Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Astreja · 10-31-2005, 09:16 AM

Recently there have been several threads discussing scientific knowledge "predicted" by the scriptures of various religions.

However, the very fact that we can comprehend the ideas presented in these fairly recent books implies that these revelations are only a few years ahead of the comprehension level of the average person.

And this raises the big question:

"What level of scientific knowledge would a deity have to publish in order to be taken seriously as a Superior Being?"

Corey Hammer · 10-31-2005, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Astreja

"What level of scientific knowledge would a deity have to publish in order to be taken seriously as a Superior Being?"

hehe...well...given a 2000-3000 year old book, one at least equivalent to today's knowledge as well as some things that predict future discoveries.

FatherMithras · 10-31-2005, 09:44 AM

He'd have to know a bat was not a bird and pi didn't equal 3 for one thing...And that insects don't have four legs and rabbits don't chew cud. Looks like it fails.

BioBeing · 10-31-2005, 10:37 AM

The value of a good scientific theory is the predictions it makes beforehand. It should also be clearly written, so there is no room for fudging after the fact. Also, it should not make predicitions contrary to observed events.

The Bible for example, states that the Earth is flat, and the heavens form a dome over the Earth. Star light comes from holes in that dome. This is contrary to observed fact. Further, there is no clear theory stated in the bible that says that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

Koch's Postulates make certain predictions related to the germ theory of disease. One should be able to isolate and culture an infective organism from one patient, and use it to infect a previously well person to cause the same disease. Where do we see this stated in the Bible or the Koran? Where is the structure of penicillin, or even instructions for culturing bread mold to make anti-infectives? Religious texts fail as science books as much by ommission as by having wrong information (diseases are caused by demons).

So - if you want me to consider you holy book written by a scientifically competent super deity - show me a scientific prediction stated (and not contradicted) clearly in it. What new scientific advance is going to come from this book of yours (and no other source)?

Clivedurdle · 10-31-2005, 12:26 PM

A discussion of how to make soap and the importance of washing hands and keeping water supplies clean?

Thief of Time · 10-31-2005, 12:43 PM

A definition of limits, mathematical infinity, derivations of advanced calculus etc. in detail, would definetly prove something. A lot more useful than Pi to 4dp, or whatever it was.

Knowledge that is useful and waaaay before its time.
(Also, possibly a disclaimer at the end: "Characters, names and places in this are fictional and any resemblance to people or places is pure coincidence."

10-31-2005, 09:16 AM	#1
Astreja Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Winnipeg, Canada Posts: 2,946	Not-so-"divine" science in holy books Recently there have been several threads discussing scientific knowledge "predicted" by the scriptures of various religions. However, the very fact that we can comprehend the ideas presented in these fairly recent books implies that these revelations are only a few years ahead of the comprehension level of the average person. And this raises the big question: "What level of scientific knowledge would a deity have to publish in order to be taken seriously as a Superior Being?"

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-31-2005, 09:44 AM	#3
FatherMithras Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 3,890	He'd have to know a bat was not a bird and pi didn't equal 3 for one thing...And that insects don't have four legs and rabbits don't chew cud. Looks like it fails.

10-31-2005, 10:37 AM	#4
BioBeing Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Memphis, TN Posts: 6,004	The value of a good scientific theory is the predictions it makes beforehand. It should also be clearly written, so there is no room for fudging after the fact. Also, it should not make predicitions contrary to observed events. The Bible for example, states that the Earth is flat, and the heavens form a dome over the Earth. Star light comes from holes in that dome. This is contrary to observed fact. Further, there is no clear theory stated in the bible that says that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Koch's Postulates make certain predictions related to the germ theory of disease. One should be able to isolate and culture an infective organism from one patient, and use it to infect a previously well person to cause the same disease. Where do we see this stated in the Bible or the Koran? Where is the structure of penicillin, or even instructions for culturing bread mold to make anti-infectives? Religious texts fail as science books as much by ommission as by having wrong information (diseases are caused by demons). So - if you want me to consider you holy book written by a scientifically competent super deity - show me a scientific prediction stated (and not contradicted) clearly in it. What new scientific advance is going to come from this book of yours (and no other source)?

10-31-2005, 12:26 PM	#5
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	A discussion of how to make soap and the importance of washing hands and keeping water supplies clean?

10-31-2005, 12:43 PM	#6
Thief of Time Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: New Zealand Posts: 687	A definition of limits, mathematical infinity, derivations of advanced calculus etc. in detail, would definetly prove something. A lot more useful than Pi to 4dp, or whatever it was. Knowledge that is useful and waaaay before its time. (Also, possibly a disclaimer at the end: "Characters, names and places in this are fictional and any resemblance to people or places is pure coincidence."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.