The Bible as Science

[Dr.Who]

Well, you do point out some major disagreements. You seem to believe that the bible is never wrong, just the interpretation. One simple example in Genesis says that the earth appeared before the sun. That is flat out wrong according to any theory of the formation of the solar system. You mention the bible as an observation of reality. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but many Christians consider much of it as metaphor.

I have just finished reviewing Genesis Chapter 1 through verse 26 and the word "sun" is not mentioned once. It seems to me that any thinking about the sun from those verses can't help but be interpretation.

So here is mine:

Notice that for each of the six day each days description ends like this -"God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day." So for six days straight starting with the first and ending with the last each of those paragraphs ends with a description of a day that is marked by an evening and a morning. To my interpretation these days contain sunlight and as the earth spins there is day and night. (in my interpretation both days and ages are being described simultaneously in poetic form so that the passage describes both truths about days and truths about ages).

I think the phrase "let there be light" on the first day describes sunlight, background radiation, and perhaps even a spiritual element such as love that is referred to as light.

So what about the description of "stars" and the "sun" and the "moon" on day 4? Can this be describing the creation of the sun on the fourth day since it was already created on the first day? Yes the verses can be reconciled.

First consider the window I have in my bathroom. It is opaque - not clear. Yet it lets in light. I can see light coming in from outside but I have no ideas what source the light is coming from.

Second consider that all of us talk at times of the sun rising even though all of us know that it does not really rise but simply appears to rise as the Earth turns. Linguists would say that we are using Phenomenological speech. We are describing the phenomena as we see it not as it is.

Third consider the phrase "“Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” To me this a dense atmosphere that is full of water, full enough that it would be like looking through a permanent cloud cover which covered the entire face of the planet. Under these conditions one would never see the sun or the moon but would receive light and would know night and day.

Fourth consider this phrase "“Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” To me this means that the waters on earth including the water in the atmosphere was redistributed. Now on the fourth day the sun that had always been there is visible clearly for the first time.

Therefore my interpretation is that the sun (which is not mentioned so it really is my interpreation) was
created on the first day and while its light can be seen diffusely all throughout the day it is only by the fourth day that the sun can actually be seen clearly and is described phenomenologically as being created - well the chaper does not really even say it was created so that would be my interpretation too. The chapter actually says that God "let it be". If you want to say that "let there be..." always means creation de novo rather than a more nuanced meaning which would include having already been created but now being visible - well that would be your interpretation.

So whether you love my interpretation or think you can beat it, either way for a chapter that never uses the word sun and does not even use the word creation I think we both have to agree that there is a lot of interpretation going on here if we say the sun was created at any particular time.

So do I think the bible is never wrong except for interpretation? The phrase that many bible scholars use to describe that thinking is that it is inerrant in its original form, in other words as the ink dried from the hand of the writer. I would not go so far. I would go so far as to say that I have been a believer for a little less than 30 years and in that time I have earnestly searched for errors and to date have not turned up any which do not have a plausible* explanation which would make it right. (and so far not only do all the "problems" have plausible explanations but they are as plausible as the explanations which are required to make many other fields of thinking stick together too).

 

[Dr.Who]

Finally, you say that Einstein was a believer in the supernatural. He was spiritual, but did not believe in the supernatural. He said, “If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” Google that phrase if you want to see the context.

I am not so sure he used the word spiritual to describe himself but if he did"

spir·it·u·al
ˈspiriCHo͞oəl/
adjective
adjective: spiritual
1.
of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.

Then by the definition of it he must believe in the supernatural as opposed to natural or material things.

There are a number of quotes from various scientists on this site:
http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/universe.html

Here are two that give insight into the mind of Einstein:

"The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation ... His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection." -Einstein

(Does this tell us that Einstein not only believed in the supernatural but also in a superior god possessing of intelligence? Read on)

Einstein later chided himself for introducing his famous fudge factor in order to make his theory fit. He called the addition of his cosmological constant “the greatest blunder of my life.” (cited by Richard Morris, The Fate of the Universe, New York: Playboy Press, 1982, p. 28) He wrote: “The mathematician Friedmann found a way out of the dilemma. His results then found a surprising confirmation by Hubble’s discovery of the expansion (of the universe).” (cited by Barry Parker, Creation—the Story of the Origin and Evolution of the Universe, New York & London: Plenum Press, 1988, pp. 53-54). After this Einstein wrote not only of the necessity for a beginning, but of his desire “to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thought, the rest are details.” (cited by Nick Herbert, Quantum Reality—Beyond the New Physics, Garden City, New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1985, p. 177).

