Is Faith Compatible with Reason?

[the_bob_delusion]

Is faith compatible with science or reality?

Do you think you have to forego rational thinking to have faith?

Do you have faith based on reason?

If science contradicts scripture, which then do you accept?

Can you have faith and also accept science? e.g. Can you accept evolution if it goes against scripture?

When a Muslim tells you that Mohommad flew to heaven on a winged horse, is this based on reason/science?

[*elizabeths-mum*]

Faith and religion aren't the same thing. Having a faith doesn't preclude you from accepting scientific discoveries.

[rabbitearbandicoot]

THere're so many, I don't have time to list them all.

e.g. In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars,

you're obviously not reading the same Bible as me, Bob - mine says: "'in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

- birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals.

The order of events known from science is just the opposite.

Que? Science is just the opposite??? So science says: "the animals were created before the plants??? What did the animals eat while they waited for the plants?? No wonder so many of them went extinct.

If you want to discuss Faith and Reason Bob - at least try to be a little reasonable.

[the_bob_delusion]

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

THere're so many, I don't have time to list them all.

e.g. In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars,

you're obviously not reading the same Bible as me, Bob - mine says: "'in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

- birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals.

The order of events known from science is just the opposite.

Que? Science is just the opposite??? So science says: "the animals were created before the plants??? What did the animals eat while they waited for the plants?? No wonder so many of them went extinct.

If you want to discuss Faith and Reason Bob - at least try to be a little reasonable.

---

Hmmmmmm,  do you still want to claim that the bible is consistent with science and actually gives an accurate account of science. I don't think it's fair to pick on you. 

Based on the Genesis account, the first living things to be created were grasses and plants which lived on land. Scientifically, this is untrue. For the first three billion years, all life, both animal and plant were entirely aquatic and lived in the sea. The land area were sterile and had no life. During this period, all life consisted of single-celled prokaryotes that were not grasses, not herbs, and not even plants. The Biblical account that had grasses appearing at the same time, or shortly before fruit trees is also incorrect. Flowering plants, or angiosperms, appeared during the Cretaceous period, just before the extinction of the dinosaurs, and before any grasses appeared. As far as grasses, they weren't even remotely the first forms of life---grasses didn't appear until the early Tertiary period, well after the extinction of the dinosaurs. They are actually one of the LAST major groups of plants to have formed. The Genesis writer's idea that plants appeared before animals is also simply wrong----we know from the fossil record that multicellular animals appeared first. The Genesis account gets all of this wrong.

BTW the Sun hadn't been created yet. Plants, of course, cannot live without photosynthesis using sunlight. The Biblical idea that plants could have appeared before the Sun appeared simply reflects their lack of knowledge about the most basic biology of plants.

I won't even go any futher to Adam and Eve. Respectfully, this isn't  a fair debate. Even intelligent theologians are smart enough not to claim the bible is a science book. I wish you don't go there. Coz' it just makes faith look stupid. 

[rabbitearbandicoot]

---

@**freethinker_bob** wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

THere're so many, I don't have time to list them all.

e.g. In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars,

you're obviously not reading the same Bible as me, Bob - mine says: "'in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

- birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals.

The order of events known from science is just the opposite.

Que? Science is just the opposite??? So science says: "the animals were created before the plants??? What did the animals eat while they waited for the plants?? No wonder so many of them went extinct.

If you want to discuss Faith and Reason Bob - at least try to be a little reasonable.

---

Hmmmmmm,  do you still want to claim that the bible is consistent with science and actually gives an accurate account of science. I don't think it's fair to pick on you. 

Based on the Genesis account, the first living things to be created were grasses and plants which lived on land. Scientifically, this is untrue. For the first three billion years, all life, both animal and plant were entirely aquatic and lived in the sea. The land area were sterile and had no life. During this period, all life consisted of single-celled prokaryotes that were not grasses, not herbs, and not even plants. The Biblical account that had grasses appearing at the same time, or shortly before fruit trees is also incorrect. Flowering plants, or angiosperms, appeared during the Cretaceous period, just before the extinction of the dinosaurs, and before any grasses appeared. As far as grasses, they weren't even remotely the first forms of life---grasses didn't appear until the early Tertiary period, well after the extinction of the dinosaurs. They are actually one of the LAST major groups of plants to have formed. The Genesis writer's idea that plants appeared before animals is also simply wrong----we know from the fossil record that multicellular animals appeared first. The Genesis account gets all of this wrong.

BTW the Sun hadn't been created yet. Plants, of course, cannot live without photosynthesis using sunlight. The Biblical idea that plants could have appeared before the Sun appeared simply reflects their lack of knowledge about the most basic biology of plants.

I won't even go any futher to Adam and Eve. Respectfully, this isn't  a fair debate. Even intelligent theologians are smart enough not to claim the bible is a science book. I wish you don't go there. Coz' it just makes faith look stupid. 

Please Bob, feel free to pick on me. I have my faith but I also have reason. This is how I see Creation V Science . Fossil Record.

