HI Chris,
Another way to put what you are saying (I think) is that scientific hypotheses must be mechanistic.
That’s why the ID hypothesis (there was an intelligent designer) fails to be scientific in both the mechanistic way and in the testable way.
Hi Ben,
I appreciate any and all attempts to clarify our ideas, so thanks for chipping in. I would prefer to say that the structures within the universe exist, and the interactions occur, according to an order that can be discerned through scientific investigation. And the order, once discerned, can be used to predict future observations.
“Mechanistic” seems a bit ambiguous to me; my concern is that some readers might think it implies adherence to metaphysical materialism, which is not where I stand. I do not think that you necessarily use the word that way, though.
Grace and peace,
Chris Falter
The worldview of biblical writers was that creation exists in essentially two dimensions: visible (physical) and invisible (spiritual). The scientific view is that there are multiple physical dimensions. For example, I am seated at my desk. Science tells me I am moving through space at a high rate of speed, but that is not something my five senses are telling me. Science also tells me that that my desk is made up of atoms and that there is more empty space in this “hard” surface than actual matter, but I know my hand will still smart if I slap it on the table. Science has therefore brought me awareness of two additional physical dimensions - but that awareness does not change the primary physical dimension that I still operate within and that the ancients operated within as well. Nor does science change, or render unimportant, the spiritual dimension which lies behind the physical dimension(s).
Modern thinkers impose their worldview on ancient thinkers when they assume that the ancients thought of activities in the spiritual realm the same way we think of activities in the “behind the scenes” physical dimension(s).
Similarly, consider that science gives us germ theory such that we know unseen physical germs lie behind diseases. The ancients thought that God or evil spirits lie behind diseases. Cultural insensitivity is at work if moderns assume that ancients erroneously thought of evil spirits as causes when, had they known better, they would have thought of germs as causes. It would be more “culturally sensitive” to recognize that the awareness of germs is awareness of an additional physical dimension - not of a replacement for the spiritual dimension.
The culturally insensitive modern imposes his worldview on the ancients when he assumes that an ancient thought of the behind-the-scenes production of rain in the mechanical way that we do. A proper way to compare our view with theirs is that we have more awareness of what is going on physically than they did, but this has nothing to say about what was going on behind-the-scenes spiritually. Viewing things in this proper way helps us to see that it’s not that the ancients were wrong about science, it’s that they weren’t thinking about things in scientific terms. That is, they weren’t thinking about the physical dimension existing in multiple forms. To say it another way, they were thinking about things in terms of a single physical dimension and a spiritual dimension whereas we think about things in multiple physical dimensions - and, to our detriment, often forget about the spiritual dimension.
To come full circle, I am sitting at my desk and I want to be aware of the spiritual dimension all around me. Most of all, I want to be aware of the Lord - much as Brother Lawrence described in The Practice of the Presence of God. The speed of the earth’s movements, or the action of the desk’s atoms in motion has its purposes, but the prophets and apostles had it right that ignoring the spiritual dimension is never a good idea. We should walk by faith, not by sight. That we today can see multiple physical dimensions is helpful in many ways, but it can be a distraction from the ever-important spiritual realm - and all the more so if we assume that the ancients thought ignorantly about “how the stuff around us is structured and how it operates.”
You would apply it to them the same way you would apply it to John Hus, Martin Luther, John Calvin. You make your choice about who is being more faithful to the Scripture and who is not. One man’s heretic is another man’s hero.
Not at all. Of course, they take their position based on Scripture; so do I. That’s the not the difference between us. The difference is in what we see the Scripture saying.
No, I’m saying I can’t accept their interpretation of the Scriptures if I believe in good conscience that it conflicts with Moses’ view.
Sola Scriptura says that a person has to decide which interpretation is more faithful to Scripture regardless of the position or reputation of the person promoting the position.
What does this actually mean? Modern thinkers who are thinking correctly, do not think that the ancients think the way we do.
This does not make sense theologically or biologically. We know for a fact that many of the ancients (though not Israel), believed that evil spirits caused disease. We know that if they had known of germ theory, they would have understood that disease actually are caused by germs. We know that diseases are not caused by evil spirits; not as a proximate cause, or an ultimate cause. Where is the actual evidence for “cultural insensitivity” here?