(So yes Einstein did believe in an intelligent thinking God. Not only that but he describes that God as a creator. now here is an interesting question: notice that in the quote above Einsteins use of the word "God" and "He" the words are capitalized? That is generally accepted to mean the Christian God. Perhaps whoever quoted Einstein accidentally added the capitalization?)

 

[Lagboltz]

I have just finished reviewing Genesis Chapter 1 through verse 26 and the word "sun" is not mentioned once. It seems to me that any thinking about the sun from those verses can't help but be interpretation.

So here is mine:

Notice that for each of the six day each days description ends like this -"God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day." So for six days straight starting with the first and ending with the last each of those paragraphs ends with a description of a day that is marked by an evening and a morning. To my interpretation these days contain sunlight and as the earth spins there is day and night. (in my interpretation both days and ages are being described simultaneously in poetic form so that the passage describes both truths about days and truths about ages).

I think the phrase "let there be light" on the first day describes sunlight, background radiation, and perhaps even a spiritual element such as love that is referred to as light.

So what about the description of "stars" and the "sun" and the "moon" on day 4? Can this be describing the creation of the sun on the fourth day since it was already created on the first day? Yes the verses can be reconciled.

First consider the window I have in my bathroom. It is opaque - not clear. Yet it lets in light. I can see light coming in from outside but I have no ideas what source the light is coming from.

Second consider that all of us talk at times of the sun rising even though all of us know that it does not really rise but simply appears to rise as the Earth turns. Linguists would say that we are using Phenomenological speech. We are describing the phenomena as we see it not as it is.

Third consider the phrase "“Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” To me this a dense atmosphere that is full of water, full enough that it would be like looking through a permanent cloud cover which covered the entire face of the planet. Under these conditions one would never see the sun or the moon but would receive light and would know night and day.

Fourth consider this phrase "“Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” To me this means that the waters on earth including the water in the atmosphere was redistributed. Now on the fourth day the sun that had always been there is visible clearly for the first time.

Therefore my interpretation is that the sun (which is not mentioned so it really is my interpreation) was
created on the first day and while its light can be seen diffusely all throughout the day it is only by the fourth day that the sun can actually be seen clearly and is described phenomenologically as being created - well the chaper does not really even say it was created so that would be my interpretation too. The chapter actually says that God "let it be". If you want to say that "let there be..." always means creation de novo rather than a more nuanced meaning which would include having already been created but now being visible - well that would be your interpretation.

So whether you love my interpretation or think you can beat it, either way for a chapter that never uses the word sun and does not even use the word creation I think we both have to agree that there is a lot of interpretation going on here if we say the sun was created at any particular time.

So do I think the bible is never wrong except for interpretation? The phrase that many bible scholars use to describe that thinking is that it is inerrant in its original form, in other words as the ink dried from the hand of the writer. I would not go so far. I would go so far as to say that I have been a believer for a little less than 30 years and in that time I have earnestly searched for errors and to date have not turned up any which do not have a plausible* explanation which would make it right. (and so far not only do all the "problems" have plausible explanations but they are as plausible as the explanations which are required to make many other fields of thinking stick together too).

I really don't want to discuss details of the Bible to the depth that you want because I think the opening of Genesis is largely metaphor, and there is nothing to be gained (by me) in delving into the details beyond what I posted. However since I gave an example of what I think is wrong, I will explain that.

1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Science says that the earth is roughly 5 billion years old while the universe started 13.8 billion years ago. So to say the earth was created in the beginning along with the heavens is not right.

2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Earth is in darkness. It seems that there is no sun or other source of light at this point.

3. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Now there is light. It is not said where it comes from.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day
This ends the first day, where we now have day and night.

........

16. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
That was the fourth day. So the sun, moon and stars are made after four days!

There is an easy explanation why there was night and day before the sun and moon were formed. The ancients didn't know that it was the sun that made daylight. There was an amusing quote at the beginning of a chapter in an astronomy book. I forgot which bygone philosopher said this, but it illustrates the lack of knowledge at that time. “The moon is more important than the sun because it shines at night when it is dark and you need it, the sun only shines in the daytime when it is light anyway.”

What I am pointing out is that the bible was written by people that had little knowledge of astronomy, and what you (and many others) are doing is reinterpreting it an a way in which you want it to make sense, not in the original sense of the writer. For biblical scholars to continue reinterpreting it as more science is discovered is quite disingenuous.

