Building Bridges That Can Bear Scientific Scrutiny, Panda's Thumb

[Roy]

@mitchellmckain

Not only that but the Holy Spirit gives me my understanding of it correctly and thus my understanding must be inerrant too. LOL

Of course this fails in the same way the translation argument does… multiple translations and multiple understandings which don’t agree.

Maybe the point is that they don’t disagree about everything and we can limit our certainty to where we have agreement.

Is there anything non-trivial on which there is total agreement?

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@mitchellmckain

In the article it speaks of a “literal biblical interpretation” but it does not address the question of what language you are supposed to be “literal” in.

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.

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@Roy

Is there anything non-trivial on which there is total agreement?

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.

@RichardG

Perhaps there is no definitive understanding?

Nor is it necessary for complete consensus?

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.

[Apistos]

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.