Science and the Bible

[Jedidiah]

Excellent 06.

[lilpixieofterror]

You seem to be equating "science" and "truth." No careful scientist makes that error. If science were entirely true, its claims would never change, which is not the case.

Science is a quest for truth RB, much as what we Christians strive to accomplish ourselves.

[Jedidiah]

We have no such guarantee about scientific examinations of the natural world.

Romans 1:19-20 "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. "

This is a very strong indication that what we can learn from examining the creation is valid. I never suggested that we can not make mistakes. Study of the Bible has several mistakes in it's history. Show me that everything you get from the Bible is accurate, and what I get is not.

[seanD]

Science is a quest for truth RB, much as what we Christians strive to accomplish ourselves.

How does that fare with anthropogenic global warming? Or is that a different science that uses different scientific methodologies?

[RBerman]

Romans 1:19-20 "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. "

This is a very strong indication that what we can learn from examining the creation is valid. I never suggested that we can not make mistakes. Study of the Bible has several mistakes in it's history. Show me that everything you get from the Bible is accurate, and what I get is not.

How would I go about showing that?

[RBerman]

Science is a quest for truth RB, much as what we Christians strive to accomplish ourselves.

Well, sure. All the Buddhists and Hindus and Muslims in the world are on a quest for truth, too. They've all decided what authorities they accept, and what process they accept. That doesn't make their authority or their process correct, of course.

[RBerman]

hmm - I'm not sure that means what you think it means Rob. There are literally hundreds of significant protestant groups/denominations all with different takes on scripture. We can't even see eye to eye on whether Romans 7 is speaking of Paul's life before or after becoming a Christian, and in fact it seems rather clear to each of us the other is missing something important. And this particular debate is not just the two of us, this is a common disagreement in the Church. How to Baptize, When to Baptize, the proper balance of works and faith, the issue of free will and predestination, the means and evidence of the Holy Spirit in the believer's life, I could go on and on.

The verses you quote do not, I believe, apply to technical things at all. They apply to more basic elements of the Gospel, the elements that are critical to salvation. And further, you will notice that the prerequisite conditions to learn of God and hear his voice are far from objective. They in fact tend to be rare. A lot depends on the humility and sincerity and willingness to die to self of the individual. Just look at what happens when the arrogant and self-serving 'interpret' scripture.

I would say that in fact, Jesus marveled at how much better we are at interpreting the signs of nature as opposed to the spiritual signs around us, wondered at how we could be so capable in the area of the natural, yet so incapable in terms of hearing His message to us(Matthew 16:2-3). So I tend to think that the elements referred to in the verses you quote are not the kinds of elements we can stack up as an example of why we should think we are less likely to understand nature than we are to understand scripture. And, almost to the point of irony, the evidence (the significant and even sometimes violent disagreements over what the text means and says) is quite to the contrary.

OK. If you don't believe that the Holy Spirit gives special insights to Christians in the study of Scripture, then we lack sufficient common ground to discuss the matter further.

[seanD]

Romans 1:19-20 "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. "

This is a very strong indication that what we can learn from examining the creation is valid. I never suggested that we can not make mistakes. Study of the Bible has several mistakes in it's history. Show me that everything you get from the Bible is accurate, and what I get is not.

Verse 21 is the important stipulation to that truth (which I noticed you stopped just short). Do you think that verse applies to secular science and its God-exclusion methodologies or doesn't apply?

[Jedidiah]

Science is a quest for truth RB, much as what we Christians strive to accomplish ourselves.

I don't think science is searching for "Truth." Science seeks to understand the creation we live in.

[oxmixmudd]

OK. If you don't believe that the Holy Spirit gives special insights to Christians in the study of Scripture, then we lack sufficient common ground to discuss the matter further.

Rberman,

I have come to expect better than this from you. This is neither a fair, nor accurate response to my post. Would you try to feign indignation at what I posted - then at least point out what is actually false about it, if anything.

As for the implied accusation that I don't believe the Holy Spirit gives special insights to Christians, this is simply false RBerman. I would not be surprised if I actually believe in and practice at least as much conscious awareness of God's ongoing revelation to me and others through scripture reading and prayer as you would ever expect to have yourself. That is not the point. The point is that there is no expectation that on matters such as these, the intersection of science and faith, that we can expect any better an understanding of scripture than of science - in that specific application. The same character, personal and ideological flaws that can color our view of scientific data can and do color our reading of scripture, because we don't always listen to or put ourselves in a position to receive and hear the special insights God willingly gives. God speaks through the still small voice, and if we are all loud and angry with arrogance and pride, if we are filled with fear of change, or fear of failure (getting it wrong), we'll not be able to hear.

The bottom line is that our track record for getting it right in science is markedly better than our track record for getting it right in scripture. Why? I think at least in part it is because religious systems tend toward dogma, and in spite of the fact that what Christ offers is new life and freedom from the law and dogma and the kinds of rule based religious systems that lead to that kind of oppression of new ideas or thoughts, we often, like the Christians in Galatia, tend to revert to such a system. Such systems abhor change and correction.

