Reply To: Science Confirms the Bible.

[Siderite]

I could if I could be bothered. I don’t see the need to, because I don’t see the need to continuously ram it down, because I am not insecure.

You speak as if you have any authority, but don’t even point out whatever is wrong with my reasoning. Yet what I say, I can back up. For example, you state that the ancient belief was that the Earth was flat, yet Pythagoras and Aristotle spoke of a spherical Earth (so debunking your claim that before the Bible the world was thought of as flat or resting on animals by those with scientific inquiry). You speak of blood being the life force, which contradicts other beliefs apparently. Yet if you read other cultures from before the Bible there’s no great difference in what the Bible says and what Hippocrates said. And the ancient Egyptians thought of it as a ‘life giving force gifted to them from the gods’. So your alleged belief that the Bible brought anything new on this is just not true. The Church favoured bleeding based on what Hippocrates and Galen had suggested, so the premise you have made is false.

There are other things I could say, like how the Bible spoke of stars as objects that could fall to Earth, so the idea that it is a literal science book is erroneous. The Bible gives no greater knowledge in science beyond that of the time, which isn’t surprising. In all the examples given, the Bible doesn’t explain why (e.g. why flowing water may be more hygienic – since there was no knowledge of germs) and it doesn’t give the complete picture.

None of this means that I don’t think that religion can’t have benefits for a believer. It just means I find it silly to treat it literally. The scientists I know of who believe in the Christian God would see it as a metaphorical script, but they would not be true Christians according to you.