the regularities on the world as regularities.” Even if you deny the existence of laws, he argues, “there is a strong case for explaining the regularities by appealing to the agency of God. . . Returning to my parable of the satellite phone in the previous chapter, the laws of nature pose a problem for atheists because they are a voice of rationality heard through the mechanisms of matter. “Science is based on the assumption that the universe is thoroughly rational and logical at all levels,” writes Paul Davies, arguably the most influential contemporary expositor of modern science. “Atheists claim that the laws [of nature] exist reasonlessly and that the universe is ultimately absurd. As a scientist, I find this hard to accept. There must be an unchanging rational ground in which the logical, orderly nature of the universe is rooted.”29 Those scientists who point to the Mind of God do not merely advance a series of arguments or a process of syllogistic reasoning. Rather, they propound a vision of reality that emerges from the conceptual heart of modern science and imposes itself on the rational mind. It is a vision that I personally find compelling and irrefutable".
Posted from TSR Mobile
" Oxford philosopher John Foster contends that regularities in nature, however you describe them, can be best explained by a divine Mind. If you accept the fact that there are laws, then something must impose that regularity on the universe. What agent (or agents) brings this about? He contends that the theistic option is the only serious option as the source, so that “we shall be rationally warranted in concluding that it is God—the God of the theistic account—who creates the laws by imposing the regularities on the world as regularities.” Even if you deny the existence of laws, he argues, “there is a strong case for explaining the regularities by appealing to the agency of God. . . Returning to my parable of the satellite phone in the previous chapter, the laws of nature pose a problem for atheists because they are a voice of rationality heard through the mechanisms of matter. “Science is based on the assumption that the universe is thoroughly rational and logical at all levels,” writes Paul Davies, arguably the most influential contemporary expositor of modern science. “Atheists claim that the laws [of nature] exist reasonlessly and that the universe is ultimately absurd. As a scientist, I find this hard to accept. There must be an unchanging rational ground in which the logical, orderly nature of the universe is rooted.”29 Those scientists who point to the Mind of God do not merely advance a series of arguments or a process of syllogistic reasoning. Rather, they propound a vision of reality that emerges from the conceptual heart of modern science and imposes itself on the rational mind. It is a vision that I personally find compelling and irrefutable".
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Tsrsarahhhh
The bible may have once been the true word from God but over time it has been heavily altered by humans.
Which books of the bible are you talking about? Got any evidence for that claim? I can show you evidence that says the contrary.
The reason why I ask you to give us reason to believe what you're saying is true, is because the entire Christian belief system falls apart if you can't trust the bible. That's a massive claim.
Original post by loveleest
The bible is filled with contradictions. So yes.
like...?
Again, you don't seem to recognise the gravity of what you're claiming. If we can't trust the bible, the entire belief system falls apart. This is a serious claim. Give evidence. Give examples.
Original post by Tsrsarahhhh
The bible may have once been the true word from God but over time it has been heavily altered by humans.
thats a myth
honestly the Bible has to be flawed their are so many contradictions within it , how can Christians say it is the word of God when normal men wrote it and it is not told that god gave them a revelation on what to write , they wrote with their own doing this could mean experiences and events being manipulated and affected by others opinions even exaggerated , that's a complete contradiction , also their are so many different bibles in the world i seems that most families follow different bibles to each other , all of them have been translated , ordered and believe different things in side of them so how can we say the bible is accurate?? surly the bible would only be accurate if it was actually the words of God and if translated they all said the same thing . but they don't
also Christians have it so wrong too about the first testament , the first testament was very strict it clearly said that you are not to eat swine or any animal that chews the cud , yet in the bible jesus apparently said that it is not important what you eat but whats inside you , does that mean that jesus meant you could all of a sudden eat pork now ???? ofcourse it doesnt mean that yet christians have tried to suit themselves and to try to change it up . you have no right to change jesus's words . the first testament which the jews and muslims follow is 100% more accurate than the book christians follow . also who gave christians the right to sideline the first testament and to give most of their attention to the bible as if it was written by GOD
also Christians have it so wrong too about the first testament , the first testament was very strict it clearly said that you are not to eat swine or any animal that chews the cud , yet in the bible jesus apparently said that it is not important what you eat but whats inside you , does that mean that jesus meant you could all of a sudden eat pork now ???? ofcourse it doesnt mean that yet christians have tried to suit themselves and to try to change it up . you have no right to change jesus's words . the first testament which the jews and muslims follow is 100% more accurate than the book christians follow . also who gave christians the right to sideline the first testament and to give most of their attention to the bible as if it was written by GOD
I consider most religious texts inherently flawed if they reference a 'good' omnipotent god.
