Science and theology have some features in common. But I would not say that the opinions of experts/authorities is accepted as fact/truth, not in science and not in theology.
Science can conclude that something is very likely but not that something is the truth. It is the inherent nature of science.
First someone proposes a hypothesis. If the hypothesis gains sufficient evidence to support it, it is viewed as a theory that is probably true. The theory may even gain a central role within a scientific paradigm. Yet, even if the theory would be very, very likely, it is never 100% sure. That’s the nature of science.
A more controversial thing to say is that theology is in a comparable situation. Even if we agree that Bible includes perfectly reliable messages from God, our interpretations are not perfect. We don’t have perfect knowledge of prehistory, God or His grand plans. We may conclude that something is very likely and trusthworthy because the same message is repeated many times in many parts of the Bible. Yet, our interpretation is never 100% truth because we don’t have perfect knowledge.
Few messages are repeated many times in the Bible. Any interpretations based on rarely mentioned things is even more uncertain. We may say that our interpretation of these things is probably true but it would be self-deceit to claim that our interpretations are perfectly correct.
I would say that the degree to which we can accept that our interpretations may be false, is a measure of humility.
It could also be said that it is a measure of trust in God. If we have built our worldview on some interpretations, do we trust God that He takes care of us even when the false interpretations collapse and we need to rebuild our worldview?
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
16
Science is the set of minimal coherent conclusions we deduce from repeat observations of nature by disinterested observation. Theology is part of nature - science is nature looking at itself. Where it and science overlap, where it is part of science therefore, it is the disinterested study of religious belief. Where it departs from science is wherever it posits what kind of God could be real, how would God be real if He is; what is the nature of God.
I wouldn’t say opinions are accepted as truth either. I would say the arguments and evidence that bring people into consensus on questions are accepted as truth.
I use truth to mean a good assessment of reality. I think we can have sufficient knowledge of truth without it necessarily being exhaustive or absolute or perfect. You are conflating knowing truth and being certain of your knowledge of truth. Those aren’t the same.
A better way to frame the question that may make it less internally combative I think would be “ theological truths and scientific realities”’because something can be theologically true and not supported by science. Such as there is zero
Scientific evidence to support some 2,000 year old Jewish guy who came back from the dead. But I accept it as a theological truth. Or a even better example would be looking at proverbs. They share proverbial truths that are not even necessarily theological truths and certainly are not scientific facts.
But surely there is no concensus between for example Catholic church ‘authorities’ and Protestant authorities? That is why there is disagreement on theological truth.
But surely theological truths reflect realities? As for the resurrection, one may not be able to prove it scientifically, but it was a historical reality nonetheless.
No matter how it’s sliced. If a theological truth just happens to line up with reality it’s by chance. It’s like hearing the myths of Hercules , or the horror stories of Lovecraft, and by chance finding correlations to reality. Biblical truth is expressed through multiple narratives. The proverbs presents truth differently from revelation which presents it differently from acts. You can’t get the way you determine truth from acts and use that as the lens for revelation or places like genesis 2.
That doesn’t line up with the theological truth that God is sovereign, and the empirical experiential truth of many (Maggie or George, for instance). It’s also a statement requiring a certain faith.
Dale all I can say is I have no idea what you’re even trying to argue.
I said if theological truths which includes genres like myths, hyperbolic tales and parables, also just happen to line up with secular real world realities it’s by chance.
How is that wrong? How is that undermining God? It’s not. Whatever you’re reading into it or seeing I can’t debate or respond to because it’s not related to my comments .
I already explained. How could I make it clearer for you? Her account is effectively like a scientist’s field notebook recording empirical events, not subjective feelings. I don’t know why you would suspect dishonesty – I don’t think that says anything about her. Maybe you should reread it.
The only way I disagree with you is that whatever it is which led to those tales was based on something quite real, but more about our inner reality rather than the nuts and bolts of the outer world. I suspect, as Joseph Campbell found, the stories that arise in every tradition contain aspects of that inner reality. I don’t think any of them work as well as expository detailing of one true inner truth, that is one way the inner and outer realities differ. But probably none is devoid of the truth either. I’ve been impressed with the richness of the Christian mythos and the use I see it put to here.
