It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


When Science Fails

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 21 2006 @ 05:53 PM
When science fails, where do we go? God existed before, during, and after science. Only He can answer our questions, problems, and inquiries. We should have believed in God before our simplistic scientific questions began.

posted on May, 21 2006 @ 09:17 PM
Science is not an entity that can fail us--it is a body of work that functions toward our understanding of the world around us. A world that God made. Observations give rise to theories and hypotheses, which are either proven unsound or else serve as a paving stone underneath our feet as we advance in our understanding of creation (implying that at the end of the path we shall come to know our Creator).

Science is a function--it is not something in opposition to God nor is it outside of spiritual matters. Properly understood and viewed with a sober mind, it will demonstrate the truth of God in every single molecular activity that takes place.

Science and nature are the ever-present and abundant 'proof' of God, freely available to every man.

Religion, however, is jealous of this simplicity: intervening at every opportunity with nonsense ideas about God, by using such words as 'supernatural.' Further confusion comes from claims that God is 'omniscient' and 'omnipotent' while, at the same time, condemning any ideas of God perhaps being 'omnipresent.' Without acknowledging the divine life that permeates all things, the other 'omni' ideas turn God into a third-person observer with nothing better to do than to play with us as if we were Barbie and Ken dolls, or perhaps sink our battleships when it gets really boring.

That kind of god I have no interest in, whatsoever! Even I can do better than that for myself, and I'm actually quite a mess, truth be told.

But better a hopeful, ever-striving-toward-higher-thoughts, 'mess' than a superstitious stagnating zealot, I say. What is sinful about a sober and rational soul striving to grow through the forward advancing of our scientific body of knowledge, guided by the Spirit?

God gave us a brain, and He gave us access to knowledge--He then provided the opportunity and benefit from the perfect tutor. We have two functional eyeballs--most of us, anyway--and there is plenty to look at as long as we keep them open. If we lack sight, we are more than able to compensate with our other senses. Even Helen Keller knew God long before she was able to understand what other people had to say about Him.

To think knowledge and understanding of the world around us is against God's intentions for mankind is to place faith in religion instead of God, by allowing that which He gave us each directly to atrophy from neglect.

Galileo refused to do it, and so do I!

[edit on 5/21/2006 by queenannie38]

posted on May, 22 2006 @ 12:01 AM

I'd like to share some scripture on what is written of science:

The fear of the Lord is the right science of wisdom, and lowliness goeth before honor.

Wisdom giveth more courage unto the wise, than ten mighty men of the city. For there is not one just upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not. Take not heed unto every word that is spoken, lest thy servant curse thee: For thine own heart knoweth, that thou thyself also hast often times spoken evil by other men. All these things I have proved because of wisdom: For I thought to be wise, but she went farther from me than she was before, yee and so deep that i might not reach unto her. I applied my mind also to knowledge, and to seek out *science, wisdom and understanding: to know the foolishness of the ungodly, and the error of the doting fools. And I found, that a woman is bitterer than death: for she is a very *angle, her heart is a net, and her hands are chains. Who so pleaseth God shall escape from her. *science, ( kjv = wisdom) *angle, (hook)

ESAI or ISAIAH Chpt 40
Who hath holden the waters in his fist? Who hath measured heaven with his span, and hath comprehended all the earth of the world in three fingers? Who hath weighed the mountains and the hills? Or who is of his counsel to teach him? And who hath he asked counsel, to make him understand, and to learn him the way of judgement: to teach him science: and to instruct him in the way of understanding.

For he hath given me the true science of these things: so that I know how the world was made, and the powers of the elements: The beginning, ending and midst of the times: how the times alter, how one goeth after another, and how they are fulfilled: the course of the year: the ordinances of the stars: the natures and kinds of beasts: the furriousness of beasts: the power of the winds: the imaginations of men: the diversities of young plants: the virtues of roots, And all such things as are secret and not looked for, have I learned. For the workmaster of all things hath taught me wisdom.

