Featured Christian Apologetics: Knowing Our Enemy Called the Scientific Worldview

Science is a tool of epistemology for elements of the material world. It is certainly not the only tool, but it is a very good one.

That's your imagination or a presupposition that you are imposing on me.

Nowhere have I claimed such a thing.

That's fair, but I think you hold too low a view of science. Science is quite useful. Modern medicine, sanitation, and technology are obvious benefits.

You are misusing science is you trying to do theology with it, and you are misusing the Bible if you try to do science with it. Saying that does not demean either, but it is simply an appropriate use of epistemological tools.

 

Regardless of whatever it is you are trying to achieve here, I offer the following excerpt from this link (https://www.aaas.org/page/what-scientism), because it offers a clear contrast between science and scientism that might be helpful to others who seem confused. Too often, when some people say “science” they are actually referring to scientism, but the obfuscation serves their purposes. You can see this among both theists and non-theists. Christians need to be aware of this, and able to discern when someone is doing it.

Scientism, on the other hand, is a speculative worldview about the ultimate reality of the universe and its meaning. Despite the fact that there are millions of species on our planet, scientism focuses an inordinate amount of its attention on human behavior and beliefs. Rather than working within carefully constructed boundaries and methodologies established by researchers, it broadly generalizes entire fields of academic expertise and dismisses many of them as inferior. With scientism, you will regularly hear explanations that rely on words like “merely”, “only”, “simply”, or “nothing more than”. Scientism restricts human inquiry.

It is one thing to celebrate science for its achievements and remarkable ability to explain a wide variety of phenomena in the natural world. But to claim there is nothing knowable outside the scope of science would be similar to a successful fisherman saying that whatever he can’t catch in his nets does not exist (15). Once you accept that science is the only source of human knowledge, you have adopted a philosophical position (scientism) that cannot be verified, or falsified, by science itself. It is, in a word, unscientific.​

Reading the entire article might prove useful, especially for anyone who needs more clarity.

 

Hello Steven,

Human worship is what I think you're trying to get at. Humans are the gods and it is up to humans to make the world a better place, make humans behave appropriately to one another, and build societies and monuments to the greatness of humans. Anything humans do should be attributed to the hard work, dedication, and ability of humans. Humans should do what they think is right and feels good because humans are the best arbiters of right and wrong.

I don't use many fancy words, but is this what you are trying to get at?

You seem to be concerned with atheism. Atheists are idiots. Doesn't the Bible say so? That being said atheists aren't really the problem. Humans turn against God despite knowing he exists. After God parted the Red Sea, did the Jews doubt that God existed when they built the idol? Did Adam and Eve doubt the existence of God?

Humans don't need atheism to reject God. Humans don't need science to reject God. Humans rejected God well before the Hypothesis of Evolution or The Big Bang Hypothesis. People who blame science for people's rejection of God are like Adam pointing the finger at Eve.

Science is a perfectly fine profession for a Christian because scientists are learning about God by studying his creation. Just like a Bible scholar learns about God by studying his literature.

Marty

 

Calminian may have covered for you, perhaps because he agrees with your interpretation, but what you stated was in opposition to some of your own beliefs.

Anything that happened in the past is part of history. If an artist creates a work, the act and every layer of the product are part of history. If creation occurred, that is part of history. In representing your view, you stated the opposite. You even said it should not be taken seriously. That is not a way to bring clarity, and no way to speak of the works of God.

The implications of an “apparent age” interpretation are enormous.

To maintain that God created an earth with ice layers that have pollen in the summer layers from plants that never lived on top of ice from snow that never fell on top of fossilized reptiles that never lived is to place God in the role of deception. To place stars so far away from the earth that their measured distance implies that the light left them millions or billions of years ago and then reddened the light and broadened the spectra to complete the deception is totally at odds with the biblical God of integrity and truth.​

–John Clayton as quoted by Hugh Ross​

 

Let me offer a simple statement of what I believe. God is the source of all ultimate truth and that includes truth about the physical universe we live in. Science offers an ever-changing explanation of that truth. It does not provide the ultimate truth but does provide the truth about things we currently understand or can prove through experiment. Some scientists take an agnostic or atheistic view of what is and will always be beyond the reach of science. This is understanding of the ultimate cause for the universe to come into being and the ultimate meaning of life. Others accept the Christian belief that God is the answer to these questions.

For me, legitimate science and true religion address different realms of thought and there is no issue with either one of them. The Bible is not a scientific text book. Do we really know the ways or the thoughts of God? Of course not. That's biblical. Because He created the ultimate truth and meaning of the universe He also created the ultimate scientific explanation for everything. But we cannot understand that and never will this side of Heaven. Scientific theories change but Go's ultimate truth does not. We are continually scratching at the surface of truths that are far more complex than Einstein or Steven Hawking ever described or theorized about.

Does this mean that science is worthless and should be disregarded? of course not. We have all seen and benefited from the scientific advances that have been made like the discovery of electricity, the telephone, penicillin, bacteria, viruses, relativity, etc. legitimate scientists do not worship science like a god but rather use it to better our lot.

On the other hand, the Bible is composed of different types of information, history, prophesy, God's relationship to man including His plan for salvation and symbolism. Passages in the Bible need to be interpreted as a function of the type of information it is and in its historic and cultural context. I don't accept the idea of a young earth and don't see any problem with that. The Genesis account of creation should not be interpreted literally. I literally don't know exactly how God created the universe and space/time out of nothing. I know it was according to His divine purpose and His divine truth. I don't believe He would set up false indications which seem to support the Big Bang such as the background noise present Page Not Found the universe (discovered by Bell Labs Nobel Prize winners Penzias and Wilson). Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson

Their research location was about a mile away from my location at Bell Labs, Holmdel. I do have a problem with theistic evolution in that I believe the creation of man was a significantly different event than the rest of creation. God breathed into man a living soul.

In conclusion, I don't see any problem with accepting the Christian faith as well as science if they are understood in the proper way. Rejecting all science or parts of it as the 'work of the Devil" takes us back to the Dark Ages in which Galileo was placed under house arrest for accepting the solar-centric theory of the solar system. That kind of religion is more like voodoo magic than Christianity.

 

There is no such thing as evolution, nor real global warning, so those 2 would be fake science!

 

Both are scientific theories. Sometimes theories change with additional knowledge. That was the case with Newton's Laws. They were updated by Einstein to include relativistic effects. What are your qualifications to make such a judgement. Current "Evangelical" thinking is very much like the Catholic Church declaring scientists to be heretics who supported the idea that the Earth is not the center of the universe or even the center of our solar system. Those who believed that that Earth is not flat but is spherical also were declared to be heretics.

 

No, science when done right fully agrees with what scriptures teach to us, but evolution is a lie from Satan in order to get us off God centered to a man centered God does not exist viewpoint!
And global warming is junkcience, just trying to globalize and to make all under the one banner of save Mother earth!

 

You have the right to your opinions and I have the right to mine.

 

The truth is you are interpreting from the outset, and even translators are forced to interpret at times. There can be other ways to read a text literally. A literal reading would also be that the heaven and the earth were created in Gen 1:1, that the earth existed formless and void in Gen 1:2, and work from there. However, my point is not debate, but that there are some serious difficulties with your representation. No one should be expected to embrace it just because others do.

 

As long as we do not accept blindly the so called facts of dubious science, that has a secular mindset that totally disbelieves in God!

 

Do you believe that the earth is flat?

 

Nope, neither does the scripture!