RBerman on TE

[robrecht]

As for your hypothetical:

This whole thread is about a concrete manifestation of this issue. If the Bible taught that Creation was a miracle of God which circumvented the usual laws of nature, would science proceed from that beginning and interpret the universe accordingly?

Science investigates and tries to formulate the laws of nature, both as they manifest themselves in the usual world of experience, but also as they manifest themselves in the exceedingly non-usual realms of quantum mechanics and the hypothesis of a primal singularity known colloquially as the Big Bang. It does not presume to speak of God 'circumventing the laws of nature,' it has enough trouble articulating these 'laws of nature,' and generally does not and should not presume to go beyond the methodologies it has developed to do this. Some scientists, both believers and nonbelievers, do sometimes try to go beyond a merely scientific approach to address larger theological questions, but at that point they are philosophizing or theologizing, but no longer practicing science. As I said earlier in this thread, there are indeed elements of the creation narrative that I might call pre-science but it is certainly not a rival to modern science. It speaks to us on a much deeper level than modern science is capable of, in my humble opinion.

[oxmixmudd]

Jim, your very reactionary tone in this thread, and your constant badgering of RBerman after he's told you he's not interested in engaging you any longer says more about your character than it does his. Every time I read one of your posts in this thread anymore I can't help but imagine a kid beating pans together hoping someone will notice him, while RBerman and a few others continue to remain cool and collected.

Yep. sometimes I get loud when I'm treated like crap.

I did apologize to Mr. Berman. I did try to reign it in. Mr. Berman responded with rudeness, then with out and out libel of my position. But I suppose that is ok, and I'm the bad guy.

as for badgering: I have responded to specific points Berman made, and I told Berman I did not care if he answered back.

But Mr. Berman chose to libel me, to mischaracterize my position, yet refuses to address me directly on the matter. That after I'd already corrected him on the mischaracterization twice before. That and the previous mischaracterizations are aggressive behavior, at least equal to anything I've done, and the reason I have reacted to him as I have.

But I also understand how this goes, and that I will receive neither justice nor kindness on this issue.


Thanks,

God's blessing and peace be with you.


Jim

[RBerman]

As for your hypothetical:
Science investigates and tries to formulate the laws of nature, both as they manifest themselves in the usual world of experience, but also as they manifest themselves in the exceedingly non-usual realms of quantum mechanics and the hypothesis of a primal singularity known colloquially as the Big Bang. It does not presume to speak of God 'circumventing the laws of nature,' it has enough trouble articulating these 'laws of nature,' and generally does not and should not presume to go beyond the methodologies it has developed to do this. Some scientists, both believers and nonbelievers, do sometimes try to go beyond a merely scientific approach to address larger theological questions, but at that point they are philosophizing or theologizing, but no longer practicing science. As I said earlier in this thread, there are indeed elements of the creation narrative that I might call pre-science but it is certainly not a rival to modern science. It speaks to us on a much deeper level than modern science is capable of, in my humble opinion.

This is exactly my point. Science does not have the tools to evaluate events in which God acts contrary to the way we expect things to go, a.k.a. "miracles." Perforce, it proceeds without accounting for that possibility, and its conclusions should always be prefaced implicitly with, "Unless God did something special, here's what we think happened in situation X:" Now, nonChristian scientists will probably deny the need for implicitly or explicitly making that kind of disclaimer. Christians should feel differently, else they're being inconsistent with their beliefs by engaging in science in a practically atheistic manner.

[RBerman]

Yep. sometimes I get loud when I'm treated like crap. I did apologize to Mr. Berman. I did try to reign it in. Mr. Berman responded with rudeness, then with out and out libel of my position. But I suppose that is ok, and I'm the bad guy. as for badgering: I have responded to specific points Berman made, and I told Berman I did not care if he answered back. But Mr. Berman chose to libel me, to mischaracterize my position, yet refuses to address me directly on the matter. That after I'd already corrected him on the mischaracterization twice before. That and the previous mischaracterizations are aggressive behavior, at least equal to anything I've done, and the reason I have reacted to him as I have.But I also understand how this goes, and that I will receive neither justice nor kindness on this issue.

I mean no libel, Jim. But a Christian ought to be able to say, without hesitation, that he believes whatever he understands the Bible to say.

[oxmixmudd]

I mean no libel, Jim. But a Christian ought to be able to say, without hesitation, that he believes whatever he understands the Bible to say.

But Rob, that is what I said (at least, that is what I was trying to say!).

You took it to mean something completely different than what I was intending when I said 'on the shelf'. I did not mean I would put my understanding of the teaching of scripture itself on the shelf, I meant I would put finding the resolution on the shelf. My mistake I suppose was in trying to convey a more general response to a hypothetical situation as opposed to what robrect did when he wisely said he'd need a specific instance in which to characterize his response.

I also think the answer you were looking for from me is a bit unrealistic given the context of our discussion. Sometimes one is confronted with issues that directly challenge what one thinks is true. I remember the first time I encountered Church of Christ evangelists, the branch that believes a person is not saved unless properly baptized after accepting Christ. I didn't think they were correct, but I went through a time where I had to go back and research my own position, look at what they based their understanding on and compare it with my own understanding and the historical understanding of the church.