For me I felt I was being practical. There are large chunks of the Bible the majority of Christians accept as generally being truth. There is not really any theological contention on was Mary the mother of Christ. There is no scientific contention that I know of surrounding that. So if a question was surrounding a potential area of contention I presume it’s with something more along the lines of christian mythos subject A being literally true despite science and history saying otherwise. Or thst if something within a mythos ended up being true despite science and history saying otherwise it’s probably just by chance.
Like let’s say by some crazy chance we find the fossilized remains of a tribe of 10 foot people under the melting russian icecaps. I would presume it was by chance and not related to the giants within the mythos.
I think it’s inaccurate to say there is no consensus. There is enough consensus on core theological truth for Catholics and Protestants and Orthodox to all be Christians. There are areas where people pick which expert authority they accept. Within the branches that result, theology doesn’t change unless the consensus changes. “Orthodox doctrine” is not some kind of absolute objective standard. It’s something that was hashed out over time in a community. When you have one guy claiming authority to speak for theological truth against the consensus of a given faith tradition, you get cults.
Sort of similar to the previous response I think that there are some general concepts that the majority of Protestants and Catholics agree on. I also think now days there is a bit of divorcing between being saved versus part of the secular understanding of the umbrella term “ Christian “. As far as the world is concerned a Christian is someone who believes in Christ.
But there is without a doubt a massive divide between many denominations and especially once you span to things like Catholic versus Protestant. One common belief for for example among catholics is that baptism in water is necessary. Part of the reason for infant baptism is to help prevent babies from going to purgatory and suffering somehow until their suffering has satisfied God and they are lifted up to heaven. I have heard some Catholics say unbaptized adults go to hell and some say they go to purgatory until taken to heaven.
Within the Protestant movements there is also several views on salvation. Within the restoration movement there is a Protestant emphasis on baptism. They believe only adult baptism counts and that infants don’t need to be baptized because purgatory does not exist and kids are saved because they are not guilty of sin. This same movement also rejects original sin. They teach that an adult must hear and obey the gospel and get baptized into Christ through being fully immersed in water and then they are saved. They say this is a work of grace and faith because without Christ all you would be doing is getting wet. They reject baptism by sprinkling.
I have met brothers and sisters in Christ who belong to the churches of Christ in Africa who go even further. They believe you must be baptized in “living water” which they call Rogers and ponds. They reject baptisms done in pools.
Then , what I presume to be the majority of belief for salvation within Protestantism is to simply believe in Christ. No necessary “ sinner’s prayer “ , no requirement for baptism, but simply to hear the gospel and place your faith in it. Then you are saved. Within their group there are two subgroups. Those who believe we are saved once snd forever. That you can’t backslide. That once saved you are always saved no matter what you do because we all fall short and we all require grace. If we all fall short and we all require grace then how would we ever draw a line between too much sin or to bad of a sin. But others say no there is a line somewhere and it’s defined by grace, but that Gods grace is given to those who love him and those who love him submit to him. They believe that you can reject Christ after becoming a Christian.
So there is a lot of contention within the movements on who is saved in my opinion. But if we step back most of us agree that a starting point that we all agree on is that Jesus is Lord and through Christ we are saved and that Christians should hear the fruit of the spirit at some point post conversion. Most of us would agree that someone who rejects Christ is not a Christian and that someone who only bears fruit of the flesh and has seemingly never stopped being evil is not reflecting Christ.
But even within the major divides there seems to be some concept of even if I think they are not saved and believe false doctrine I still recognize them as being within the Christian movement.
For me the best approach is to simply preach the gospel as you see being true and doing your best to being open to the possibility that you are wrong if someone presents evidence and remember that no matter how righteously we may work and no matter how faith we have there is no way we can replace the work of Christ with our own.