The Bible Vs Scientism

Faith & Science Conversation
14

Or AIG or Henry Morris?

I agree, in the case of AIG. It is partially true of science and other human endeavors s well, but in science, conjecture and speculation is usually identified as such for those subjects that are lacking in enough data to make reasonable conclusions.

It is actually measurements of their movements that tell us that. measurements that are repeatable and verified.

I think you are conflating science and scientism a bit. To accept an old earth and evolution is scientifically accurate is not scientism but rather is science. One need not accept that science is the only way to express truth in order to believe science can give true answers about the things it describes.

Despite those differences, I suspect we have much common ground. If you are comfortable with it, tell us a bit about your background and where you are coming from with your conclusions. Perhaps I have been hasty in my judgement that your statements seem derived from AIG literature.

5 Likes
15

In addition to the other criticisms of the question so far, your implied definition of scientism sets up a straw man argument. Scientism, as usually defined, is not just using scientific reason to make conclusions about the natural world. That is science, not scientism. Scientism is actually difficult to define. I suggest reading this article to see what I mean: Johan Hietanen, Petri Turunen, Ilmari Hirvonen, Janne Karisto, Ilkka Pättiniemi & Henrik Saarinen, How Not to Criticise Scientism - PhilPapers

2 Likes
16

Then you have wasted my time. I thought that maybe English was your second language or something, and so I was diligently trying to help you understand that your reply made no sense.

Are you saying that since salvation is such an important issue, there’s no need to discuss anything else?

I’ve posed a question about something other than salvation… although it is about truth - which Jesus says will set us free. If you have an answer to THAT question, I’m all ears.

17

What different ways do scientists interpret what happens to a compass needle when an electric current is applied to a north pointing wire next to it?

18

Laura:

It sounds like you’re presenting a false dichotomy – either the universe was created six thousand years ago and the Bible is true or it began 14 billion years ago and believing that makes you a member of a cult.

I should have called it the Religion of Scientism - not cult. But no, the dichotomy is not false. There is absolutely no reasonable way to align the 6000 year old heaven and earth of the Bible with the 14 billion year old heaven and 4.5 billion year old earth of Scientism.

Laura:

I can believe that the Bible is true but also that Genesis 1 is presenting a functional view of creation and the universe is still 14 billion years old.

It is God who said He created heaven, earth, sea, and everything in them over a six day period. It is Jesus who said that God created them male and female from the beginning of creation. Lay out a 14 billion year timeline, and mark the spot 6000 years ago when Adam was created. Then ask yourself if Jesus (or any rational person) would consider that spot on the timeline the “beginning” of creation.

Laura:

I find this definition of scientism from Merriam-Webster useful…

Thanks. I like my definition because Scientism isn’t just a matter of holding science as the only (or most important) arbiter of truth. In fact, Scientism doesn’t have much to do with science at all. Scientism is a faith-based belief in claims made by men which can’t possibly be verified.

Laura:

Trying to turn science into a philosophy that encompasses all of life is a bad idea. But when used in its proper context, science can be a very useful and fascinating tool that reveals truths about the universe, such as the universe being 14 billion years old. Accepting those truths does not make one a member of a “cult” of scientism.

Your faith-based belief that a 14 billion year old universe is “truth” is evidence that you are member of the Religion of Scientism. In reality, you couldn’t possibly know or verify the thing you call “truth”.

*** So MANY edits trying to get the HTML to work properly on the quotes. What’s up with that? I’ve been using a [ /quote ] to break up quotes on many sites for years. It’s not working the same here.

19

When I mentioned to a YEC that truth comes from reality, the reality of what God has given us in scripture and the reality he has given us in creation, he actually asked me for chapter and verse were the Bible said that.
 

20

“No need to discuss anything else?” Well, no–thanks be to God our Father through Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior–I don’t have a need to discuss anything else.
You say you do, so while we’re here on “the street corner” together, let me ask you a question, Brother:: Does the truth that you say Jesus says will set us free say that I am going to hell if I believe in evolution?

1 Like
21

There are plenty of ways, especially considering the Bible gives no dates at all and no one anywhere in the Bible shows even the least bit concern over the age of the Earth. I understand that you do not accept any of them, and that’s fine. But many many people are able to believe the Bible and have Christian faith just fine while accepting an old universe.

Even within the “young earth” idea of the universe, not everything had its “beginning” at the same time. People were created on day 6. So that was considered the beginning of humanity, but it didn’t have to be the beginning of the universe. Interestingly, Jesus doesn’t mention Adam or Eve in this passage.

This is baloney. I am not a member of a “religion of scientism.” I accept plenty of truth claims based on scientific information, and you do too. You just appear to accept slightly fewer claims than I do.

