Biblical literalism correlates with anti-science

[River Jordan]

Well as much of the work in THIS area is done by non-believers, yes I do. Anyone who purports theory to be fact, in my book, is not a real scientist.

So you also like to prevaricating about my WRITTEN responses?

What's sad is trying to make your point by prevaricating. I readily see the REALITY of God's creation, just as His Word states. You and your ilk are the ones looking at it through eisegetical glasses.

So there's no doubt....your approach is to automatically reject anything that disagrees with, or casts doubt on, your interpretation of scripture. That looks to me exactly like someone who thinks themselves infallible.

Have you not heard of answersingenesis? Google founders of science. Google science in the bible. Science 'facts' have a dark history of changing, though not early on when the bible was its foundation. Science 'fact' was the world was flat and those who opposed based on scripture were thought of as stupid and trouble makers. I would encourage you to try a study from a different angle. Trust me, i have done this. True science facts will never go against the bible. That my friend is beyond 'scientific' fact. :-)

I've spent a lot of time studying young-earth creationism. I'd even wager that I'm more familiar with it than you.

Billions of years...maybe but I am not convinced.
Thousands of years...maybe but my interpretation is fallible.
Either way my faith is not dependent.

That's an excellent point. I get the impression from others that this is a big deal to their faith, and that were they to admit the reality of "billions of years and evolution", rather than take that as an indication that their interpretations were wrong, they would take it as scripture itself being wrong. IOW, it's the black/white approach mentioned in the OP.

The waters have been muddied by conflicting evidence, and personal bias. Good luck trying to find out the truth about a politicized issue

Oh sure....unless you are inclined to put the work in to study an issue, it generally comes down to who you trust. And I think a lot of creationist organizations know that their audience will generally give them the benefit of the doubt...and IMO they take advantage of it.

There is personal evidence for the Holy Spirit. He would ensure a translation is done in earnest. But caution is necessary, because many false prophets have their own interpretations and agendas.

The evidence suggests otherwise for several versions of the Bible. There's pretty good evidence of mistranslations, sometimes deliberate.

Yes. It is good to test the interpretations of scripture.

Definitely! :)

Today, theology has been pushed in a corner and God has become an optional, and often viewed as an ignorant concept that is opposed to discovery and exploration. The early Christian scientists who made some of the greatest scientific discoveries must be rolling in their graves. The idea that man operates by an unaided universal reason, is not only religious, but is without any scientific basis. The idea that the aim is to find how things came about "naturally" (which now means, apart from any design or mind) is not a scientific necessity, but is one that is continually rammed down people's throats. We think we have power over the creation because we can label things, learn how they work and put them under a microscope to be categorized and filed. The truth is our intellects and each breath is a gift and all of creation is an expression of God.

Again this seems to be an expression of the "science is anti-God" sentiment. I find it sad to see so many Christians think this way. Play it out long enough and eventually we'll have ceded science to non-Christians....and it'll be our own fault.

A beetle does not exists in and of itself. It is an expression of the mind of God, and the more we learn of its intricacy and incredible functions should draw us closer to God. Not only that, but it exists each moment because the word of God and power of God holds it together as with every other molecule in all of creation. The ultimate goal of science and every other field of study should be worship. When people miss that, they miss everything.

And not only that, but when you study further and discover the amazing diversity of beetles, and how that diversity was created (and continues to be created) it boggles the mind and gives one a deeper appreciation for a divine creation that's still creating!

The goal should not be to make the Bible-thumper less anti-science. It should be to stop pretending that these two areas of study are opposing or conflicting. You cant blame religious people for being defensive when the large majority of today's scientific community fail to glorify God for the beauty and design and instead pretends "God" is nothing but a plea to ignorance and a clinging to "gaps."

Wow. Is that really what you think of science?

"God did it" is not a cop out. Science should be about praising God for how he did it, and not a means of showing God had nothing to do with it but it was all "natural." If creation is from the hand of God and is sustained by God, and our means to contemplate its order and complexity is a gift of God...then "natural" takes on a whole new meaning.