As for the thing that men have found out through their evil science, it hath not deceived us: as the painting of a picture ( an unprofitable labor ) an carved image, with diverse colors, whose sight enticeth the ignorant: so that he honoreth and loveth the picture of the dead image that hath no soul.

O' Timothy save that which is given thee to keep, and avoid unghostly vanities of voices and oppositions of science falsely so called, which science while some professed, they have errored as concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

God Bless

posted on May, 22 2006 @ 05:32 AM
What is your purpose in posting those verses? You didn't explain anything about them, and to someone unfamiliar with the bible's manner of instruction, you are basically just pointing out yet another instance of what seems to be blatant contradiction...

Please pardon my bluntness, because I do know that was not your intention, at all. I'm not sure of your aim, but I do know it wasn't to shoot your ball at the other team's hoop.

So for some clarification:

(BTW, that first citation was Proverbs 15:33, not 16, right?)

What 'science' means to us, right here and now, in the context of this discussion, is not necessarily what is meant in each of those verses.

Here at is a modern definition for science that I think is one that fits the majority of perceptions these days. Even though one of the definitions is listed as something to do with gaining knowledge through experience, I can't stretch that to apply with equal meaning to the word 'wisdom.' Here is the word 'wisdom' defined by that same reference site.

Okay, for the verse in Proverbs--what version did you cite, DearWife? In my KJV, that verse reads:

The fear of the LORD is the instruction of wisdom; and before honour is humility.

Now, to be fair, the word 'fear' is the same as 'reverence,' and the word that the KJV translates as 'instruction' is Strong's #H4148:

Outside Source
properly chastisement; figuratively reproof, warning or instruction; also restraint: - bond, chastening ([-eth]), chastisement, check, correction, discipline, doctrine, instruction, rebuke.

Now, how that got translated into the word 'science' is probably something beyond my understanding,; but suffice it to say that this verse conveys the suggested moral of the bigger story (within which faith and scholastics feud), if considered in regard where it is found, amidst several other truisms such as:

The tongue of the wise useth knowledge aright: but the mouth of fools poureth out foolishness. (v2)

The lips of the wise disperse knowledge: but the heart of the foolish doeth not so.(v7)

The heart of him that hath understanding seeketh knowledge: but the mouth of fools feedeth on foolishness.

The heart of the righteous studieth to answer: but the mouth of the wicked poureth out evil things.

He that refuseth instruction despiseth his own soul: but he that heareth reproof getteth understanding.

The problem between science and religion is not science and religion but rather totally fueled by both scientists and the religious! And forgive my generalizations, please--I know it's not all scientists, or all who are religious, et al...but for the sake of stating a clean cut case in point I say this. I can honestly say I am someone who sides nowhere but right square on the fence—more of an artist than anything else *more on that below*. After all these years I began to see how all things false fall away and all that is left is truth. It’s partly of faith and partly of observation. But it requires a united outlook. Too many today seem hard driven to justify their beliefs so that those beliefs will justify them in the end…neither side is provable as ‘right’ and the other as ‘wrong.’ The single minded prejudice that forms from such an agenda precludes objective and confident learning.

On one side we have a scientist who is neither pious or athiest--actually not interested in religion or spirituality at all....who spends his life observing the marvel of this planet's life machine so that he can understand it....what he sees is real, true, and inarguable.
Yet scientists often seem ready to believe in a non-intelligent force driving the only machine that sustains life, which is an ironic denial of their own intelligence; something they require of themselves in order to prove their theories.

The observation of nature is something that is impartial to all human eyes. What is shown, is shown. It will repeat itself even if there are no witnesses to apply that qualification of 'science.' Observable and repeatable.

On the other side we have a believer in the Living God as the creative and efficient Most High whose heart there is a certainty of feeling, that can't be explained nor disregarded....what he feels is real, true, and inarguable.
But then the religious often deny their God-given common sense and reason in favor of totally vetoing facts gained from centuries of human experience and interaction with nature.

Love, in its ideal form, is also impartial: all love, all of the time, to every one. And that, too, is repeatable. The recipient of such love can not deny it, and that is something I feel is probably described most often as ‘faith.’

