Charles Hodge, who was writing in 1870, believes we must adjust our Bible reading to accommodate science. Hodge talks about how the church adjusted to the scientific discovery that the sun does not revolve around the earth. He says we need to change as science learns more.

When Hodge was writing, science had not yet progressed to the point where it is today. It was not universally known via scientific tests (like it is today) that the universe came into being by evolution. Hodge believes the Bible is to the theologian what nature is to the scientist--an open book of facts.

Today's fundies think Hodge was a great guy. But they freeze time at about 1870 and pretend the last 130 years of scientific progress didn't happen. Hodge died in 1878. He never found out that evolution theory was proven correct. And today's fundies refuse to look at the evidence. It's MADDENING!

Originally posted here in response to the question: Could Atheism Survive Evidence of God's Existence?



First of all, I do care about the God question. I have given it many decades of thought. Everything I know--the entire universe, moral values and ethics, human nature, natural phenomena--everything--makes sense only when I conclude that no supernatural being exists.

Secondly, if evidence were produced--that question makes no sense to me. We would have to establish the criteria of what counts as evidence before we could go anywhere with that question. The criteria in the Bible does not work. The criteria that Christianity uses does not work. Why not? Because it is hopelessly out-dated. We know too much about the universe to accept such criteria. What we know about the universe today, in and of itself, proves that the biblegod does not exist.

Biblegod makes real sense only in a three-storied flat earth. 1. We know that the earth is not flat. 2. We know that the earth is not the largest or most influential object in space. 3. We know that the earth is but a flick of dust on the outer rim of the swirling mass we call the universe. 4. So far, humans have not been able to reach the closest edge. In other words, the universe is unimaginably huge.

Where are you going to put God? Which side is up? How can god be above the universe when the whole mass is swirling madly? Even the continents of this insignificantly tiny planet are shifting. The Bible talks about the pillars of the earth. You see--the bible is so hopelessly out-dated that finding biblical criteria by which to establish evidence of God's existence is impossible. So what are you going to use as dependable criteria?

Originally posted here in answer to how fundy scientists can get their education and also keep their fundy ideas.

I've seen how they do it. Their goal is none other than to make arguments to disprove evolution. I have no idea anymore where to find the website. A few years ago I was looking for something else and stumbled across a website where a science prof and his students posted their advances on a certain project. As most people here know, I don't have the brains for the facts of science so I cannot document what I read or remember the scientific terms they used. I do know that they were studying something miniscule as in atom or bacteria or whatever--something so tiny that the human eye cannot see it without high technology. The underlying argument was that there is a missing link that evolution science cannot explain.

That is one piece of evidence for me re pseudoscience. The other is a video I was sent (I responded to someone's offer to mail it free to anyone on the forum who asked for it). I could not make myself watch the whole thing. It was so abominably lacking. This guy Ron Wyatt and wife and another couple "proved" the reality of Noah's Flood and the Ark.

They used instruments that are too sophisticated for me to understand. What I do understand is that this group of unlearned folks proved in one summer or a few years (I forget the details) what a team of scientists cannot prove in a lifetime of collaborated effort. My guess (I have neither high school nor science so it is only a guess) is they used high school level science. They used black and white thinking, i.e. such and such cannot be this or thus, so we know beyond a doubt that it has to be this. There was no labratory study or analysis of infinitestimal tiny bits. Only one or two things that were assumed to be universally binding in all cases. It was too simplistic. Real scientists don't work that way.

These two examples showed me how they delude the masses. They are simple enough for the masses to actually understand what they are saying. They are sophisticated and educated enough to pass off as scientists. I would guess that the fundy scientists that do go on to earn legitimate PhDs probably just endure the stuff they disbelieve in the service of the greater good they think they will do humanity when they have their degrees and prove the Bible correct. I don't know for sure how the science departments work but I would guess they resemble the arts and humanities in one respect. Liberal schools allow their students to experiment with any kind of idea so long as they can demonstrate that it could make sense in a given situation.

Imagine the implications when creative and professionally-trained fundies do that with science. They can part the Red Sea as easily as Moses and produce scorpions out of nothing. In other words, I believe they can produce water-tight arguments to prove what they want to prove, and in this way probably produce a body of real knowledge that would otherwise never be discovered by mainstream scientists. Thus, they can legitimate their degrees. However, the fundy scientists will use the information for their own agendas--and these are not written up in national science journals. That is my guess at the implications.

I would further guess that the uneducated fundy can therefore say with absolute conviction based on the authority of legitimate education and inherited religious tradition that scientists say ______________________ [whatever needs to be said to prove the Bible correct.] It seems the uneducated masses instinctively distrust intellectuals and automatically accept their word as definitive.

If the fundy scientists profess mysterious origins credited to God, I would guess this lets them off the hook when their arguments do have holes. In fact, who knows that they don't intentionally set things up this way--with holes that allow for God's mysterious and wondrous working? They are smart enough to know when to keep their mouths shut (in the presence of the mainstream scientific community) and when to produce their findings and theories in ways that, combined with their authentic degrees, convince the masses. I don't know if this is the case; I only know that they have ways to get their degrees and also keep their religion.

A major problem that fundies have with science is that science cannot posit an eternal truth. Science will say one thing now and another thing ten years down the road when an old theory is disproven or a new phenomenon is discovered. They have their "facts" all wrapped up, packaged, and labeled. They know what is what and they don't need education to know they are right. The "Spirit" tells them. By the "witness" of the "Spirit" they are assured of the eternal truths in the Bible. This same "Spirit" leads them to correctly discern the facts described in the Bible. That a lot of other professing Christians disagree with them that it is a fact does not disturb them.

I think it is possible that the fundy scientists don't have to make up too much garbage to prove their points; perhaps all they have to do is set up their arguments in such a way that lets God fill the gaps. I suspect that fundies who are smart enough to get a PhD in science with their faith intact are probably also smart enough to play the right mind-games to keep the delusions. I find this very seriously scary. I haven't a clue in the world how the average citizen is ever going to sort through fact and fiction. Perhaps our assaults on science are only strengthening their position.

Maybe this thread has the wrong name. Maybe it should be Science and Religion. (The relationship between religion and science is the one thing all these posts have in common.) However, I would then feel some obligation to have a level of expertise in science that I don't have.

In his article Snake Oil and Holy Water, Richard Dawkins talks about the difference between religion and the awe and inspiration felt in response to the beauties of nature. In his own words:

If God is a synonym for the deepest principles of physics, what word is left for a hypothetical being who answers prayers, intervenes to save cancer patients or helps evolution over difficult jumps, forgives sins or dies for them?

Dawkins cites a number of examples throughout the article. I think he makes a very important point. I think this awe is part of what religion comes from in the beginning but science has displaced it by now and all that is left that is truly religion is the rituals and practices. When praise and honour and glory are given to a god it is religion. When awe and inspiration are felt and enjoyed by the individual it is the human enjoying human capacities for beauty and scientific understanding of our vast and awe-inspiring universe.

For the uneducated person, this difference may seem negotiable. I mentioned Charles Hodge in an earlier post. He lived in the 1800s and was a devout Christian professor. His education was in theology and philosophy. He also read the science of his day. Richard Dawkins was born in 1941 and is alive today. He is an atheist science professor in England. Thus, both Hodge and Dawkins had the world's best educations in their own fields in their own times. Both define this line and say on one side is religion and on the other side is not.

I have wanted to merge the two, and so have others. However, there seem to be implications for this that are not good--both from the atheist side as well as from the religious side. On the other hand, it may be the common ground on which the two sides can meet.