"God did it" is a theological belief, not a scientific explanation. If it were, every paper's results section would be "God did it" and nothing more. What you seem to be saying is that unless science conforms and affirms your theology, it is invalid by definition. I wonder if you apply that logic to other areas of your life? When you get your car fixed, do you want a mechanic to tell you that the reason it stopped running is because "God did it"? Or if you get one who says it stopped running for "natural reasons", do you reject him because he must be anti-God?

Hi River - I have experienced the results of the hypothesis of the researchers. Fundamentalism is a closed and self fulfilling belief system. Perpetualing it is consistent with tribalism / fan-ism. Opposition fuels martyrism.

The only hope we have is the narrow road of Christ which destroys dualism with love

It's amazing to read the accounts of ex-fundamentalists too. The sad thing is, once they adopt the black/white thinking, a lot of them go from fundamentalism all the way to atheism.

Interesting, so you weren't aware of confirmation bias?

I'm glad you were able to find so much from this ground-breaking study! Well done!

Of course I'm aware. What's your point?

 

[StanJ]

Agreed. Your are a blessed man to be in a country/location that sort of compels you to learn to be bilingual. This is something that I wish the US education system had maybe compelled me a bit more when I was younger to recognize the value of knowing another language. I passed all my Spanish courses with good grades, but that didn't translate into much fluency. It's still on my list of "nice things to have" and maybe when the kids get a little older I can gain fluency with the right circumstances. I took a Linguistics class as part of my English requirement, and man I struggled with it but found the interrelationships of language quite fascinating.

I find it a bit academically sloppy, though to employ the term "literal." I know it's easy red meat and usually is the bedfellow of words like fundamentalist, but employing the word literal means a host of different things to a host of different people. For some, it means the dragon of Revelation is a real dragon, for others, literal would mean simply that it's clearly a literary device to convey a point. I would say this could lead to a flawed premise.

For example, I am an oddball in this apparently in that I have subscriptions to both the Smithsonian and Christianity Today. For those that know me, being an oddball is not new, but hey...

I guess where I see this study potentially going awry - and I cannot fairly judge this behind a paywall - is in terms employed. For instance, what does distrust mean? I am sure the term is defined in the study, but distrust could mean simple skepticism to outright denial. I am not here to deny a portion of Christianity will deny valid science, but neither am I here to submit to a sort of technocratic submission to whatever empirical data says at every turn. Christianity says we are more than our material composition, so it says things that empirical data won't necessarily touch.

Further, even though science in the macro sense is viewed as apolitical, all of these groups have a political interest in continued funding. We trust that these biases are accounted for an controlled, but let's not deny confirmation bias doesn't exist for all. It's easier to drum up support when you're the underdog and need it. I am not 100% convinced that in a nation where we love our technology that we have quite such an anti-science mindset as is sometime verbalized.

Even with the anti-vax movement (which contains a surprising atheist element), most Christians still trust doctors for their knowledge and medical care, all built on science. I wonder aloud how much is an overcommitment verbalized in a poll or questionnaire, but might be lesser in actual deed?

I agree that the Bible contains all forms of grammar, from literal to metaphor to hyperbole. Forcing a predisposition on the text is just eisegesis, and why it is so important to learn proper hermeneutical exegesis.
The anti Vax analogy is a very good example of why we should trust accredited professionals that get paid for their actual knowledge and not for their opinions used to generate revenue.
I have no real problem with science, just with those who use it as their God.

BTW, I am also into Smithsonian and CT.

So there's no doubt....your approach is to automatically reject anything that disagrees with, or casts doubt on, your interpretation of scripture. That looks to me exactly like someone who thinks themselves infallible.

My understanding of the Bible, yes. This is after 43 years of studying it, and the issues like this, in light of scripture. Why would anyone do different, who claims to walk in faith? Please don't assume I don't know the issues. I just prefer to deal with the issue of lack of faith in God's word, and how some make it subservient to their belief in science. God reigns, not science.

 

[River Jordan]

My understanding of the Bible, yes. This is after 43 years of studying it, and the issues like this, in light of scripture. Why would anyone do different, who claims to walk in faith? Please don't assume I don't know the issues. I just prefer to deal with the issue of lack of faith in God's word, and how some make it subservient to their belief in science. God reigns, not science.