But thanks for at least giving me the opportunity to talk to you directly on this.



Jim

[RBerman]

But Rob, that is what I said (at least, that is what I was trying to say!). You took it to mean something completely different than what I was intending when I said 'on the shelf'. I did not mean I would put my understanding of the teaching of scripture itself on the shelf, I meant I would put finding the resolution on the shelf. My mistake I suppose was in trying to convey a more general response to a hypothetical situation as opposed to what robrect did when he wisely said he'd need a specific instance in which to characterize his response.

The resolution is what I'm looking for. The resolution is "I trust God even though I don't know why the science points elsewhere." Is that what you meant by "on the shelf?" If so, then I misconstrued you and apologize heartily. I also apologize for citing you after I said I would not interact with you. It was unfair of me to bring you up if I didn't intend to interact with any response you might make.

[oxmixmudd]

The resolution is what I'm looking for. The resolution is "I trust God even though I don't know why the science points elsewhere." Is that what you meant by "on the shelf?" If so, then I misconstrued you and apologize heartily. I also apologize for citing you after I said I would not interact with you. It was unfair of me to bring you up if I didn't intend to interact with any response you might make.

That is exactly what I meant.


And thank you for the apology. I was then quite wrong in my characterization of you has having a 'black heart'.

Look we got off on completely the wrong foot somewhere along the way - I perceived some of the things your were saying as personal attacks, you perceived some of the things I was saying as personal attacks.

Perhaps we could put it behind us?


Jim

[robrecht]

This is exactly my point. Science does not have the tools to evaluate events in which God acts contrary to the way we expect things to go, a.k.a. "miracles." Perforce, it proceeds without accounting for that possibility, and its conclusions should always be prefaced implicitly with, "Unless God did something special, here's what we think happened in situation X:" Now, nonChristian scientists will probably deny the need for implicitly or explicitly making that kind of disclaimer. Christians should feel differently, else they're being inconsistent with their beliefs by engaging in science in a practically atheistic manner.

So a Christian or Jewish or Muslim, etc, scientist should preface every one of his or her scientific conlusions with the implicit (or explicit) axiom, "Unless God did something special, here's what we think happened in situation X:" Do you think that should be part of the scientific method, such that there would be a theistic scientific method and an atheistic scientific method? Is that what you mean by "engaging in science in a practically atheistic manner," such that one could also engage in science in a practically (or formally? or theoretically? or methodologically) theistic manner?

Or are you speaking perhaps about an attitude of humility that a scientist should adopt when implicitly or explicitly engaging in theological discussion or thought?

And do you also think that scientists should not accept theological or exegetical positions uncritically?

Thanks, Robrecht

[oxmixmudd]

So a Christian or Jewish or Muslim, etc, scientist should preface every one of his or her scientific conlusions with the implicit (or explicit) axiom, "Unless God did something special, here's what we think happened in situation X:" Do you think that should be part of the scientific method, such that there would be a theistic scientific method and an atheistic scientific method? Is that what you mean by "engaging in science in a practically atheistic manner," such that one could also engage in science in a practically (or formally? or theoretically? or methodologically) theistic manner?

Or are you speaking perhaps about an attitude of humility that a scientist should adopt when implicitly or explicitly engaging in theological discussion or thought?

And do you also think that scientists should not accept theological or exegetical positions uncritically?

Thanks, Robrecht

It is my opinion that any kind of theological 'qualifier' on science amounts to window dressing. Any more than we need special theological qualifiers on how to cook (e.g. This recipe will make a good Chicken dinner ... unless a miracle occurs).

I think, in reality, the only place one would even need to consider this issue is in attempts to construct a unobserved history from the current state of a system. And that is, of course, what is happening as regards the science aspect of the YEC/non-YEC debate. Science is based on the application of methodological naturalism - its goal is to understand the natural world, to comprehend it properties. Theologically we can view this properties is gifts of and reflections of a good God who is 'the same yesterday, today, and forever' and who 'upholds the cosmos'. But practically, God is not part of the process of scientific investigation except in that He upholds the universe consistently and according to regular rules, and also perhaps in the hearts and minds of those doing the investigating, or in Guiding us to understand what it is we are observing.

Adding to that in this debate one must also differentiate between evidence that contradicts a hypothesis, evidence that supports a hypothesis, and evidence the 'proves' a hypothesis true or false (proof being strictly impossible in the mathematical sense). These are all critical concepts.

For the most part the data that causes most of us to reject YEC falls into the category of contradicting the YEC hypothesis - with the contradiction being so strong as to amount to an effective proof. We have enough consilient data to know that whatever the exact history, it did not happen in less than 10,000 years (excepting, of course, the miraculous creation of a perfect replica of a planet and universe much older than 10,000 years).


Jim

[RBerman]

That is exactly what I meant.