Those who deny the one ability that makes us most like God (our minds) deny God.

And those who deny the power of mind (God) as the source of what is manifested deny themselves.

Finally, when it comes to what we see (or think we see) and how we then potentially (more often than not, actually) seize upon our ‘findings’ and ‘knowledge’ and clothe ourselves with gossamer pride just like it was fig leafs or something…
To deny is the opposite of to submit to correction. Something the bible says is the manner of fools, science or no science. One who thinks they have all the answers can never learn another thing—and that’s dangerous no matter what the stance is.

And truly, it’s pointless. :shk: Not a single human ever has seen that place where all 3 facets of our souls converge:

Science is repeatedly observing God’s ultimate genius.
Faith is the literal feeling of God’s love (through the soul of Christ).
Art is the manifestation of God’s creative force/energy.

Surely that ‘place’ is where we will finally ‘see God.’

posted on May, 22 2006 @ 08:38 AM
Hate it when this happens, but I agree with QueenAnnie to a degree

God created the heavens and the Earth, and all the laws thereby which it is governed. Science is the discipline of discovering and understanding those laws He made. Science and Christianity are not mutually exclusive. If anything, they reinforce one another. As such, science will never fail us, because God will never fail us.

Now, that was science. Humanity's interpretation of God's laws is not always correct. Scientists are just as notorious as you and I for allowing personal bias to influence how they see the world. Even if someone can view the laws of the universe without wanting to find something (the best scientists go in wanting to find the truth, rather than find evidence supporting a theory), the data can still be misinterpreted. We have seen it happen countless times in science.

So, the question shouldn't be when science fails us, where do we go, because science will never fail us, and we should always go to God. Plus, it was our belief in God that allowed science, as we know it today, to develop. It was that belief in an orderly universe that allowed us to ask those first questions.

posted on May, 22 2006 @ 12:58 PM

I was only giving to this thread what came to my heart at the time. That's all...

God Bless

posted on May, 22 2006 @ 02:59 PM

Originally posted by DearWife
I was only giving to this thread what came to my heart at the time. That's all...

I wasn't picking on you, though. I was just inspired by the verses you posted and had to express my thoughts. You never did say what translation you cited from, though, and I'm still curious - and too lazy to look for a match on my own

posted on May, 22 2006 @ 02:59 PM

Originally posted by GreatTech
When science fails, where do we go? God existed before, during, and after science.

If god made the universe, and he designed it in such a way that a rational and objective investigation can reveal its secrets, then wouldn't we be out of step with god if we only relied upon faith? If god made man in his image, and man is unique in that he is a rational animal, an intelligent one that can investigate the universe that he finds himself in, AND on top of that that universe seems to operate upon rational scientifically understandable principles, then isn't it righteous and justified (in biblical terms) to use science??

posted on May, 22 2006 @ 03:38 PM

Here is a thread I created awhile back in regards to the translation I cited:
God's First Truth vs. KJV

I will be happy to answer any questions you may have there.

God Bless

posted on May, 24 2006 @ 09:02 PM
Does a 1,000 time winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, chemistry, and medicine or physiology know more than God. I think not. Only through Faith in God is our Life sustained. And this means "Heavenly Life" not earth life.

posted on May, 24 2006 @ 10:01 PM

Originally posted by Nygdan If god made man in his image, and man is unique in that he is a rational animal, an intelligent one that can investigate the universe that he finds himself in, AND on top of that that universe seems to operate upon rational scientifically understandable principles, then isn't it righteous and justified (in biblical terms) to use science??


BUT faith is important in that one must first believe there is a God in order to apply science toward verification.

The details don't matter--all erroneous conceptions will eventually be worked through, if faith is combined with intelligence.

One thing about being made in God's image: God is faithful (trustworthy and reliable, that is) and so therefore we are expected to exercise such integrity, as well. I'm sure, somehow, that that kind of 'faith' is connected to the 'believing' kind of faith. Or at least relatively sure, that is.

new topics

top topics


log in