Well, I guess at the very least I should thank you for being honest and admitting that you think yourself infallible when it comes to interpreting scripture. That certainly explains why you equate disagreement with you with disagreement with God.

 

[hopefuldivider]

I wonder where I fit into this article. I have no problems with science (in fact I enjoy learning about it) but I also take the Bible literally(or as I like to put it, literarily [after all, poetry and parable cannot be taken literally]).

Science and the Bible do not oppose each other, especially if one has a healthy understanding of the two. Science cannot investigate causes or events that exist outside the realm of the physical universe and as such cannot comment on them. A healthy view is to realize this limitation. The problem is when people automatically exclude the possibility of meta-physical causes and events simply because they cannot be investigated. This is not science but scientism, a philosophy founded neither in sound science or sound logic (and is actually self contradictory).

 

[UppsalaDragby]

The gist of the paper is that the authors recognized the correlation between conservatism, religious belief, and overall distrust of science. But the authors dug deeper into the data and found something even more explanatory. They found that the primary predictor of a person being distrustful of science is Biblical literalism.

Oh, the authors "dug deeper" did they? And of course they did so by exclusively looking at the "data" ... without the slightest inkling of any predjudice whatsoever?

Well perhaps the "distrust" mentioned here is based on how certain people just love to repetatively create false dichotomies between "conservative religious beliefs" and "science".

After all.... what is "literalism" supposed to be?

And how do we define "science"?

If the word science is being misused in the educational system, the media, and on Christian forums, then what on earth is there to "trust"?

 

[StanJ]

Well, I guess at the very least I should thank you for being honest and admitting that you think yourself infallible when it comes to interpreting scripture. That certainly explains why you equate disagreement with you with disagreement with God.

Prevaricating is not very fruitful River, nor is it being honest. I am always open to anyone showing me how my understanding of scripture is wrong.

I wonder where I fit into this article. I have no problems with science (in fact I enjoy learning about it) but I also take the Bible literally(or as I like to put it, literarily [after all, poetry and parable cannot be taken literally]).

Science and the Bible do not oppose each other, especially if one has a healthy understanding of the two. Science cannot investigate causes or events that exist outside the realm of the physical universe and as such cannot comment on them. A healthy view is to realize this limitation. The problem is when people automatically exclude the possibility of meta-physical causes and events simply because they cannot be investigated. This is not science but scientism, a philosophy founded neither in sound science or sound logic (and is actually self contradictory).

Welcome, and I whole heartedly agree.

 

[River Jordan]

Oh, the authors "dug deeper" did they? And of course they did so by exclusively looking at the "data" ... without the slightest inkling of any predjudice whatsoever?

Well perhaps the "distrust" mentioned here is based on how certain people just love to repetatively create false dichotomies between "conservative religious beliefs" and "science".

After all.... what is "literalism" supposed to be?

And how do we define "science"?

If the word science is being misused in the educational system, the media, and on Christian forums, then what on earth is there to "trust"?

And so we see the point of the paper and the OP demonstrated perfectly. Thanks UD.

I am always open to anyone showing me how my understanding of scripture is wrong.

So how would you know if your understanding is wrong?

 

[UppsalaDragby]

And so we see the point of the paper and the OP demonstrated perfectly. Thanks UD.

Oh really, please elaborate..

 

[River Jordan]

Your post shows exactly what the paper is about....an obvious distrust of the science. You had already written it off as biased, even though you hadn't read it.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Your post shows exactly what the paper is about....an obvious distrust of the science. You had already written it off as biased, even though you hadn't read it.

Where did my post show that I distrusted science?

 

[HammerStone]

BTW, I am also into Smithsonian and CT.

Yay for oddballs! ;)

I agree that the Bible contains all forms of grammar, from literal to metaphor to hyperbole. Forcing a predisposition on the text is just eisegesis, and why it is so important to learn proper hermeneutical exegesis.
The anti Vax analogy is a very good example of why we should trust accredited professionals that get paid for their actual knowledge and not for their opinions used to generate revenue.
I have no real problem with science, just with those who use it as their God.