The god in the Bible is a mass murderer and the Quran supports the abuse of women. It disturbs me that people hold these texts close to their heart.
o.O
The god in the Bible is a mass murderer and the Quran supports the abuse of women. It disturbs me that people hold these texts close to their heart.
o.O
Original post by Paranoid_Glitch
Well i don't think the bible contradicts modern science. I don't have enough knowledge on this so please correct me if I'm wrong. The bible says the world was created in 6 days by God, but it is never made explicit on how long a day was. With that ambiguity, how do we know that the bible does not hold up to modern science?
The Bible was written by men, they would use their own definition of a day, which is 24 hours (give or take), this stupid claim that a biblical day is a huge amount of time is just so ridiculous, even for religious folk. Let's face it the only people who claim a Biblical creation are the YECs, and if their beliefs are not unscientific then no beliefs are.
Original post by Supersaps
If you look at the bible like you'd look at a history textbook or a science book, yes it is flawed.
It's neither of those.
SS
It's neither of those.
SS
At last an intelligent remark, being that it is a very crude version of knowledge, I suppose like one of those ABC books for very young children. It is about time we threw it out and started to read something more advanced, Origin of species could be a good one, or even Alchemy for Dummies.
Original post by Scrappy-coco
Firstly, religion argues there is such as question as why we are here and offers an answer to the question . . . . And how exactly is that incompatible with the methodology of science? It's different, but not incompatible. I've already explained that just because so,ethimg is different doesn't make it a contradiction or incompatible.
.
Firstly, religion argues there is such as question as why we are here and offers an answer to the question . . . . And how exactly is that incompatible with the methodology of science? It's different, but not incompatible. I've already explained that just because so,ethimg is different doesn't make it a contradiction or incompatible.
.
Unfortunately the known religious answers are all wrong, they do not agree with observation, scientific theory or scientific law. If you had made the same claim from a deistic view you may have had some point, but you keep arguing from your own personal religious view and the hope that your philosophy can help to give that some credence.
Original post by Pride
Which books of the bible are you talking about? Got any evidence for that claim? I can show you evidence that says the contrary.
The reason why I ask you to give us reason to believe what you're saying is true, is because the entire Christian belief system falls apart if you can't trust the bible. That's a massive claim.
The reason why I ask you to give us reason to believe what you're saying is true, is because the entire Christian belief system falls apart if you can't trust the bible. That's a massive claim.
The Bible says:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
This is not true, your Bible is false and you are now an ex-Christian. Yes?
Original post by dozyrosie
The Bible says:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
This is not true, your Bible is false and you are now an ex-Christian. Yes?
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
This is not true, your Bible is false and you are now an ex-Christian. Yes?
So you know that the first sentence of the bible is false. Can you please show us how you came to that conclusion?
Original post by Pride
So you know that the first sentence of the bible is false. Can you please show us how you came to that conclusion?
That should be obvious to the dimmest intellect, the Bible does not stop there, it goes on to explain what god did, but it is all rubbish. There is no need to believe what a band of ancient Jews wrote, especially as we know it did not happen.
Original post by Paranoid_Glitch
Well i don't think the bible contradicts modern science. I don't have enough knowledge on this so please correct me if I'm wrong. The bible says the world was created in 6 days by God, but it is never made explicit on how long a day was. With that ambiguity, how do we know that the bible does not hold up to modern science?
Just read the Genesis carefully. The problems with it are far bigger than the leght of a day. Chronology of events doesn't make any sense for example. I don't see, how there can be method to make an interpretation that fits to science. In my opinion, the only way is to ignore the text, and made up one.
As a little child, I used to create stories, that were written down by my cousins (I couldn't write then yet). The Genesis looks exactly the way I would describe the beggining of world back then.
A discussion above is interesting, but I think this scheme says a lot of it, in more efficient manner:
Original post by Paranoid_Glitch
Throughout time it has been established that human beings are flawed/imperfect. From my knowledge and understanding, the christian bible was written by followers of Jesus Christ, human beings. If that is the case does that not mean the bible is flawed/imperfect and that you can never truly guarantee that what the bible says is "the right thing to do".
I consider myself a follower of Jesus Christ. This question is mainly aimed at the christian society. The reason for this question is gain more insight on Christianity, the bible, etc, in order to challenge my faith and see where i stand.
