The relationship between the Bible and science has been debated for decades. While science has emerged as a multifaceted discipline focused on the natural world, it has been viewed as a growing body of facts or knowledge ; and a path to understanding. As scientists test ideas, emerging disciplines such as palaeoanthropology, geology, archaeology, and evolutionary biology have attempted to prove Christian beliefs based on the Biblical account. Although the Bible was considered authoritative, the knowledge generated (...) by science has been so powerful and reliable in different things. While some people might use science to prove their own opinions, bringing an encroachment on the territory of religion, which theologians do not qualify as a scientific field. This paper has collected and analysed ideas from different scientists, philosophers, historians and theologians to examine the relationship between the Bible and Science, and the extent to which one is inductive to another. While an existence of a super intelligent designer was a common idea, confrontation focused on timeliness, creation story, divine action and miracles. Since religious people appeal to factual statements, while science is still developing and cannot prove the Bible or the existence of God with its lack of moral judgment, the Bible was qualified authoritative for faith and life. (shrink)

Focusing on the Astronomia Magna, the magnum opus of Theophrastus Bombast von Hohenheim, or Paracelsus, the dissertation provides a detailed look into Paracelsus ' oft-neglected and misrepresented views on the make-up of humans and the universe, and highlights the religious values fundamental to the formation, expression, and reception of his science, Robert K. Merton and Reijer Hookyaas have helpfully pointed to salient religious factors in the development of modern science, but they overemphasize seventeenth-century English Calvinism. A century earlier, (...) Paracelsus had molded a unique, influential, and thoroughly biblical and ethical system of the world, and with many of the same goals as the Puritans. Paracelsus ---whose ideas were often referred to and even incorporated by the likes of Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Francis Bacon, and Joan Baptista van Helmont---insisted that humans were created to research, discover, and utilize nature. ;Book I of the Astronomia Magna, highlighting the sidereal and elemental bodies of humans, is a systematic explication of natural magic, human nature, and cosmology. There are clear alchemical and Neoplatonic sources, but the discussion is rooted in Paracelsus ' Genesis exegesis. Book II---focusing on the soul and the immortal body, the latter acquired in baptism---contains a summary of Paracelsus ' soteriological and eschatological views, and reiterates Paracelsus ' eucharistic theology. Books I and II thus encapsulate Paracelsus ' universe of two analogous realms, mortal and divine---Book IV regards the demonic. ;Scholars point to the influence of Paracelsus ' theology in the seventeenth-century, but downplay its early reception. However, various sixteenth-century intellectuals eagerly produced Paracelsus ' works despite their divisive religious content, and some of his followers adopted his spiritualism, ethics, and heterodoxy. Toxites' preface to the first edition of the Astronomia Magna is largely a summary and endorsement of Paracelsus ' theology. ;Scholarly treatments of the Scientific Revolution, even within Paracelsus studies itself, fail to capture the unity of Paracelsus ' theological and medical-natural philosophical works and ideas, hence producing incomplete and flawed interpretations. Thus, it is essential to build on the insightful work of Kurt Goldammer, Hartmut Rudolph, Allen Debus, and Charles Webster, and to explore more deeply Paracelsus ' bible-based science. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:THE BIBLE AND MODERNITY: REFLECTIONS ON LEO STRAUSS John Ranieri Seton Hall University espondingto the criticisms made by Eric Voegelin and Alexandre Lojeve ofhis book On Tyranny, Leo Strauss wonders whether the attempt to restore classical social science is not, perhaps, Utopian, "since it implies that the classical orientation has not been made obsolete by the triumph ofthe biblical orientation" (Strauss 1991, 177-178). In similar fashion Strauss (...) remarks to Karl Lowith how "there can be no doubt that our usual way of feeling is conditioned by the biblical tradition," even if he refuses to rule out the possibility of correcting that feeling (Lowith and Strauss, 111). This "triumph ofthe biblical orientation" concerns Strauss, since he believes no synthesis is possible between the competing claims of Athens and Jerusalem. The cultural predominance of one of these cities would jeopardize the vitality ofwestern civilization, which depends upon the tension between them for its dynamism and life (Strauss 1989, 72; 1997, 116, 121). To speak ofthe triumph ofthe biblical in the modern West is to call attention to a disruptive imbalance. Strauss's overall project of reviving the classical orientation in politics can be understood as an attempt to restore a sense of equilibrium. If the modern world reflects a victory ofthe biblical orientation, it is relevant to ask just how Strauss conceives the relationship between modernity and the Bible. Given Strauss's well known criticism of modernity, we may wonder whether this criticism is also an implicit criticism ofthe Bible and its influence. Answering this question is not an easy task. For someone who considered the opposition between Athens and Jerusalem to be the central issue confronting western civilization, Strauss 56John Ranieri devotes a relatively meager amount ofspace to analysis ofthe Bible.1 With rare exception we find nowhere near the amount of detailed commentary on biblical texts that we find in his treatment ofthe classics. What are we to make ofan author who writes three books on Xenophon's Socrates, while limiting his only detailed biblical commentary to the first two chapters of Genesis? This discrepancy would pose no problem, but for the fact that Strauss repeatedly emphasizes the importance ofkeeping alive the question ofthe relationship between Greek and biblical traditions. By comparison, a thinker like Heidegger simply tends to dismiss or ignore the relevance of the Bible in addressing what he would take to be the contemporary crisis of western civilization. But Strauss insists that we cannot understand the modern world without a serious consideration ofthe claims ofAthens and Jerusalem. His reticence, then, in treating biblical texts (especially the New Testament) with the same degree of probity as he employs when consideringthe texts ofclassical Greece, is puzzling. We are leftwondering whether his own observation about Machiavelli is applicable to himself: "The silence ofthe wise man is always meaningful. It cannot be explained by forgetfulness" (Strauss 1958, 30; see Grant 1964; Steintrager 1968). Strauss's silence may be significant, but arguments based upon an author's omissions are always more precarious than those which rely on written or spoken evidence. In the case of Strauss, there are in fact sufficient statements and hints in his work to enable us to recognize ways in which he construed the relationship between the Bible and modernity. Three themes stand out. The first is the notion that the eschatological vision ofthe Bible survives in modern times in transfigured and distorted form as the idea of progress. The second is Strauss's contention that the "final atheism" characteristic of late modernity is the child of an "intellectual 1 As far as 1 can tell, Strauss devoted only one essay to a specific book ofthe Bible. That essay is "On the Interpretation of Genesis" (Strauss 1995b; Orr 1995). Strauss deals with much ofthe same material in his "Jerusalem and Athens: Some Preliminary Reflections" (Strauss 1995; Orr 1995), although the second part ofthe two part essay (constituting a quarter ofthe entire essay) contains briefquotes from Amos, Isaiah, and Jeremiah. Another place in which he discusses the influence ofthe Bible is "Progress or Return? (Strauss 1 997). There is no extended treatment of any New Testament text anywhere in Strauss's published work. By contrast, Eric Voegelin (another... (shrink)

