Subject:
|
Re: Why not Both?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 23 Jan 2001 21:14:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
299 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes:
> > (digression - off-topic)
> > Science began as a means to better understand God's creation, and has
> > subsequently moved beyond a theistic foundation to a secular foundation.
>
> Is there REALLY anything wrong with this so long as the secular foundation
> doesn't reject the theistic? For example, could we have proven gravity with
> the Bible (other than, say, dropping it repeatedly? :) Are we wrong to
> believe in gravity, or that which science teaches?
I don't reject science. Actually I find that science supports the Bible. Many
would reject science when it does that, but that's their own problem.
> And the REAL follow up to that is, what if the two disagree? I assume you'll
> say that science is necessarily wrong due to human error, though :)
No. Actually, it's not so much due to error as it is to a lack of
understanding. Science admidts to progressively understand things, and when new
evidence is presented it changes it's theory on that matter. Supposed
disagreements are only due to a lack of data on science's part. The Bible,
however, does not claim to re-interpret itself. It's the "God is infinite"
point again - He doesn't need to since He was accurate in the first place.
Unfortuantely, our nihilistic, relative society has convinced itself that there
is nothing sure, that all is relative. That bias has blinded many to the fact
that there is a God who is sure and absolute, and whom we can trust absolutely.
Not all knowledge is relatively, interpretively, progressively learned. Just
because that is the nature of the scientific method does not mean that
everything is that way. Indeed, God is the only absolute.
-Jon
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) Exactly. And maybe I erred semantically-- your assumption (I think) is that when what science tells us disagrees from what the Bible tells us, obviously science's conclusion has erred somehow-- either due to lack of data, incorrect data, or (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) Here you've spelled out very nicely why science is not a religion, and religion is not a science. Thank you. (...) Is that Odin? Brahma? Zoroaster? Allah? Yahweh? Who? And why? This question has been asked countless times, and no one here (or (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) Cool! That's all I wanted, since that's what you said that's explicitly what you were after in this thread. (...) EXACTLY! And let me just say you did an excellent job of discussing the matter. It's all interpretive. The point of course being (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
