Is there anything non-trivial on which there is total agreement?
2 Likes
I read “literal” as shorthand for YEC, given the focus of the article. Of note, the author is Mormon so their take on Christian theology is going to differ from those here, and this is probably why the author focuses more on the interaction between science and faith instead of digging into the finer points of biblical interpretation.
2 Likes
There is a consensus on many things over a very large number of denominations and organizations – for both Christianity and even among groups of religion.
Of course it is nothing like the consensus in science which can agree on details according to the measurable results of written procedures. Religion is essentially subjective and diversity is natural and to be expected.
While the most common benchmark is 75% agreement, there is no single percentage that defines a consensus. The necessary level of agreement is often defined by the specific group and context, as consensus is more about broad support and commitment than about a simple majority or unanimity.
So consensus is always a matter of overlapping circles of various percentages of agreement which is never an absolute 100%. Ultimately, free will even includes a choice for evil and perversity, though as I often argue I think this is quantitatively insignificant among all the choices we have. I think the diversity of life in millions of species (or the diversity of human culture in seven thousand languages) is an example of this.
I don’t really know what you mean by “definitive understanding,” but I believe that is pretty much what I said. There are agreements among all the translations and understandings and we can limit our priorities as well as certainties to these agreements.
2 Likes
There are, of course, none. Science can see no bridges to faith. Faith can see bridges to science. They’re not commutative. Faith gets a toe-hold on science in the polydactylic handful of purely measured physical constants, which our physics models will never explain, but are nonetheless entirely natural. Deterministic and philosophically universal, i.e. the same in all the infinity of universes from eternity. Not in any way dependent on the truth of the incidental infinite, eternal multiverse in hyperspace, i.e. no matter how random, certain in that infinity of universes. Reason from science to faith is based entirely on feelings. Reason without that prejudice fully accepts unintentional existence. There is no meeting across the divide between further divided literalists and TEists, no convergence on the way to science. Only TEists - a minority within a minority - can even attempt to build that one way bridge.
Such as?
I can only come up with trivialities such as god exists or Jesus lived in Judea 2000 years ago.
It depends on what you mean by bridges.
support? no. You are right it can largely be only one way. Religion can support science – it has often chosen to do so and many religious people have taken up tasks of science. But no science cannot support most religious conclusions. Religion has few limitations, but science is limited to a methodology, and that methodology does not work with all questions.
compatibility? yes. As long as religion limits itself to things which are not contrary to scientific conclusions then there is compatibility. The limitations of science then means it cannot speak to questions which have nothing to do with the things science can make conclusions about – and most of the declaration of religion are about questions like this.
I frankly think creationism is just a power play – religion refusing any limitations by science. It is frankly a rather sad power play. Science accepts limitations, why can’t religion accept any boundaries as well? Why must the religious insist on absolute power over all things? A lack of limitations is very dangerous. The well being of people and civilization requires imposing restrictions on religion whether the religious like it or not.
Thus I think we can say the bridges needed largely consist of science explaining its limitations and religion accepting some limitations.
They also agree that these are not trivialities. Otherwise these religions would not exist.
Sounds like philosophy to me which is largely on the same ground as religion. Science is probabilistic not deterministic. And no it cannot speak of other universes. That isn’t science.
No. It is based on premises chosen to support those conclusions – the same as all uses of logic. Sure you can say the acceptance of those premises are based on something other than reason but the same goes for all premises accepted for all uses of logic. That is the universal and fundamental problem of logic.
Is science any different? Yes and no. One of its premises is that there are no powerful entities out there arranging the evidence to deceive us. We cannot prove any such thing. We can only accept it on faith. But once we do, then we have the results of written procedures which give the same results no matter what we want or believe. It provides an objectivity which the rhetoric of other activities cannot give us. The most we can say is that this is a reasonable assumption like many others upon which our daily lives depend.
2 Likes
It’s like what’s ‘beyond’ the expanding universe. Null. What questions are there beyond science and science based reason? Null. It’s a meaningless question.
Science based reason. Reason extrapolated from science. That is a philosophy. Probability drives determinism. Reason from science can speak of other universes. C is not a probabilistic value except when we measure it of course.
Reason from science to faith without faith is just an exercise in reasoning. So no, again, it is not possible to reason to felt faith from science.
I can mostly agree with you there. But there are things like beauty, order, and wonder that science reveals to us that go towards pointing to faith. Perhaps it is just an inborn trait found in our DNA that makes us feel that way, to bind our communities. But as you stated before, if we do not have it, we miss it.
1 Like
All too often if there is disagreement the topic automatically elevates to non-trivial.
Who also have their YEC contingent.
In statistics class the other day the instructor had to take time to explain that there can never be a negative probability. Some wit commented, “Except in politics”.
2 Likes
Which is a statement of faith, interestingly – science is unable to demonstrate that anything is “entirely natural”.
Which is also a statement of faith.
Make it “the possibility of unintentional existence” and that is removed.
And ironically relying on a scientific worldview for its philosophical position.
To the tune of Allouette (from a physics course grad assistant):
Metaphysics, jolly metaphysics, metaphysics – that’s what we like best!
2 Likes
Another statement of faith.
1 Like
How? In what? I don’t hope for null. There is no evidence for other than null meaninglessly ‘beyond’ nature, and science, and reason extrapolated from science. I know that, I don’t have faith in it. Null is seen. Faith is for things that nature doesn’t need. Nature, existence declares, proclaims null ‘beyond’.
True. But the converse isn’t true - there could be agreement on non-trivial topics. Transsubstantiation, for instance. Or circumcision.
I’m asking what those topics of total agreement are.
Those sound trivial to me…
So not sure there is a consensus that these are non-trivial topics.
If faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen, then there is a natural, psychological meaning of that. I hope for the continued experience of beauty, order and wonder. I feel hopeful that I will, despite my losses, that they will offset that to a significant, distracting degree, again. I have faith, hope against hope. The absence of faith in anything more, beyond beauty, order and wonder (except love), makes them all the more poignant.
But science cannot demonstrate your assertion. That makes your assertion a matter of faith.
The only way to even start to change that would be to invent a Divinometer – though if your view is correct, there would be nothing for the Divinometer to detect, which would mean its function is unverifiable, so any results would be a matter of faith.
3 Likes
That’s three replies without a single example of agreement across all translations, understandings or denominations.
It should have been such a simple question.
To me this is like a creationist demanding evidence for evolution. It is absurd. There is only a need to point out the obvious when the person has already decided not to listen to anything. How about this… check out the Nicene creed. That is what the vast majority of Christians have agreed upon since the beginning. But no doubt you will just say all of that is trivial and demand an agreement on how many angels can stand on the head of a pin. LOL
My grandmother had an answer for that: “As many as God asks to”.
2 Likes
Reason can, based on, from, science, that is not faith. Except in science and reason. That’s how we get infinite, eternal, nature. The multiverse. 4D universes when 5D branes collide in hyperspace. 11-17D reality. No faith required, except in reason. And the findings of science itself that I must take on faith, beyond my extremely limited understanding. Coherent, warranted, justified faith in science and coherent, warranted, justified faith in coherent, warranted, justified reason is in coherent, warranted, justified hope of coherent, warranted, justified belief. The alternative to science is unknowing, the alternative to reason is unreason. Ignorance and irrationality. Faith in reason is the evidence of my assertion. That it can be reasoned. Minimally, elegantly, simply, parsimoniously. I have faith in that. Perfect faith. Perfectly rational, reasonable, substantive, warranted, justified, true hopeful faith.