Featured Christian Apologetics: Knowing Our Enemy Called the Scientific Worldview

How refreshing that you can admit the possibility of another interpretation, instead of expressing the all too typical dogmatism. How much better it would be if others could do the same.

No, I don’t see it as helpful to argue for appearance of age, a young earth, a global flood, geocentricity, or a flat earth with scientifically-minded people. It can be downright harmful. Science is not an enemy of the truth. Scientists are not enemies of the truth. But given your sort of representations, they may have very good reason to scoff, and think your other ideas on the Bible must be equally worthy of scorn. Everyone needs the Gospel. Find a way to share that.

 

When was this, and who? Maybe peasants who did nothing but work the fields or menial tasks to serve their masters thought thus, as there was no reason to think otherwise and it wouldn't help them. But thinking people considered how a ship disappeared over the horizon before its tallest sails did, how the Pole Star had no visible 'movement' and the other stars revolved around it, and how the earth's shadow was seen on the moon occasionally, but then only on the night of a Full Moon... and came to the obvious conclusion(s). It's hardly the most difficult thing in the world, including in ancient times, to see the earth is spherical.

 

Christian Apologetics: Knowing Our Enemy Called the Scientific Worldview

Is there a scriptural reference to support that statement?

The discipline of science does not condemn the soul of man, nor can it redeem it.

Jas 4:4 KJV Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

 

No, I did not say what you say I said, but let me try to be clearer. I pointed out some problems with the way you presented some ideas. You even admitted that your interpretation may turn out to be wrong. The way you have presented some of your beliefs can be harmful if you try to present them to scientifically minded people as a way to share the Gospel. They may very well feel justified in not listening to anything else from the Bible, if you start out that way. It is best to avoid doing so. As one person here has wisely suggested, find common ground and go from there. Don’t antagonize.

Your expressed shock and resultant question make me suspect you are not very familiar with other interpretations that square with the Bible’s historical accounts of the Noahic Flood and the Garden of Eden. Sometimes people have seen only caricatures of other interpretations, with attendant accusations of this or that. Perhaps that’s why you were shocked and left wondering?

 

All well and good, except for the fact that the distinctions you demarcate are ignored by the scientists themselves.

 

Many scientists are devout Christians. like myself. When I look at the night sky with its unbelievable billions of stars farrther than the strongest telescope ever invented I am fill with the wonder and glory of God. The works of His creation are simply too astounding to even consider that they happened by chance. This is in line with the Biblical statement that those who have not yet heard the gospel have some idea of the Eternal due to their witness of His creation. Einstein believed in a greater force outside our time/space but not the personal God of Christians. His famous statement in speaking out against Quantum Mechanics was: "God (small g) does not play dice with the universe" He, sadly, had only of part of the truth.

 

Trusting Genesis 1-11 does not necessarily mean interpreting those passages literally.

If I was trying to attack the integrity of the Bible and claimed that the biblical writers didn't know anything about locusts, citing Revelation 9:7-10:

The appearance of the locusts was like horses prepared for battle; and on their heads appeared to be crowns like gold, and their faces were like the faces of men. They had hair like the hair of women, and their teeth were like the teeth of lions. They had breastplates like breastplates of iron; and the sound of their wings was like the sound of chariots, of many horses rushing to battle. They have tails like scorpions, and stings; and in their tails is their power to hurt men for five months.​

And then I said, "If I cannot trust Revelation, then why should I trust Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?"

You would point out that not all parts of the Bible are supposed to be taken literally. That there are a number of places that are symbolic or are intended to be interpreted another way. And you would be correct.

In your graduate training, have you had a class on biblical interpretation? This should have been covered in any legitimate program...

Picking a verse at random:

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst."​

I was hungry and thirsty last night before dinner, and I woke up this morning hungry and thirsty. What about you? Does that mean that we have not come to Jesus?

Obviously, we don't take Jesus at "face value" because that is clearly NOT what is intended.

 

You are making a blanket statement. You need to get to know some scientists. There are plenty of scientists who are people who subscribe to a faith tradition, as well as many Christians.

One of the big obstacles to scientists breaking free of naturalism and empirical rationalism is that Christians stupidly claim that a person has to make a choice between believing science or believing the Bible. So some scientists, knowing that science is quite reliable in making predictions, reject the Bible and the anti-intellectual Christianity that they have seen demonstrated.

 

You want to be pedantic, fine. The scientists that control the microphone. That run the institutions of education, write the textbooks, that do the hiring and firing, that do the publishing, that lobby congress, that are telling the rest of us what science is . . .

. . . ignore your distinctions.

Which iota of Hawkings' imaginations of late were anywhere near your definitions?

Hogwash. It's not the fault of God's little children that atheists want to leave God out of science.

 

Put simply, the prevailing world view in the institutions of science is atheistic. The reasons for that are moral, not empirical.

There are scientists who have a Christian world view. They are typically shunned and ridiculed, even by professed Christians who wish to be considered educated.

 

Secular Humanism is the 21st century world "religion".

Secular humanism - Wikipedia

 

Yes, Paul is a great example of how to reach people via common ground, even saying, “I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some,” (1 Cor 9:22b). The term apologetics has its roots in 1 Pet 3:15b: “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.”

An atheist can have any number of issues other than science. A great many of them feel hurt by religious people. How many of them have real hope? My hope is not in the fall, or even in the creation, but in the risen Lord.

Yes, personal experience necessarily colors one’s perspective; it cannot be helped, except by more varied experiences, which can be aided via the shared experiences of others, including the study of history.

You are right that liberal is not my label. What’s the label for the following? “For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds; 5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ,” (2 Cor 10:4-5).

 

Thank you, too. I thought it a good exchange, and think we agree far more than disagree. The way I see it, you are seeking to reconcile your reading of the Bible with the reality you observe, and vice versa, so that truth is maintained. I’m not sure I worded that properly, but I think R.C. Sproul related this to “saving the phenomena.” Here’s an excerpt from this link: https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/saving-phenomena/

“When we see an apparent conflict between the Bible and science, either our understanding of the Bible is wrong, our understanding of science is wrong, or our understanding of both is wrong. As Christians we can confidently pursue all of the sciences knowing that when we apprehend them correctly, we will understand God even better.”

Again, I encourage you to keep in mind that science and scientism are not at all the same, and that using them interchangeably will only muddy the waters, something Baptist Believer also emphasized.

 

Exactly! There is no difference between scientism and science in the minds of atheists, or of those who “practice” scientism. You cannot separate it in their minds, only in your own. That is the whole point. They don’t call it scientism. They call both “science” as it works in their favor. They do not want people to separate the two at all. If they can achieve this, they become the high priests of society. Such “empiricists” have no clothes, but exposing this to them is not so easy. However, for those who prefer truth there is hope, great hope.

As for suffering, I do not think that is extremely popular among American Christians either. I believe in reference to your verse Paul said it was for those “as be perfect.” An ASV footnote says “full-grown;” the NIV translates it “mature.”

And don’t be too ready to take at face value whatever else unbelieving “idealists” teach either. There are plenty who would gladly help you suffer as surely as they helped crucify the Christ. Like you when you were an atheist, not all who have heard them are really like them. Some have merely fallen under their spell for a time. God will use those believers willing to suffer to reach them. What a privilege!