We don’t impose our worldview when we read what they say about how they thought rain was produced, and understand this is what they actually believed. If you want to claim that they wrote X but actually believed something different, you need to demonstrate that this is actually true. Where is the evidence for example that they wrote that the firmament was solid, but actually believed it was not solid?
How is it to our detriment if we believe that rain is the product of the evaporation/condensation/precipitation cycle? What is the “spiritual dimension” which we’re missing, which prevents us from understanding properly how rain is formed?
We know that the Lord lets go of some things - and wants us to let go of them - when they become obsolete, when they are replaced by something greater.
For example, when the temple was built, the tabernacle was no longer important. And when Messiah came, the temple was no longer important - nor were its furnishings, nor was animal sacrifice, nor was the Levitical or Aaronic priesthoods, nor were dietary restrictions, nor was Jewish bloodline, and so on.
We also have this Scripture:
1 Cor 13:10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.
Thus we have the clear principle from Scripture that while some things stand forever, others rightly pass away.
Therefore, it seems reasonable to ask: With the coming of Messiah (and His glorious resurrection from the dead) and particularly with the advent of modern science, is Old Testament history thereby rendered obsolete? That is, should we regard it as no longer important to uphold or defend?
We can ask and answer this question about OT history at several levels:
In other words, the answer to the question might differ based on which portion of OT history we are considering.
Although I have not previously asked the question, at least not in this formal way, it seems clear to me that many of you would answer “yes” to the question, at least in one of these forms - most saying that the history recorded in Gen 1-11 may be discarded in favor of SGH with no loss to our faith.
I give you the opportunity now to answer this question explicitly at whatever level you wish. (I am adding to the OP by making this issue a fifth “Stipulation” by which MC would fail.) If any of you do answer, please describe at what level you are answering it and what guided you as to where to draw the line. That is, if you think it’s only history in the Torah that’s obsolete, how did you decide that as opposed to all the history in the OT on the one hand and only the history in Genesis or in Genesis 1-11 on the other?
P.S. The relevant fundamental difference between MC history (see “Defining Mosaic Creation” in the OP) and SGH is that the former dates the universe in thousands of years and the latter dates it in the billions. Other important differences include:
[quote=“Mike_Gantt, post:161, topic:36410”]
Therefore, it seems reasonable to ask: With the coming of Messiah (and His glorious resurrection from the dead) and particularly with the advent of modern science, is Old Testament history thereby rendered obsolete?[/quote]
No.
No.
I am one of a number of people here who would not say this. I do not believe the history recorded in Genesis 1-11 needs to be discarded at all. Additionally, I believe that talking about discarding the history of Genesis 1-11 “in favor of SGH” is a false dichotomy.
I don’t believe the history in the Torah is obsolete.
It is to our detriment if we forget that all things come from God. It is to our detriment if we credit El Nino for bringing the snow to California and ending the drought, and we forget to thank the Lord for his mercy. It is always to our detriment if we forget the spiritual dimension …
OK that doesn’t answer my questions. Look carefully.
“How is it to our detriment if we believe that rain is the product of the evaporation/condensation/precipitation cycle? What is the “spiritual dimension” which we’re missing, which prevents us from understanding properly how rain is formed?”
Yes, but we must be careful not to make sola Scriptura into something that it is not. The Reformers insisted on this principle in their debate with Rome over the source of authority in matters of faith and practice. It was a debate between Scripture as sole authority over the church, versus Scripture, tradition, and church leadership as three pillars of authority. Sola Scriptura has to do with questions of theology, faith, and practice. It was not meant to be used as a tool for judging what is “true” or “not true” about the natural world.
If you try to extend sola Scriptura into all areas of life, you run into serious problems. Scripture interprets Scripture is a principle for deciding which interpretation is more faithful to the overall teaching of the Bible. As far as the natural world goes, misapplying sola Scriptura to that realm creates a closed system.
No, I understood your point, but I don’t think you understood Mike’s. I think the point he was making was more along the lines of what I said about forgetting the spiritual dimension. Perhaps I was wrong, but Mike can clear it up for us.
My version of cultural sensitivity is both more brief and more relevant than the tome you wrote (and reproduced in full below!