Genesis 1 is obviously a SUMMARY of Creation. If it were to detail every single creation from the first single cell lifeform it would fill thousands of books.

"In the begining God created the heaven and the earth" - I guess that is what you would refer to as the 'big bang'.

Day 3 gen 1:11: Then God said, “Let the earth produce vegetation" - Obviously the first vegetation was simplistic after all the land was probably still mostly rock and the air would not have been breathable (and, as you so rightly pointed out - no photosynthesis yet) but as that 'day' progressed and rock became soil, the air became more and more accepting of life as we know it - water became less salt, so vegetaiton became more and more complex until eventually grasses and trees.

Day 4: Up until this stage the earth would have been covered in mist & smoke haze (still very volcanic etc), but gradually (over the previous 'days') the haze would have cleared making the sun, moon etc more visible and the sun's rays would have started to have more influence on the surface of the earth facilitating photosynthesis and more complex plants - see above - PLUS the difference in day and night (we're talking about 24-hour days now) would have been more obvious.

Day 5: The first life forms created were in the seas.
"Let the water swarm with swimming creatures" - again, simplistic at first (one cell) and then, after many millions of years more and more complex creatures including fish, whales etc. The first flying creatures - again simple ones first and advancing to more and more complex.

Day 6: The start of the creation of earthly animals - again, simplistic at first advancing over many millions of years to more complex and eventually to man himself.

This, to me, follows the fossil record both in sea and on land. Simplistic single cell forms first and after many millions of years more and more complex - then land based life forms - EXACTLY like the fossil record says.

[the_bob_delusion]

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@**freethinker_bob** wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

THere're so many, I don't have time to list them all.

e.g. In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars,

you're obviously not reading the same Bible as me, Bob - mine says: "'in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

- birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals.

The order of events known from science is just the opposite.

Que? Science is just the opposite??? So science says: "the animals were created before the plants??? What did the animals eat while they waited for the plants?? No wonder so many of them went extinct.

If you want to discuss Faith and Reason Bob - at least try to be a little reasonable.

---

Hmmmmmm,  do you still want to claim that the bible is consistent with science and actually gives an accurate account of science. I don't think it's fair to pick on you. 

Based on the Genesis account, the first living things to be created were grasses and plants which lived on land. Scientifically, this is untrue. For the first three billion years, all life, both animal and plant were entirely aquatic and lived in the sea. The land area were sterile and had no life. During this period, all life consisted of single-celled prokaryotes that were not grasses, not herbs, and not even plants. The Biblical account that had grasses appearing at the same time, or shortly before fruit trees is also incorrect. Flowering plants, or angiosperms, appeared during the Cretaceous period, just before the extinction of the dinosaurs, and before any grasses appeared. As far as grasses, they weren't even remotely the first forms of life---grasses didn't appear until the early Tertiary period, well after the extinction of the dinosaurs. They are actually one of the LAST major groups of plants to have formed. The Genesis writer's idea that plants appeared before animals is also simply wrong----we know from the fossil record that multicellular animals appeared first. The Genesis account gets all of this wrong.

BTW the Sun hadn't been created yet. Plants, of course, cannot live without photosynthesis using sunlight. The Biblical idea that plants could have appeared before the Sun appeared simply reflects their lack of knowledge about the most basic biology of plants.

I won't even go any futher to Adam and Eve. Respectfully, this isn't  a fair debate. Even intelligent theologians are smart enough not to claim the bible is a science book. I wish you don't go there. Coz' it just makes faith look stupid. 

Please Bob, feel free to pick on me. I have my faith but I also have reason. This is how I see Creation V Science . Fossil Record.

Genesis 1 is obviously a SUMMARY of Creation. If it were to detail every single creation from the first single cell lifeform it would fill thousands of books.

"In the begining God created the heaven and the earth" - I guess that is what you would refer to as the 'big bang'.

Day 3 gen 1:11: Then God said, “Let the earth produce vegetation" - Obviously the first vegetation was simplistic after all the land was probably still mostly rock and the air would not have been breathable (and, as you so rightly pointed out - no photosynthesis yet) but as that 'day' progressed and rock became soil, the air became more and more accepting of life as we know it - water became less salt, so vegetaiton became more and more complex until eventually grasses and trees.

Day 4: Up until this stage the earth would have been covered in mist & smoke haze (still very volcanic etc), but gradually (over the previous 'days') the haze would have cleared making the sun, moon etc more visible and the sun's rays would have started to have more influence on the surface of the earth facilitating photosynthesis and more complex plants - see above - PLUS the difference in day and night (we're talking about 24-hour days now) would have been more obvious.

Day 5: The first life forms created were in the seas.
"Let the water swarm with swimming creatures" - again, simplistic at first (one cell) and then, after many millions of years more and more complex creatures including fish, whales etc. The first flying creatures - again simple ones first and advancing to more and more complex.

Day 6: The start of the creation of earthly animals - again, simplistic at first advancing over many millions of years to more complex and eventually to man himself.