And because the statements of science are objectively verifiable. Enough folks doing an experiment (e.g. building a telescope and observing the planets, moon, and stars) will eventually overwhelm any dogma be it scientific or religious. But, as I've pointed out many times, if we do not subject our conclusions from scriptural interpretation to some sort of objective validation, then there is nothing that can correct a flawed position. It's like the Health and Wealth gang. It's a flawed conclusion, but if people are convinced or have been convinced that's what the Bible says it usually takes a major crisis to wake them up to what is flawed about it. And some people believe it so strongly they will go to their death because of it. There is NO objective evidence that can convince them they (or the fellow they follow) have it wrong.

And in the end, even though I believe that a prayerful attitude, careful study, and a willingness to die to self can and should lead to a correct understanding of scripture, the church does NOT and has NOT reached unity on MANY things. And I simply am not willing to say that is because all Christians worldwide are fundamentally more flawed that myself or you RBerman. So basically, Even though we can and do hear from God, and even though we earnestly seek Him, we do not get it all right. And it will be that way till Christ returns. "For now we see through a glass darkly, but then we shall see face to face. For now I know in part, but the I shall know fully, even as I am fully known".


Jim

[Jedidiah]

How would I go about showing that?

My point exactly. The Holy Spirit gives us all we need to know, not necessarily all we want to know.

[Jedidiah]

OK. If you don't believe that the Holy Spirit gives special insights to Christians in the study of Scripture, then we lack sufficient common ground to discuss the matter further.

The Holy Spirit definitely give special insight to Christians. But again, He teaches us what we need to know. I don't believe He teaches us the intricate details of the relationship within the Trinity (just as an example). I realize this was in response to oxmixmudd, but to my mind this is of great importance. If it were not true why would believers, solid believers, differ on these nonessential details?

[Jedidiah]

Verse 21 is the important stipulation to that truth (which I noticed you stopped just short). Do you think that verse applies to secular science and its God-exclusion methodologies or doesn't apply?

Science, does not exclude God. Scientists exclude God. God is not subject to scientific examination, therefore science had no business saying anything about God - it ain't their bailiwick.

[seanD]

Science, does not exclude God. Scientists exclude God. God is not subject to scientific examination, therefore science had no business saying anything about God - it ain't their bailiwick.

This is actually one of the best arguments I've heard in regards to Romans 1 and the God-exclusion methodology science uses. But the establishment is secular and made up of scientists that are not theists (much less that are Christian), excluding IDers that are shunned from the secular establishment. You don't find the biting hostility within this establishment (which is primarily secular) against anything even related to God applicable to Romans 1:21?

[oxmixmudd]

This is actually one of the best arguments I've heard in regards to Romans 1 and the God-exclusion methodology science uses. But the establishment is secular and made up of scientists that are not theists (much less that are Christian), excluding IDers that are shunned from the secular establishment. You don't find the biting hostility within this establishment (which is primarily secular) against anything even related to God applicable to Romans 1:21?

seanD - science is not a 'God exclusion methodology' in the sense I think you mean here. That is, there is nothing inherent in science that keeps a believer from believing in God and doing good science. However, part of what you say is correct - there IS an anti-religious bias present in many scientists. But that bias in part is based on the kinds of attitudes towards science we see expressed here by yourself, RBerman and others. In many ways, the represnt ignorance of science itself. For example, the current attempts to claim that what we typically call ID can pass as legitimate science according to the definition of science used now for over 300 years to vastly improve our knowledge of the natural world are false. This is not more clearly revealed in the attempts to re-define science so as to include the supernatural into its methodology as pursued during the Dover trial. To the degree that Michael Behe was forced to admit that under this 'new' definition. Astrology would qualify as science.

OF COURSE this is going to bring massive hostility from the scientific community. In part because the secular community tends to idolize science. But that and its impact on the Christian is a separate issue. But in part because it compromises and undermines the effectiveness of the process that has brought us so much effective knowledge - knowledge that makes us healthier, more comfortable, better fed, and (potentially) better educated.

You can't quite see this I don't think. And neither can RBerman, or Blueprint NI (folks I've discussed various elements of this with here). I think partly because you both do not understand science and to a certain extent you fear it. But it just doesn't work without it being the kind of natural, repeatable, logical process that it is.

To the Christian we can approach these issues in a more balanced fashion - not that our approach can ever be fully acceptable to a fully secularized science community. But that is not the point. The point is to be salt and light in the world. And if we carry with that salt the equivalent of Rat Poison, then we are going to be spat out and our message will not be heard.

So here is a question for you. What Satan wants is first and foremost to eliminate the message of Christ from the world. But failing that, his next best tactic is to render it ineffective by piling upon it so much baggage that it is effectively removed from the world.

YEC is that kind of baggage. Trying to stuff new definitions of science that would include Astrology down peoples throats through judicial rule rather than legitimate scientific processes is such baggage. Ridiculous side shows like TV charlatan preachers is such baggage. And the constant fighting among Christians over side issues is such baggage. The lack of moral integrity among Christians is such baggage. Religious leaders that pursue fame and opulence is such baggage. And I could go on and on.

But as long as folks like yourself characterize the debate as you do, as some kind of moral flaw or heretical bend among those that disagree with you, Satan continues to get his way in this issue.

You and RBerman and others are not dealing with heretics. You are dealing with brothers in Christ you happen to disagree with on some issues. Can we not pursue these topics in that light and to that degree of understanding?


Jim