And thank you for the apology. I was then quite wrong in my characterization of you has having a 'black heart'.

Look we got off on completely the wrong foot somewhere along the way - I perceived some of the things your were saying as personal attacks, you perceived some of the things I was saying as personal attacks.

Perhaps we could put it behind us?

I have absolutely no rancor toward you. You are not on my "bad list." I am sure we could find all sorts of things to talk and agree about. I'm not sure we're going to make any further headway on the issue of this thread, though. I feel that I understand your position and simply disagree.

[RBerman]

So a Christian or Jewish or Muslim, etc, scientist should preface every one of his or her scientific conlusions with the implicit (or explicit) axiom, "Unless God did something special, here's what we think happened in situation X:" Do you think that should be part of the scientific method, such that there would be a theistic scientific method and an atheistic scientific method? Is that what you mean by "engaging in science in a practically atheistic manner," such that one could also engage in science in a practically (or formally? or theoretically? or methodologically) theistic manner?

Or are you speaking perhaps about an attitude of humility that a scientist should adopt when implicitly or explicitly engaging in theological discussion or thought? And do you also think that scientists should not accept theological or exegetical positions uncritically?

There is a Christian scientific method, a Christian political method, a Christian child-rearing method, a Christian worldview that impacts every aspect of life. There's a Christian method of choosing ice cream flavors. It may produce same results as the non-Christian method 99.9% of the time, and it needn't be shockingly different from the non-Christian method, but occasionally the difference will be brought into high relief. The Christian should always include "Is this action/belief/attitude consistent with God's Word?" in his thought process.

The secular scientist ought to be and can be humble. But I don't expect him to make sure that his process and conclusions comport with God's Word. Why would they?

[robrecht]

There is a Christian scientific method, a Christian political method, a Christian child-rearing method, a Christian worldview that impacts every aspect of life. There's a Christian method of choosing ice cream flavors. It may produce same results as the non-Christian method 99.9% of the time, and it needn't be shockingly different from the non-Christian method, but occasionally the difference will be brought into high relief. The Christian should always include "Is this action/belief/attitude consistent with God's Word?" in his thought process.

The secular scientist ought to be and can be humble. But I don't expect him to make sure that his process and conclusions comport with God's Word. Why would they?

You missed the last question, an important one:

And do you also think that scientists should not accept theological or exegetical positions uncritically?

Thanks, Robrecht

[oxmixmudd]

There is a Christian scientific method, a Christian political method, a Christian child-rearing method, a Christian worldview that impacts every aspect of life. There's a Christian method of choosing ice cream flavors. It may produce same results as the non-Christian method 99.9% of the time, and it needn't be shockingly different from the non-Christian method, but occasionally the difference will be brought into high relief. The Christian should always include "Is this action/belief/attitude consistent with God's Word?" in his thought process.

The secular scientist ought to be and can be humble. But I don't expect him to make sure that his process and conclusions comport with God's Word. Why would they?

Hi - I noticed this and I am not trying to badger or otherwise clamor for attention (said for those who think that is my purpose)

But I honestly don't think the part I in bold works. Science itself is fundamentally an endeavor that - ideally - has no box in which ideas must conform. No-one actually conducting scientific investigation should ever work towards a result that is consciously predetermined. To do so automatically invalidates their work.

So in effect you have said a Christian can't actually function as a scientist in an area with potential impact on faith without either compromising his faith or his science.

I find that disturbing. My motto in this has always been "God is not afraid of the truth". Whatever is really out there, God made it. It shouldn't be a problem.


Jim

[robrecht]

There is a Christian scientific method … The Christian should always include "Is this action/belief/attitude consistent with God's Word?" in his thought process. …

Other than what you wrote above about every belief and attitude being consistent with God's Word, and the prefacing of every scientific conlusion with the implicit axiom, "Unless God did something special, here's what we think happened in situation X:", are there any other differences between the Christian scientific methed and a non-Christian scientific method? Who are the most prominent Christian scientists (note the lower case) that follow this specifically Christian scientific methodology.

Thanks, Robrecht

[RBerman]

And do you also think that scientists should not accept theological or exegetical positions uncritically?

The double negative is confusing. Theological positions are always subject to critique and evaluation, on theological grounds. As I've said numerous times in this thread, I'm open to being shown from Scripture that my understanding of Scripture is wrong. As you're aware, there's a discussion of the textual issues of Genesis 1 going on elsewhere at the moment.

Other than what you wrote above about every belief and attitude being consistent with God's Word, and the prefacing of every scientific conlusion with the implicit axiom, "Unless God did something special, here's what we think happened in situation X:", are there any other differences between the Christian scientific methed and a non-Christian scientific method? Who are the most prominent Christian scientists (note the lower case) that follow this specifically Christian scientific methodology.

Christians live their lives according to God's Word, which would include "Perhaps God actually did something here" being a part of their thought process. Are there any other differences? None come to mind at the moment. Who follows this methodology? Dunno. Hopefully all Christian scientists do. The hagiography of Christian scientists has not been a focus for me.