Does BioLogos Believe that "Science Trumps Theology"?

@Christy

Someone might even conclude that BioLogos is taking the “same view”—that the Bible trumps science (the following issues are a prime example: an intelligent, conscious, cognitive being in contrast to an eternal animating force; miracles from a supernatural world in contrast to psychic phenomena from the human organism itself; demonic possession in contrast to psychopathy). When I log in to BioLogos I’m beginning to feel like I’m at a Jehovah’s Witnesses Kingdom Hall.

No Christy… you aren’t proposing a different conclusion (If science and Scripture conflict, then science has to win) you are proposing (If science and Scripture conflict, then Scripture has to win). I don’t see any concordism when you reject any attempt at reconciling science and Scripture. How do you justify what you are saying here with what you said in response to the my following quote taken from the topic—Demon Possession in 2016;

Tony’s comment;

Therefore to all those here who defend this position — @Eddie, @Dr.Ex-YEC, @OldTimer, @Casper_Hesp, @Henry, @Find_My_Way, @Christy:

(1) What are the symptoms of demonization?

(2) How does it differ from the symptoms of psychopathic personality?

(3) How does it differ from the symptoms of mental illness?

(4) How does it differ from the symptoms of neurological disease such as epilepsy?

If incidences are as OldTimer stated, that demoniac patients and mentally ill patients receive the same treatment, perhaps there is no difference and we are referring to the same psychological conditions.

Christy’s response;

I actually have no interest in this kind of “prove it to me” discussion.

Science does not speak to the supernatural, and there is no way of compiling evidence, or subjecting the supernatural world to testing.

Seems rather hypocritical to me.

Well then Christy… science is challenging you on an aspect of your theology/interpretation of Scripture—EXAMINE that aspect of your theology/interpretation of Scripture. DON’T TRUMP SCIENCE by saying;

I actually have no interest in this kind of “prove it to me” discussion.

Science does not speak to the supernatural, and there is no way of compiling evidence, or subjecting the supernatural world to testing.

Your comment here implies that science automatically loses with no contest—the opposite of what @George is being accused of. However, because of your statement “Science does not speak to the supernatural,” you stand accused of TRUMPING science. It’s as simple as that—since you are suggest that “the supernatural speaks to the natural” by insisting on demonic possession. If you are speaking for BioLogos—what does that say about BioLogos!?

1 Like

Therefore to all those here who defend this position — @Eddie, @Dr.Ex-YEC, @OldTimer, @Casper_Hesp, @Henry, @Find_My_Way, @Christy, etc. — these two very short clips from two different Star Trek episodes should speak to you :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: : - YouTube Capt. Kirk talks a robot to death - YouTube

If a student handed in an essay with such “logic”, I would return it ungraded. It doesn’t make sense. If the assignment deadline had not passed, I would give the author one more chance to state their argument and resubmit the assignment. To say that:

Illogical. Makes no sense. I would assign a basic course in philosophy, including epistemological foundations.

Words have meanings. To abandon those meanings invites confusion.

I’ve already said I’m an Evangelical and I am not embarrassed about the fact that I accept the Bible as God’s true revelation about reality. I don’t feel the need to justify that on a website that is aimed at an Evangelical audience and says outright on their about us pages, “Therefore, we reject ideologies such as Materialism and Scientism that claim science is the sole source of knowledge and truth, that science has debunked God and religion, or that the physical world constitutes the whole of reality.” - See more at: The Work of BioLogos - BioLogos

3 Likes

Dear @Tony, please remember that this is a place for fairly discussing our ideas, views, and beliefs with each other. In a number of your recent posts, your only aim seems to be to ridicule other people’s beliefs. Now while there is space for some friendly humor, I do believe you are crossing the line here. Nobody’s views are perfect and none of us would claim our own exact position to be “perfect” even though the God we love is perfect. Please don’t liken people you disagree with to robots, it is condescending.

3 Likes

Regarding Tony’s bizarre rant, when somebody goes off the rails so badly, I have no reason to read their links. I value my time.

I am challenged by the notion that there is anything other than the SUPERIORITY of the witness of science over Biblical poetry that allows science to trump theology.

What I’m hearing, however, is that the way to approach the Evangelical audience is to convince them that there is a HIDDEN, more AUTHENTIC theology within Evolutionary theory than the theology presented by the literal interpretation of Genesis.

But I’m not convinced that this is a very persuasive position … and I’m not sure it is a very attractive position to the fence-sitters who probably think Science is pretty compelling…

1 Like

I don’t think that is the goal. Evolutionary theory isn’t theology. It’s a scientific model to explain the diversity of life. God’s special revelation through Scriptures, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit working in and through the Church, are the source of theology, not science. I think the goal is to convince Evangelicals that God doesn’t lie. He doesn’t lie in his creation and he doesn’t lie in Scripture. There is consistent, coherent, truth that nature and Scripture both testify to, so if we are interpreting Scripture well and interpreting the natural world well, the testimonies will complement one another, not contradict one another. Not that we have some perfect harmonization nailed down yet, but we can still believe it’s out there.