I consider myself a follower of Jesus Christ. This question is mainly aimed at the christian society. The reason for this question is gain more insight on Christianity, the bible, etc, in order to challenge my faith and see where i stand.
How can the Bible be flawed? When god wrote the Bible he was giving us Christians domain over the heretics, people before Jesus believed in things like naturalism, what a stupid thing to believe in. We Christians know our gift is true, we don't need any atheists to use evidence and science to take us off the path of Paul. God shows us the way and we follow.
Original post by dozyrosie
That should be obvious to the dimmest intellect, the Bible does not stop there, it goes on to explain what god did, but it is all rubbish. There is no need to believe what a band of ancient Jews wrote, especially as we know it did not happen.
I asked you to share with us how you came to the conclusion. All you've done is insulted the bible. That's not helpful.
You really should think when you post. Over and over again, you don't think when you're replying to me. Just stop, think about what you're saying, construct a reply to what I'm actually saying, and respect me enough to think of reasonable points rather than insults. Earlier, someone (an atheist, amazingly) said that you weren't worth talking to because of your responses. What do you think that says about your style here?
I am a hardcore Jesus follower myself, and I find your statements about the Bible being flawed very insulting. I don't understand why would you say something like that, when the bible clearly says how earth was created 6-10k years ago and dinosaur fossils could be found before, when our lovely jesas said that adam and eve were the first humans, in the times when people didnt know that humans evolved from monkeys, when noah transported billions of animal species on his ship, when our dear god killed a couple million people in a massive flood, when jesas said that god created earth in 6 days - he ****ed up counting a bit, more like a couple billion years, when christianity copied the idea of god (and priests, praying, religious objects, weekly clothing comparison) from ancient religion.
God has created each and every one of us in his own image, as you can tell by stuff written above
also
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r-e2NDSTuE
#savemejesas2k16
God has created each and every one of us in his own image, as you can tell by stuff written above
also
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r-e2NDSTuE
#savemejesas2k16
Original post by Paranoid_Glitch
Well i don't think the bible contradicts modern science. I don't have enough knowledge on this so please correct me if I'm wrong. The bible says the world was created in 6 days by God, but it is never made explicit on how long a day was. With that ambiguity, how do we know that the bible does not hold up to modern science?
There's a lot of discussion available online about the meaning of the word translated as "day" in Genesis 1. I think it's worth thinking about what the Jews would have interpreted day to mean. They definitely knew what a day was. But the word used for day has other meanings, hence the discussion. Hebrew is often like that.
It's definitely worth reading up about. But I would also encourage you to think about the presuppositional basis used by popular scientists. Learn what science is, and the assumptions it needs to make in order to function (methodological naturalism, validity of reasoning etc). My point being that nobody is impartial. Everybody approaches the topic with an epistemological basis. Study these things. It's vital in order to understand the link between science and God, but also to understand the popular naturalistic scientific consensus (in the West).
Related discussions
- Welcome to the Faith & Spirituality forum! Here are some guidelines...
- discuss the view that the idea of Purgatory makes more sense than Hell
- christianity and feeling god's presence
- Christianity
- Could Someone Mark My Essay Please? - Constructive Criticism OCR RS Alevel
- Anyone who studied in a Christian school? What is your experience?
- give me an advice about how can i be confident and talk in front of pepeol ?
- christian thingz
- Why are churches not dealing with Bible study?
- OCR A-Level Religious Studies Paper 3 (H573/03) 26th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Feel like I'm left out due to my political beliefs and my religious beliefs.
- Religious Studies and Scripture Reference
- i dont feel close to god anymore
- Religious Studies GCSE 5 Marker
- I am Muslim girl and I had a sexual (not sex) I feel so guilty what should I do
- What is the difference between Grim Reaper and Satan?
- GCSE speaking and listening
- islam and christian
- GCSE speaking and listening
- GCSE speaking and listening
Latest
Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
My friend might be getting extra time and i hate it.Last reply 5 days ago
Just found out about UCL stat test but can't afford to sit itLast reply 2 weeks ago
Dad keeps criticising my university degree choiceLast reply 3 weeks ago
Is this pathetic or genuinely something to be upset aboutTrending
Last reply 5 days ago
My friend might be getting extra time and i hate it.Last reply 5 days ago
Just found out about UCL stat test but can't afford to sit itLast reply 2 weeks ago
Dad keeps criticising my university degree choiceLast reply 3 weeks ago
Is this pathetic or genuinely something to be upset about
