In our local paper there has been some back and forth discussion re: Bible vs science and today there was this post (in quotes).  I was looking for some strong Ideas to help with this discussion.  again thanks for any ideas.

[i:047676d231][b:047676d231]Faith based on the Bible, which is totally accurate[/b:047676d231][/i:047676d231]

"I read with interest the letter by Mr. "Issues of Faith", atheism should be fully discussed" (People’s Forum, Dec. 4). Mr.  brought up several valid questions.

Does an intelligent designer exist and how does one know? In our scientific world, we seek concrete answers, however from our perspective, we cannot determine absolute truth. Almost everything in life then is a matter of faith because as individuals we cannot possibly test or observe the entire universe and what we learn in our lifetime is extremely small compared to all there is to know. In reality, our knowledge about the universe comes from other sources, and therefore we must trust those sources to communicate truth.

The true nature of mankind is fallible. Therefore, not all information from other people is unbiased or even true.

This problem can be especially multiplied when it comes to science. We look at scientists as unbiased seekers of truth about the physical world. However, truth from science is limited by the scientist, along with the processes and instrumentation he uses to investigate the world.

For instance, to say the big bang is a fact of science is to misstate what science can and cannot do. The big bang taken back to its ultimate beginning must assume either the universe created itself out of nothing or that it has always existed in one form or another. Neither alternative can be directly tested or observed for they do not exist in the present. Therefore, they are outside the realm of true science and must ultimately be accepted by a process called faith. True science is limited and fallible and those who accept it as truth will find their faith empty in the end.

According to the Bible, God made the universe and all that is in it out of nothing. Is it a greater leap of faith to believe God created universe or that it created itself?

Biblical faith is not taking a leap into the dark hoping against hope that the "apparent" differences between science and the Bible are not true. On the contrary, it is a faith placed in the infinite sovereign creator—Jesus Christ—who is the intelligent designer. This faith is based on his communication to us—the Bible, which is accurate in everything it touches on, including science."

Thank you in advance for any information

Thanks
C

As always with these sorts of things, one could go on at virtually any length in responding. There are a few quick things that come to mind though.

(1) Scientists have data confirming that the universe began in the big bang. There are cosmologists who are investigating what might have happened before the big bang, in terms of multiple universes, or even the beginning of time itself. So it is not correct to assert that science has nothing more to say than that there was a big bang.

However, at least at the present moment this sort of investigation remains speculative. That is, we do not have any good evidence for one option over another. But then we simply should reserve judgment about these other options. There is nothing we should “have faith” about. Would it make any sense for a cosmologist to say he “had faith” in the multiple universe model? Certainly not. Without evidence, what we may do is to speculate, but the scientific method would screech to a halt if we were to substitute irrationally held belief for evidence.

(2) Faith in the Bible is of a different order entirely. There is already copious evidence that the Bible is fallible, factually in error in many places, both as to features of the world (e.g., that the dome of the sky is solid: Gen 1:14-17, Job 37:18, 22:14, Prov 8:28; etc.), and as to features of ethics (e.g., that we should kill children who curse their parents: Lev 20:9; that we should abandon our families to follow Christ: Mat 10:35-37, 19:29; etc.). Further, faith in Christ involves belief in his miraculous birth and resurrection, both of which are contrary to our scientific understanding of the laws of nature, and without a shred of independent evidence or corroboration by disinterested observers. So this sort of “faith” really amounts to nothing more than the intransigent belief in almost certain falsehood. (I should add that the same is true of the belief that Muhammad ascended to heaven on a winged horse, and countless other similar opinions in other religions).

(3) As to Christ being the “intelligent designer”, the hypothesis of intelligent design has not survived Darwin’s discovery of the evolutionary processes that formed living things. So the sort of faith that supports “intelligent design” is a faith grounded simply on the rejection of all the scientific evidence we have in biology. That is, it is a faith grounded on scientific illiteracy.

So, in sum, “faith” is completely unnecessary. In the case where the evidence is not yet in, we should substitute for it “speculation” and “hypothesis”, not certainty. In the case where the evidence is already in, we should believe the evidence, and discard ancient beliefs where they are all to clearly fable.

I think it’s hilarious that this guy is making the same mistake he accuses scientists of making—wildly speculating about things that can’t be proven. 

Biblical faith is not taking a leap into the dark hoping against hope that the “apparent” differences between science and the Bible are not true. On the contrary, it is a faith placed in the infinite sovereign creator—Jesus Christ—who is the intelligent designer. This faith is based on his communication to us—the Bible, which is accurate in everything it touches on, including science.

He assumes that God exists and that the Bible is an accurate of God’s word, but it is all a matter of faith.  The weird thing is, Faith is okay to him as long as it’s HIS faith, but because he believes that science is “limited and fallible”, what he calls “faith in science” is bad!  In truth, the very nature of science is to deal only with things that can be proven, therefore steering away as much as possible from blind faith.  However, I doubt seriously if you’ll ever get him to see his mistake, especially in a newspaper letter to the editor.

Yes I am well aware there is nothing that will change his mind.  There have been several “back and forths” over the last several months on this section and I feel like responding to this one, just because of the irony in his statements as you, advocatus, pointed out.  The funny thing is that he honestly does not see his contradiction shock (Hilarious).

It’s ok to have a little fun right?  twisted

Again thank you.