This, to me, follows the fossil record both in sea and on land. Simplistic single cell forms first and after many millions of years more and more complex - then land based life forms - EXACTLY like the fossil record says.

---

How is a genesis a summary? First you said that my statements are incorrect and genesis is correct then you argue against Genesis, then you realise Genesis is wrong you twisted to say it's a summary. How is it a summary when it gets things wrong?

How about you tell me something that the bible has advance our knowledge of science say in the last 500 yrs. i.e scientist used the knowledge written in the bible. 

You think God would've told us about bacterias and virus killing millions around the world. No theologian claims the bible to be scientific so I think if they're not doing it, it tells you something. 

[izabsmiling]

  http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism     Literalism, inerrancy and infallibility

It is important to distinguish between the related, but separate concepts of Biblical literalism, Biblical inerrancy, and Biblical infallibility. Some are used interchangeably depending on who you ask. But going by strict definitions for reasons of precision, however, they are different - many doctrinal bases or confessions for churches and organised sects require adherents to view the Bible as "inerrant" but do not support literalistic interpretations like creationism.

• Biblical literalism. A literalist position insists that every word must be taken as literally true and treats everything as either a historical document or literal prophecy. This, of course, has problems because of translation issues, but in practice it usually focuses on convenient and (relatively) modern translations such as with the King James Only movement.

• Biblical inerrancy. This is the basis that the Bible simply doesn't contain any errors. There is subtle but important difference between this and it being historically accurate as stories can still be interpreted as allegorical, but that their meaning is still true.

• Biblical infallibility is the least radical position. It holds that the Bible is an infallible source regarding questions of faith and redemption, but not on questions of scienceand history. These people are willing to accept scientific facts like evolution as true.

The actual interpretation of these questions further depends on the various denominations and theological schools of thought.

[rabbitearbandicoot]

How is a genesis a summary? Of course it is! It's simple really - does it detail every single creation from the microbal to the dinousaurs to man.? No? OK, it must be a summary or an overview.

First you said that my statements are incorrect - where did I say that?

and genesis is correct then you argue against Genesis - where did I argue against Genesis?

then you realise Genesis is wrong - when and where did I realise that?

you twisted to say it's a summary. I have held the same belief and understanding all the way through - no need to twist anything. Genesis is a summary of Creation - how could it be anything else? As I said above if it were meant to detail every single creation then it would be thousands of books - therefore - it is a summary of Creation.

How is it a summary when it gets things wrong? Show me where it is wrong?

How about you tell me something that the bible has advance our knowledge of science say in the last 500 yrs. i.e scientist used the knowledge written in the bible. I didn't say that now did I?

BUT .... if you care to read with an open mind, you will see that the Bible (that old book that no-one should believe) stated that the earth was a sphere long before the 'flat earth' was proven to be wrong.

There are MANY scientific facts in the Bible - eg why do you think the Israelites were told to wash their hands after touching dead people? Was that just a pointless rule? No, it was because whoever gave them that rule KNEW about microbs / germs - LONG before man discovered it for themselves. If medical staff had followed the Bible teaching on cleanliness, Doctors would have not killed so many people when they came straight from the morgue to treat live patients - without washing their hands.

You think God would've told us about bacterias and virus killing millions around the world. No theologian claims the bible to be scientific so I think if they're not doing it, it tells you something. ". Again, at no stage did I claim the Bible to be a scientific handbook - but, see my point above.

[the_bob_delusion]

I give up. It seems like you need to twist the scripture to fit in with reality. Doesn't sound reasonable to me. 

The knowledge from the bible could have come from any intelligent bronze age rabbi of its time. 

[rabbitearbandicoot]

---

@**freethinker_bob** wrote:

I give up. It seems like you need to twist the scripture to fit in with reality. Doesn't sound reasonable to me. 

The knowledge from the bible could have come from any intelligent bronze age rabbi of its time. 

---

so, what you are now saying is those "intelligent bronze age rabbi"  knew that the earth was a sphere and knew about germs and microbes 5,000 years before western medicine discovered it - OK. I wonder where they leaned it?

[the_bob_delusion]

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@**freethinker_bob** wrote:

I give up. It seems like you need to twist the scripture to fit in with reality. Doesn't sound reasonable to me. 

The knowledge from the bible could have come from any intelligent bronze age rabbi of its time. 

---

so, what you are now saying is those "intelligent bronze age rabbi"  knew that the earth was a sphere and knew about germs and microbes 5,000 years before western medicine discovered it - OK. I wonder where they leaned it?

---

Seriously, open your eyes. First you claim that Genesis is consistent with known science and doesn't contradict it one bit.I have just shown you that Genesis doesn't get anything right.

Why do you keep claiming that the bible is a science book  by saying it  knew the Earth is a sphere. You're just like the muslims apologetics who claim that Koran knows science.

Tell me one thing that the information in the bible has been used to advance scientific knowledge in the say last 500yrs? That's all I'm after.