As @jammycakes explained well above, the age of the universe is based on measurement just like so many other scientific processes and technologies that we observe and use every day. I’m not aware of any scientist, Christian or secular, who believes in a 6,000-year-old universe based on actual evidence – only prior theological commitments. Which are fine to have, but should not be confused with science.

2 Likes
22

Vinnie:

“It is not the Bible itself, but the interpretations/conclusions/speculations of flawed men which tell us what those words on the page, ink on cellulose must and should mean.” See what I did there?

I see what you tried to do. Unfortunately, you’ve failed to take into account the vast difference in difficulty between trying to interpret a very clear written account and trying to scientifically understand our entire world.

For example, we can read this on Wiki… “The Battle of Waterloo was fought on Sunday, 18 June 1815, near Waterloo in the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, now in Belgium. A French army under the command of Napoleon was defeated by two of the armies of the Seventh Coalition.”

Vinnie, is it difficult to interpret the meaning of that statement, and determine the date of the Battle of Waterloo? Of course not. It’s not like you’re going to be saying 1930, and Laura will say 1642, and I will interpret it to be 1815, right?

On the other hand, if we didn’t have that historical account, and the three of us had to scour the earth to scientifically find out exactly where and when this battle was fought - we’d have to sift through a ton of data, and we’d likely all interpret it differently and conclude different places and dates.

When God says, “Hey Israelites, you are to work six days and rest on the seventh BECAUSE I worked six days creating the physical world and rested on the seventh” there’s really not a lot of difficulty in properly interpreting what God clearly said. No more, in fact, than in interpreting what Wiki clearly stated about the Battle of Waterloo.

Vinnie:

Please don’t confuse your flawed interpretation of scripture with what God actually says.

Exodus 20:9-11… Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day…you must not do any work… For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, but on the seventh day He rested.

That’s what God said, Vinnie. I understand that to mean the Israelites were to work six days and rest on the seventh BECAUSE God worked for six days and rested on the seventh.

Can you point out my “flawed interpretation”?

Vinnie:

Even then, a literal reading of Genesis 1 in context (theirs, not ours as the text was written for us but not to us) does not care about the actual age of the universe and earth.

What makes you say that? How could you possibly determine such a thing from the words that are written?

23

Are God’s days the same of ours? What does the Bible say? Are not the days in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 analogous days?

24

Yes. That is indeed what I’m telling you. Flawed human beings can also make a wheel. But tell me, jammy, when exactly was the very first wheel made and utilized like we use them today?

It is not any kind of “cult of scientism” that tells us that the universe began about 14 billion years ago. It is measurement. The age of the earth is determined by measuring things. The age of the universe is determined by measuring things.

Do those measurements rely on any assumptions?

25

I have indeed learned a lot over the years from AIG, ICR, CMI, etc. But my conclusions are based on the simple fact that God’s written word is my ultimate authority about our world. The question in the OP is based on the fact that the the Scientism (not to be confused with “scientific”) description of our world clearly contradicts the Biblical description of our world.

Do you have an answer to the question with which I ended the OP, jpm?

26

Your assumption is that your interpretation of Genesis 1 is infallible.

27

If you believe that, it seems you would have no option but to reject the Bible if the earth indeed is ancient. Well, since it is, that is not an theologic position that is viable.

1 Like
28

This question? The answer to that is that it is a false dichotomy, as it ignores the possibility that your interpretation is wrong, and God’s revelation and message in Genesis is not that the universe is 6000 years old any more than that we have a solid dome overhead, or the sun revolves around a flat earth, or the moon is a light, but rather who he is and his relationship to us.

3 Likes
29

No straw man, bness. The definition in the OP is straightforward and easy to understand. For example, it is not science that says the earth is 4.5 billion years old anymore than it was science that used to say it was a 100 million years old. Flawed men - not science - have made both of those contradictory claims.

Scientism is the faith-based belief in the authority and interpretations of the flawed men who said 100 million, and then later 4.5 billion - when the undeniable truth is that no man on earth could actually know such a thing.

Do you have an answer to the question at the bottom of the OP?

30

I’m still waiting for an example of flawed human beings with Ph.D.s and disinterest in the relevant science interpreting science data in many different ways.

31

I won’t do that. In fact, I agree 100% with your statement. There isn’t a single thing in the reality of the world God gave us though creation that contradicts the reality of the world God described in His written word.

Agreed?

32

Neither is the truth, because there is no ‘cult of Scientism’ and God’s creation is not lying to us about its age.

 
YECism also belittles the import of Psalm 8:4, not only because of the vastness of the size of the universe, but also because of the vastness of its antiquity.

What is man, that you are mindful of him?!"

1 Like
33

Agreed?