Well, I neglected to replace this in my repost, but over the years I've looked at the different translations. I don't pretend to be any sort of scholar of Hebrew, Greek or any other language, but I do try and stand on the shoulders of much smarter giants to understand what those languages said. I can also back up a little deeper understanding of the depth of language with my own English degree (though after I review my posts, I sometimes think I probably shouldn't advertise that...).

Translation strikes me as a little bit of science, and a lot of art. Unfortunately, a lot of propaganda for the various translations out there tend to corral us into tribes with phrases like "essentially literal." Scot McKnight made a completely true post that you can guess a person's theology (and politics) by what version they carry. I found myself drawn to several versions reaching back to the KJV, and stemming through the ESV, NIV, NLT, and NRSV. I included these specific examples because it pretty much spans the spectrum. I would affirm all of them as good translations of the Bible, though perhaps flawed for various reasons. All flawed, that is in some form.

Yet, I would probably class myself (and certainly be classed as) a person who would say the Bible is a literal document for me. With that said, I recognize the depth of language and the use of form and literary devices to convey things that are not literal in one sense, but quite literal in another.

But to get back to respecting the OP, all of these are based on the necessary disciplines that produce them. Unfortunately, we're at an increasingly polarizing position where code words mean everything. There are code words that shout liberal, and there are code words that shout conservative. Ultimately, this article reminds me of the brou-ha-ha down in Florida where members of the environmental department down there were denied use of words and phrases like "climate change" and "sustainability" in their briefs and reports. Don't use the code words because they're the domain of the other side.

Sadly, this is just another form of fundamentalism couched in a little better language. Ultimately, literal means many different things to many different folks, but you best avoid it because it will right you off as a fundie the moment you employ it! I just wish people could see the epistemic closure for what it is.

 

[StanJ]

So how would you know if your understanding is wrong?

The same way I know when my understanding is right....by the Holy Spirit.

 

[River Jordan]

Where did my post show that I distrusted science?

Again, pay closer attention. I said "the science" and specifically referred to this paper. Your comment "Oh, the authors "dug deeper" did they? And of course they did so by exclusively looking at the "data" ... without the slightest inkling of any predjudice whatsoever?" very clearly indicates what you think of the paper, even though you've not read it.

The same way I know when my understanding is right....by the Holy Spirit.

Do you therefore believe that anyone who disagrees must therefore not be guided by the Holy Spirit?

 

[StanJ]

Do you therefore believe that anyone who disagrees must therefore not be guided by the Holy Spirit?

Well if they can't or won't try to refute me, as is the case with all your questions and comments, then yes I feel that way.

 

[River Jordan]

Well if they can't or won't try to refute me, as is the case with all your questions and comments, then yes I feel that way.

But it seems like your framework is that since the Holy Spirit has guided you to certain conclusions, then it is impossible for any person to refute you anyways. So if it turned out you were wrong, you'd never know it because you were never even open to the possibility in the first place.

 

[StanJ]

But it seems like your framework is that since the Holy Spirit has guided you to certain conclusions, then it is impossible for any person to refute you anyways. So if it turned out you were wrong, you'd never know it because you were never even open to the possibility in the first place.

I can only say, and with this I'll stop responding to these inane questions or observations, that it is not surprising you find yourself supporting science over God, given that you don't respond positively at all to those that know the difference and are committed to God.

 

[River Jordan]

I can only say, and with this I'll stop responding to these inane questions or observations, that it is not surprising you find yourself supporting science over God, given that you don't respond positively at all to those that know the difference and are committed to God.

*sigh*

Likewise, it's not surprising to see you exhibit the black/white thinking and other characteristics described in the OP.

 

[StanJ]

*sigh*

Likewise, it's not surprising to see you exhibit the black/white thinking and other characteristics described in the OP.

Who wrote the article in the OP, and where do you perceive the Bible is not absolute in it's message?

 

[River Jordan]

Who wrote the article in the OP,

Dr. Gordon Gauchat. You didn't see that when you clicked the link? Or did you not even bother to go that far?

and where do you perceive the Bible is not absolute in it's message?

Do you abide by God's laws as described in the Old Testament?

 

[StanJ]

Dr. Gordon Gauchat. You didn't see that when you clicked the link? Or did you not even bother to go that far?

Do you abide by God's laws as described in the Old Testament?

Is he a Christian?

You're avoiding my question.