The ancients had incomplete and/or erroneous beliefs about the nature of their world.
Sometimes they knew they didn’t know the reality, but they wrote what seemed plausible.
Sometimes they didn’t know they didn’t know.
Whether (2) or (3) above, God’s inspiration of scripture might have compensated for the ancient limits to human comprehension but demonstrably fails to do - regarding an almost endless list of topics:
. Slavery;
. Germ Theory;
. Cosmology of the Sun & Moon & Stars;
. The Firmament;
. Continental Drift;
. Stoning Adulterers;
. The flaws in the Table of Nations (Gen 10);
. Math Errors & Conflicting numbers cited;
. The flaws in which tribes belonged to the 10 Tribes of Israel;
‘5’. To insist that these could not be errors is to ignore the cultural context of these flaws and to proclaim them timeless and perfect - hence the loss of credibility for all future generations for the valid spiritual truths the Bible can still offer.
.
.
.
I don’t understand how I am extending sola scriptura beyond the scriptura. The question before us is the proper interpretation of Ex 20:8-11; Ex 31:12-17; Gen 1-2. That is, what does each passage say in the light of the other, and what do the three collectively say in the light of the rest of the Bible. In determining the proper interpretation according to sola scriptura, the identity of the interpreter has no bearing on the validity of the interpretation. I don’t see how the subject matter of the verses alters this principle.
You understood me well, for you said:
There’s nothing detrimental about learning that El Nino is behind California’s snow…unless our focus on this leads us to forget who’s behind it all.
Yes I understood what he said. I’m looking for the relevance. As usual he’s talking as if Christians today are forgetting the spiritual dimension by accepting the scientific facts, and therefore ending up with an inaccurate understanding of the universe. But who is actually doing this?
Not only is this not true, it doesn’t have any relevance to the question of who understood the physical universe better, the ancients or us. Remember he’s trying to prove his case for “cultural insensitivity”. Please demonstrate that what he wrote, proves his case.
Because when you have two (or more) interpretations that both appear faithful to the Scripture, it is allowable to take into account extra-biblical information when deciding which to prefer. Protestant theologians throughout the centuries have agreed on this principle. If you will not allow extra-biblical information, from whatever source, to inform interpretation, then you either arrive at an impasse, or you run the risk of accepting interpretations that make sense of the Bible but make no sense of the world around us.
Okay. Pardon the intrusion. Carry on …
Remember Mike’s hermeneutic consists of reading English translations, assuming they provide all the information he needs, and interpreting the Bible through tradition. So he’s not just confined to Scripture itself.
If I get to the point that I see two (or more) interpretations that both appear faithful to Ex 20:8-11; Ex 31:12-17; and Gen 1-2 in the matter at hand, I think this principle will make for a helpful guide. Until then, however, the problem is that I see no other faithful way to interpret those verses other than that “the Lord created for six days and then rested on the seventh.” There can be no reasonable dispute that this is what the three passages say; the only reasonable question is, “What does that mean?” Few people here have tried to say that it means something other than what it says; those who have, have not been persuasive.
As for the willingness to consider extrabiblical material, it was this willingness - specifically regarding the heavy weight of modern scientific testimony - that led me to BioLogos, and, in the most recent instance, consider what I labeled as the fifth stipulation for MC failure in the OP: namely, planned obsolescence of some or all of OT history. This contingency is easier for me to imagine than that someone will come up with a cogent interpretation of the three passages that blunts the prima facie meaning of the words.
I may need to re-think the term “obsolete” as, for me, it implies a spectrum from “fuhgetuhboutit” on the one end to significant revision on the other. That is, obsolescence does not necessarily mean that the OT history in view would be immediately considered faulty, but that 1) the parts that conflicted with SGH would be re-interpreted to fit SGH, and 2) the rest would be considered true but subject to revision at some point in the future should SGH eventually take positions in conflict with any of them. For example, we are seeing revised interpretations of the historicity of Adam and Eve in the wake of the Human Genome Project. This periodic revising of interpretation is the way things have generally been going in biblical interpretation in the scientific age. Stipulation #5 is an attempt to try to identify a scriptural warrant for this approach.
Not at all. I simply view “mechanistic” as it is used in science as synonymous with what you were saying, not philosophically.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.