/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

> why wouldn't it align perfectly with the other book God wrote, namely the record of nature

do you honestly think　scientists just look at nature?

>>609011

Methodological Naturalism, the guiding principle of the majority of scientists during this period is, by definition, natural. So yes absolutely I do.

>ITT: Discuss why honest science disagrees with Scripture.

>protip:

>It doesn't

So there is no need for this thread then? ok

>>609020

True enough. However in my experience the vast majority of protestant Christians seem to believe that science and Scripture are at odds. In fact the majority of Western culture does now though this was plainly not the case in the past before the rise of isms and PC.

>>609019

Can you prove methodological naturalism using methodological naturalism?

BTW, here's one indication that early Church Fathers considered nature to be a book written by God's hand. This has become known today as the Dual-revelation doctrine. From the Belgic Confession:

Article 2: The Means by Which We Know God

We know God by two means:

First, by the creation, preservation, and government

of the universe,

since that universe is before our eyes

like a beautiful book

in which all creatures,

great and small,

are as letters

to make us ponder

the invisible things of God:

God’s eternal power and divinity,

as the apostle Paul says in Romans 1:20.

All these things are enough to convict humans

and to leave them without excuse.

Second, God makes himself known to us more clearly

by his holy and divine Word,

as much as we need in this life,

for God’s glory

and for our salvation.

>>609028

No. It's a flawed principle ofc. Honest science should literally be the search for truth wherever it leads, let the metaphysical chips fall where they may.

>>609027

>the vast majority of protestant Christians seem to believe that science and Scripture are at odds

It's more about the evolution of man than the earth being X number of years old that is the problem.

>>609035

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be bringing up both neo-Darwinism and the YEC claim of a ~6'000yo universe. I'd like to address both topics from 3 different perspectives;

atheists

neutrals, whom I'll call 'seekers' (otherwise who cares about religion amirite?)

believers

Obviously I'll have to make sweeping generalizations here simply because I couldn't possibly accomodate the zoo of various subtleties in perspective out there. I'll try to discuss my own perception of the generally accepted perspective on these topics from each camp.

Atheists on neo-Darwinism:

This is their darling poster child ofc. With it they think they have a club to browbeat the whole world into submission recanting the view that God is real. Most of them are astounded they haven't 'won' this battle yet and dream of the day when all mankind throws off the shackles of religion and wakes up to the truth. Especially those pesky, insane Christians.

Atheists on 6'000yo universe & Earth:

They use this position on the part of Christians to make the claim that all persons who have religious beliefs are literally insane (see above).

Seekers on neo-Darwinism:

Most of these individuals consider this an established truth, without taking any real time or effort to evaluate it critically. Nevertheless they are basically comfortable on the whole with this claim. Most of them are probably only vaguely aware of the necessary dichotomy this presents to their general belief that yes, there is a supernatural of some sort.

Seekers on 6'000yo universe & Earth:

They find this absurd ofc. There are many ways of measuring ages of things and none of them point to ages this brief. The majority of seekers who hear of someone making this claim merely dismiss them as overeager zealots with a mild grin.

Believers on neo-Darwinism:

Ofc, Scripture plainly and explicitly claims that God Himself created all life on Earth, including Homo Sapiens Sapiens, aka, what everyone but anthropologists think of when they hear the word 'Human'.

Believers on 6'000yo universe & Earth:

The only subset of Christianity – and those almost exclusively a subset of Protestantism – who make this claim are so-called Young Earth creationists (YEC). The remainder of Christianity, other Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox Christians have no particular agenda for pushing this perspective either from the pulpit or with the public.

Now again, honest scientific inquiry of the universe God created cannot possibly be at odds with the Scripture in their original form, more or less by definition given the Bible's claim of God's unwavering faithfulness and truthfulness.

>>609027

That science supposedly contradicts the Bible or vice-versa is a relatively new belief, and I really wonder (((who))) behind this meme was. Think back about all the monastaries that existed and still exist and you will remember that they didn't only study theological matter, but from linguistics, astronomy, agriculture, history, biology etc. Christianity was never at odds with science at any point in time, this you have quite well observed. Even archaelogical funds that say that humans have existed way longer than the supposed (((6000 years))) do not contradict the Bible, since nowhere in the Bible does it say that Adam and Eve were the first human beings. God created our world we are living in in six days, right? But what if I tell you that the Hebrew word for day is yome and yome is not only synonymous for day but also for unspecified amount of time. Translators chose day, but is it right? And if it is, what kind of day then? God's perception of a day or ours? As we all know, a day for God are one thousand years for us. Considering all of that, we do not even know how long it was between the Sabbath and the creation of Adam, since nowhere in the Bible does it say how much time passed by. By those unspecifics, it is one example how the Bible does not contradict with modern science at all, but actually helps us to fill in the blanks.

Some may ask themselves why does God not tell us through His word what we just found out through modern research methods? As Genesis 5 says in the beginning:

>1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

>2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

The Bible is specifically the book of Adam and everyone after him. No other lineage, as far as I know, say that it is the book of [insert man here].

>inb4 called out for heresy

>>609096

Thank you for the thoughtful response anon. I'll just quickly say that I basically agree with your position overall. Right now it's very late and I have to sleep so this is short, but I'll give you a detailed reply later. Good night.

>>609027

>Christians seem to believe that science and Scripture are at odds

I doubt anyone really believes this. It's more like (((science))) and Scripture are at odds.

>>609953

Sorry for the delay anon. I have a lot on my plate right now with a big move. I'd like to give you a thorough response, but probably can't earlier than a couple of weeks.

Since even it may be difficult to do so, I'll beg forgiveness at this point and simply reply that yes, the 4th definition of the Biblical Hebrew word י֔וֹם

(yō·wm) is the correct one in the context, namely "An indeterminate, but finite, span of time."

This is validated not only by the Book of Genesis but the Bible scripture taken as a whole. The subject I used in the OP indicates what I believe to be the correct interpretation of both the time-frames of creation described both in the Scripture and the book of nature, and of the full concordance between the two.

Any seeming disparity between the two necessarily lies with us humans, and not with the Great Author of both books.

I hope that will suffice you anon. I may try to check back in a few weeks into this thread.

One of the main problem with the "6 days are actually billions of years" hypothesis is that the Bible says death was brought into the world as a result of sin. For the "6 days are actually billions of years" hypothesis to be consistent with evolutionism, it requires death existing before man exists, which is a blatant contradiction to the Eden account.