Images and concepts of the 'posthuman' go back at least as far as the famous 'madman parable' in F. Nietzsche's The Gay Science, and their 'roots' go back much further still. In turn, the image or theme of the posthuman has played an increasingly important role in recent literature, film, and television, where the notion of humanity as a 'larval being' (G. Deleuze) that transforms itself or is being transformed into something else, for better or worse, has become increasingly (...) common. This book explores these concepts in relation to biblical texts, particularly texts from the gospel of Mark but also from the books of Daniel, Jonah and Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes), and the Acts of the Apostles. At the same time, texts from recent popular culture are examined, including novels by J. Morrow, C. Miéville and G. Ryman, the movies Local Hero and Lars and the Real Girl, and the Heroes TV series among others. Through a kind of inverted causality, recent texts in various media such as these transform earlier and otherwise unrelated ones, including biblical texts, into precursors, giving them new, postmodern meanings, just as the older texts once signified in still other ways before the advent of the familiar modern world. As a result, biblical texts signify in remarkably different ways in relation to the posthuman. Posthuman beings appear in both biblical and non-biblical texts, and the biblical phrase 'sons of men' (in both plural and singular versions) plays a crucial role, where it too takes on meanings that range far beyond the conventional or traditional ones. (shrink)

The Bible is not a book of science, and therefore not of ecology. It does, however, sketch a vision of human ecology, and contemporary readers encounter claims about how to value nature. The Bible's vision is simultaneously biocentric, anthropocentric, and theocentric. The Hebrews discovered who they were as they discovered where they were, and their scriptures can be a catalyst in our ecological crisis.

The sages of Israel and natural wisdom -- Jews and natural philosophy -- Jews and science.

Proceedings of the First Conference of the International Society for Hermeneutics and Science.

This paper challenges the first Gettier counterexample to the tripartite account of knowledge. Noting that 'the man who will get the job' is a description and invoking Donnellan's distinction between their 'referential' and 'attributive' uses, I argue that Smith does not actually believe that the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket. Smith's ignorance about who will get the job shows that the belief cannot be understood referentially, his ignorance of the coins in his pocket (...) shows that it cannot be understood attributively. An explanation for why Smith appeared to have justified true belief is given by distinguishing between 'belief' and 'belief in truth'. Smith believes the sentence 'the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket' to be true (he mistakenly believes that Jones will get the job, of whom he knows that he has ten coins in his pocket) (hence his 'belief'), the sentence is true (hence 'truth'), and he has sufficient reason to assent to it (hence his 'justification'). But he does not believe the proposition expressed. Hence he does not know it either. (shrink)

Best of both worlds: objective truth exists -- Beyond circular reasoning: time is linear -- I am who I am: an entity can have contradictory natures -- Seeing in the dark: significant parts of reality are hidden from us -- Not of this world: light is unearthly -- An egg-straordinary event: the universe was created Ex Nihilo -- The certainty of uncertainty: truth is bigger than proof -- La vida loca: cause and effect can be disproportional -- The cosmic grapevine: (...) instantaneous communication is possible -- Beyond fleas and grapes: humans are unique. (shrink)

As exemplified by three cases, difficulties in the dialogue between religion and science not infrequently arise from differing views of God's omnipotence and omniscience. From the side of theology, reflections on the biblical and church‐related sources of those views, on Auschwitz and theproblem of theodicy, on God as Creator of the universe, and on how to read and interpret the Bible show that a view of a God who self‐limits almightiness and all‐knowing in order to grant freedom and (...) functional integrity to a Creation about which God cares can be multiply justified. Such a view is not dissonant with regard to a self‐organized, open universe, producing “unexpected” emergent features as seen by science. (shrink)

The use of such concepts as randomness and probability is discussed and stochastic decisions occurring in the sacred texts are studied. In connection with probability, the measurements made in antiquity in order to comply with religious demands are also touched on. The cases where cause rather than randomness was recognized to be at work are indicated, and the statements contained in the Talmud and the thoughts of its later commentator, Maimonides, on hypotheses are linked with the appropriate opinions of Isaac (...) Newton and Jakob Bernoulli. (shrink)