Quote:
Originally Posted by flamesfever
I can certainly see how it would be difficult, if not impossible in some cases, to reconstruct what the person in the Bible was trying to convey.
When taking my geological degree, I used to sneak down to the dusty basement of the geological building and read parts of the old geological texts written in the 1800's. In doing so I found that the geology was mixed in with philosophy, and realized that the way people (even scientists) perceived things in those days was very difficult to comprehend. So I can imagine going back thousands of years would be much more difficult.
Another thing I want to bring up is that the function of science is to gain knowledge, while what to do with the knowledge is the big issue. Here is where wisdom comes in. Do not the holy books provide a collection of the wisdom, handed down through the ages, provide a great benefit to mankind. Surely atheists don't have a monopoly on wisdom.
That should bring Cheese back in!
|
One of the great travestries of the scientific "Revolution" is the propagation of the conception that religion and science are wholly incompatable. This was created and spread by idealistic opposition by the main pillars of "Science" against the powers of the time (predominantly religious in nature).
What was glossed over was that science was funded and predominantly pursued by people who's background was theological in origin. Prominent Christians like St Tomas Aquinas actively sought out the boundaries of the natural world in relation to that which could only be known through faith in God. Interestingly enough, the term "Middle Ages" was borne out of contempt during the enlightenment to describe the rise of Christianity in Europe and the propagation of Platonic traditions in favour of Aristotelian belief systems. The truth of the matter is that the middle ages were not dark times. A lot of "scientific" enquiry was pursued by people, predominantly using Church funding.
"Science" as a term did not exist until recently in human history. Prior to that, the disciplines of religion, philosophy and what is now known as the sciences were all very finely intermingled into common tapestry. Even the more famous scientists such as Newton had theological underpinnings to their experimentation.
The point of all this rambling is that science and religion are not mutually exclusive but rather two sides of the same coin. Or they were until the late 19th century when it became fashionable to become "aethist" and denounce anything remotely resembling religion or "belief".
As far as I can tell, some things are able to be known and understood through human means while others can be observed but not known. It's a sliding scale as our collective understanding advances. The participants of the argument between science and religion each draw the line somewhere and refuse to let it move.
To speak to the question more directly, science as a process dismisses a lot of "traditional" wisdom such as that in the Bible mostly because it's unable to be verified through alternative means. That said, there are portions of the Bible that speak of historic events that have been correlated to other ancient historical texts. There is too much in "holy texts" to dismiss them outright, but to accept them on their own intrinsic value alone is folly.
I find it interesting the discussion on the historical validity of Jesus of Nazereth. I have to ask, is it really important at this point in history to know if the story in the Bible is accurate? The true story would have no bearing on the current reality of a religion based on the contents of the Bible. I guess my views are tainted since long ago I accepted that the Bible is a man made creation (even if it were divinely inspired). To accept a *translated* bible as the literal word of God speaks to a persons inability to reason properly.