 

[Lagboltz]

I am not so sure he used the word spiritual to describe himself but if he did"

spir·it·u·al
ˈspiriCHo͞oəl/
adjective
adjective: spiritual
1.
of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.

Then by the definition of it he must believe in the supernatural as opposed to natural or material things.

There are a number of quotes from various scientists on this site:
http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/universe.html

Here are two that give insight into the mind of Einstein:

"The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation ... His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection." -Einstein

(Does this tell us that Einstein not only believed in the supernatural but also in a superior god possessing of intelligence? Read on)

Einstein later chided himself for introducing his famous fudge factor in order to make his theory fit. He called the addition of his cosmological constant “the greatest blunder of my life.” (cited by Richard Morris, The Fate of the Universe, New York: Playboy Press, 1982, p. 28) He wrote: “The mathematician Friedmann found a way out of the dilemma. His results then found a surprising confirmation by Hubble’s discovery of the expansion (of the universe).” (cited by Barry Parker, Creation—the Story of the Origin and Evolution of the Universe, New York & London: Plenum Press, 1988, pp. 53-54). After this Einstein wrote not only of the necessity for a beginning, but of his desire “to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thought, the rest are details.” (cited by Nick Herbert, Quantum Reality—Beyond the New Physics, Garden City, New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1985, p. 177).

(So yes Einstein did believe in an intelligent thinking God. Not only that but he describes that God as a creator. now here is an interesting question: notice that in the quote above Einsteins use of the word "God" and "He" the words are capitalized? That is generally accepted to mean the Christian God. Perhaps whoever quoted Einstein accidentally added the capitalization?)

You are bandying words. Einstein did not believe in a personal god. Spiritual was used in the context that his own spirit was moved by the harmony of the laws of nature, not some holy spirit. In that sense supernatural simply doesn't apply.

Any thoughtful physicist has an awe of the orderly harmony of existence. I have the same beliefs as Einstein, but I don't call it God because that word carries too much irrelevant baggage. Einstein often used “God” interchangeably with the “laws of nature”.

 

[Dr.Who]

I really don't want to discuss details of the Bible to the depth that you want because I think the opening of Genesis is largely metaphor, and there is nothing to be gained (by me) in delving into the details beyond what I posted. However since I gave an example of what I think is wrong, I will explain that.

1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Science says that the earth is roughly 5 billion years old while the universe started 13.8 billion years ago. So to say the earth was created in the beginning along with the heavens is not right.

2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Earth is in darkness. It seems that there is no sun or other source of light at this point.

3. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Now there is light. It is not said where it comes from.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day
This ends the first day, where we now have day and night.

........

16. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
That was the fourth day. So the sun, moon and stars are made after four days!

There is an easy explanation why there was night and day before the sun and moon were formed. The ancients didn't know that it was the sun that made daylight. There was an amusing quote at the beginning of a chapter in an astronomy book. I forgot which bygone philosopher said this, but it illustrates the lack of knowledge at that time. “The moon is more important than the sun because it shines at night when it is dark and you need it, the sun only shines in the daytime when it is light anyway.”

What I am pointing out is that the bible was written by people that had little knowledge of astronomy, and what you (and many others) are doing is reinterpreting it an a way in which you want it to make sense, not in the original sense of the writer. For biblical scholars to continue reinterpreting it as more science is discovered is quite disingenuous.

So we are all reinterpreting it? Well then you agree with me that what is happening is interpretation. Fault this situation all you want but what you are faulting is interpretation. Your own interpretation that the sun was created after four days is still an interpretation.

 

[Dr.Who]

You are bandying words. Einstein did not believe in a personal god. Spiritual was used in the context that his own spirit was moved by the harmony of the laws of nature, not some holy spirit. In that sense supernatural simply doesn't apply.

Any thoughtful physicist has an awe of the orderly harmony of existence. I have the same beliefs as Einstein, but I don't call it God because that word carries too much irrelevant baggage. Einstein often used “God” interchangeably with the “laws of nature”.

By his own words he believed in a god that had thoughts. Sounds pretty personal to me. Did he use the word interchangeably with the laws of nature? I provided the quote showing he thought god had thoughts. Do you have a quote showing the interchangeable use of the words? And more importantly did his views on the subject change over time so that earlier thinking might be superceded by later thinking?

Einsteins own spirit was moved by the harmony of nature? Did Einstein believe he had a spirit? If he believed in a spirit then he believed in the supernatural. Or did you mean to talk about his mood?

 

[Lagboltz]

So we are all reinterpreting it? Well then you agree with me that what is happening is interpretation. Fault this situation all you want but what you are faulting is interpretation. Your own interpretation that the sun was created after four days is still an interpretation.

16. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
You never clearly said how you interpret that passage. Just what are the two "great lights" that were made on the fourth day? "Made" implies that they were not preexisting. It clearly says God made the stars on the fourth day. That implies the Bible states that earth was made before the milky-way. If the two great lights are not the sun and moon what are they?

 

[Lagboltz]

By his own words he believed in a god that had thoughts. Sounds pretty personal to me. Did he use the word interchangeably with the laws of nature? I provided the quote showing he thought god had thoughts. Do you have a quote showing the interchangeable use of the words? And more importantly did his views on the subject change over time so that earlier thinking might be superceded by later thinking?

Einsteins own spirit was moved by the harmony of nature? Did Einstein believe he had a spirit? If he believed in a spirit then he believed in the supernatural. Or did you mean to talk about his mood?

Mood of course.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

The bible as a book of science is sometimes right and sometimes wrong???

I thought it was written by mr perfect himself?

the bible is wrong about almost everything

The fact that it correctly describes a sheep or a cow occasionally does not get it off the hook

Just about every work of fiction contains some observed truth

 

[Lagboltz]

The bible as a book of science is sometimes right and sometimes wrong???

I don't think he meant to say that. He believes in biblical infallibility, and that you can always twist the words around to make any point you want, depending on what new science comes along.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

I'm not twisting his words

In fact you are by saying you know what he meant by them

Bizarre

The bible is ludicrous and the religious right in particular pay little heed to the new testament anyway so why they defend it so much I just don't know

I do really

It is because they mad

 

[Lagboltz]

I'm not twisting his words

In fact you are by saying you know what he meant by them

Bizarre

The bible is ludicrous and the religious right in particular pay little heed to the new testament anyway so why they defend it so much I just don't know

I do really

It is because they mad

??? I don't think you understood. I wasn't talking about you.
I meant to say DrWho believes the words of the bible can be twisted around to make any point he wants in order to supposedly make the bible consistent with science.

I wouldn't go so far as to say they are mad. I suppose you could say they were seriously brainwashed. I would almost call that kind of strict belief in the bible a cult phenomenon if it weren't for the fact that the cult is a large majority of people unfortunately. I object to them trying to bring their dogma into science classes.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Ok apologies

If you believe a story like the flood then you are not right in the head

There's nothing else for it

Faced with the choice - it didn't happen v It did happen by miracles anyone who chooses the latter over the former with no evidence has got a mental illness

At best they have never grown up

 

[Dr.Who]

Mood of course.

It seems to me that in your interpretation of Einsteins quote you are quite willing to take it as not-literal but in the interpretation of the word "made" in the bible you insist that it be taken only as literal. I suggest that one needs consistent rules to decide when something is best interpreted as literal and when best interpreted less literally.

So how is the word "made" to be interpreted? Is it phenomenological - describing things as they appear? Or is it to be literal describing things as they are? The answer is in the rest of the verses. Notice that the passages say the moon and the sun are the great lights? Obviously when looking at the sky the moon and the sun are the two greatest lights in the sky and we would all agree with the obvious and undeniable facts. But is that just how they appear or is that how they really are? Well the moon is in fact one of the smallest of the celestial objects in our solar system so it could hardly be literally called a great light. Furthermore it does not even have any light of its own but merely reflects light from the sun - and that stops no one from talking about moonlight. Since the moon is literally neither great nor a light the passage can only made sense if the author is talking about the lights as they appear to be, so the moon is correctly described in its appearance as great and a light and no one faults anyone for describing it as such. Since the passage is clearly non-literal in this regard and is phenomenological then it makes just as much sense to say that the moon was "made to appear" on the fourth day. Remembering that the word "made" is a substitution of a modern word in place of a hebrew word would you really argue that me must stick to the limits of the modern word alone? If so then you must justify your interpretation of Einsteins description of ones spirit as a reference to mood and not a supernatural spirit using whatever rules you would use.

 

[Dr.Who]

I don't think he meant to say that. He believes in biblical infallibility, and that you can always twist the words around to make any point you want, depending on what new science comes along.

It is pretty obvious that plenty of people do twist what it says everyday all over the planet. There are also plenty of more rational people who merely have differing interpretations. It is only fair to only consider what we ourselves think are the best interpretations whether we are reading the bible or a science journal or a commentary on a poem.

Do you agree with me that there are people on forums like this that will judge the whole bible based on the worst interpretations? And that they even know what they are doing?