5 Likes

@Christy

Brava !!! What an excellent description !!!

2 Likes

Yes, Christy has a much appreciated role here. She so often comes along to summarize and clarify in ways which really do improve the discussion.

@Casper_Hesp

I will begin with you Casper because your comment gets to the heart of the matter. Fairly discussing our ideas, views, and beliefs with each other—this IS the underlying factor that any civilized person should abide by (and I have abided with this form of respect from the very beginning). However, if anyone here thinks that I will be ridiculed, intimidated or insulted, and quietly turn the other cheek while they get their way with me—they haven’t yet learned who I really am. Upon joining BioLogos I specifically said, respect me and you will have my full and unequivocal respect in return; disrespect me and you will receive disrespect in return—what goes around, comes around—whatever you do comes back to you—the master said, "that which you sow, you reap." How true this simple fact is. This is a simple law of nature, you cannot get around it. None of us likes to have their dignity attacked—even more so when being innocent and speaking the truth.

I don’t know what you are referring to by—In a number of your recent posts, your only aim seems to be to ridicule other people’s beliefs. The Star trek clips were meant to convey the idea that some of you are contradicting yourselves—claiming that the testimonies of nature and scripture should complement one another, not contradict one another, and then turning around and saying that science does not speak to the supernatural. If we really want to complement nature and scripture, science MUST speak to the supernatural—because scripture deals with the supernatural.

@Christy’s statement, “Not that we have some perfect harmonization nailed down yet, but we can still believe it’s out there,” isn’t enough. Nailing it down requires science to speak to the supernatural—not for theology to say this is the way the supernatural affects nature (demonic possession) and insist that science [psychology and criminology] has nothing to say about the matter (mental illness and psychopathy). If we want to harmonize this aspect of nature and scripture we must complement science [psychology and criminology] with theology. Hence why I referred to the position here, held by Christy, as hypocritical;

Christy’s comment, post number 86 from topic—Demon Possession in 2016

I actually have no interest in this kind of “prove it to me” discussion.
Science does not speak to the supernatural, and there is no way of compiling evidence, or subjecting the supernatural world to testing.

There is no intent to any ridiculing involved here—just pure justification in correcting Christy’s faulty reasoning in connection to science/theology concordism.

Really… none of you claim your position to be perfect? You could have fooled me!—demon possession? And if you say, “well, scripture says so,” did you forget that you MUST harmonize nature and scripture—science [psychology and criminology] and theology [exegesis and interpretation]? Oh… that’s right, excuse me, it slipped your mind. The God that I love is fully perfect in this harmonization between science and theology. And with all sincerity and due respect, if you want to avoid the voices in your head likening you to a robot you should get with the program and listen to your conscience!

If I sound a little upset (although I crossed no lines) it will become clearer as you test truth here in the comments boards.

@OldTimer

I will correct the last paragraph in my comment above to @Christy (comment number 21)—which you seem to have been confused about—after you have had a chance to compare the two. Here is the revision which will replace that last paragraph;

Your comment here implies that science automatically loses with no contest—the opposite of what @George is being accused of. However, because of your statement “Science does not speak to the supernatural,” you stand accused of TRUMPING science. It’s as simple as that—since you enforce the idea that the supernatural speaks to the natural (that theology has a voice in explaining nature—by insisting on demonic possession) but reject the idea that science [psychology] has a voice in explaining the supernatural. If you are speaking for BioLogos—what does this say about BioLogos!?

I believe it expresses my point clearer, however, you should have grasped at what I was driving just the same.

Understood… but if you re-read what I wrote to @Christy, and read what I wrote to @Casper_Hesp, I hardly think I went off the rails so badly—you all just jumped to false conclusions.

@Christy

I am not embarrassed about the fact that I accept the Bible as God’s true revelation about reality either. But I believe that is a personal statement on your part and why you are making the error on concordism between science and theology. Although I am not embarrassed about this fact either—I strive for that concordism that so many of your invited guests strive for as does BioLogos as an organization.

How can you just twist things around when the Core Commitments on the About Us page states, We seek truth, ever learning as we study the natural world and the Bible, and then say, I don’t feel the need to justify that on a website that is aimed at an Evangelical audience.

Similarly, how can you invoke Point #7 of What We Believe—Therefore, we reject ideologies such as Materialism and Scientism that claim science is the sole source of knowledge and truth, that science has debunked God and religion, or that the physical world constitutes the whole of reality, and then claim that—science doesn’t speak to the supernatural.

BioLogos should have a clause stating—we reject ideologies such as Spiritualism and Philosophism that claim theology is the sole source of knowledge and truth, that theology has debunked God and science, or that the spiritual world constitutes the whole of reality—because, the way I see it—you are only taking the opposite view of the new atheists.

So… Christy, you can take this personally (which is not my aim), or you can accept the fact that I am someone who is sincerely interested that the Mystery of God be known so that the Kingdom of God may reign upon the earth. People are fed up of the hypocrisy, the deception, and the injustice. The desperation of the TRUMP attack is becoming all too apparent—it’s over.

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.