We think otherwise.
The revealed will of God in the Bible reveals some of the mind of God and imparts knowledge of God as well, and those who have experienced God personally in reality (third party verifiably or not) also have a special knowledge of God.
You misapply the terms “agnosticism” and “agnostic” in the premise to your question, which leads you to a wrong conclusion.
There is a difference between a Christian being agnostic in relation to God and a Christian carrying out various activities, such as observation, measurement, recording without referring to God or the Bible.
I will go so far as to say, that many, many activities that Christians carry out during our days, we carry out a-theistically, that is completely without reference to God. I drive safely by obeying traffic rules, observing what other drivers are doing, and adjusting my behavior as needed. I don’t need to consult the Bible on how to do this but my driver’s training and experience.
I select materials for my library, help researchers develop research strategies, find the information they need, develop finding aids by relying on my professional training, knowledge of the collection I work with, and experience in my field. The Bible offers me no help in these areas.
I take care to plan and prepare good food for my family without referring to biblical guidance, but rather my doctor’s recommendations, my knowledge of good nutrition and the specific health needs of my family members.
As a Christian, I try to do these things well and, when appropriately lovingly. I believe that by this I DO bring glory to God. But the activities themselves I carry out without God’s views on driving, information science or home management, because He gives no indication that He has any views on these things.
There is no reason the straight-forward application of scientific methods and tools should be any different. The tools to accomplish these tasks are available to anyone with the capacity to learn to use them without reference to God. In the hands of one who applies them well, Christians can understand that what is learned brings glory to God, whether anyone else notices. This does not need to be complicated.
3 Likes
He does want you to submit to ‘secular’ speed limits though. ; - )
1 Like
Anyone who wishes to quote Frank Collins on his absurd theology that is completely contrary to the biblical narrative of the prophet Samuel to King Saul (to obey is better than to sacrifice) doesn’t deserve anything more than the following response…
“Science can reveal the frequency of a G-flat and how our eyes relay information about color to our brains, but science cannot tell us whether a Beethoven symphony, a Kabuki performance, or a Jackson Pollock painting is beautiful or dreadful.” Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science
Who is Frank Collins? If you are referring to the Francis Collins quote, could you comment on what part of that statement you find absurd and why? The quote regarding the music is certainly true, but irrelevant so far as I see. Can you expound on what you mean by it?
I’ll tell you what really constitutes absurd theology, Adam. What really runs contrary to the Biblical narrative that to obey is better than sacrifice.
It is dismissing out of hand the clear and unequivocal demands of Deuteronomy 25:13-16 and numerous other places in the Bible that our approach to weights and measures must be honest and accurate. It is insisting that you are entitled to flat-out lie about science in that way by claiming that those verses supposedly only apply to buying and selling.
And don’t get me started on vegetarian velociraptors in the Garden of Eden, accelerated nuclear decay, or the convoluted rescuing devices and fantasy physics that YECs have to come up with to try and explain distant starlight.
Basically, before you try taking the speck out of Francis Collins’s eye, make sure you don’t have a Travis Perkins sawmill in your own.
Well of course science doesn’t tell us everything. Nobody is claiming that science does tell us everything. But that does not justify claims that the things that it does tell us could be wrong.
3 Likes
How do we place science first when agnosticism claims science does not prove God?
What a very strange idea. Since when is the ability to prove God the measure of our priorities. Do you discard your children if they do not prove God? Shall we shut down the fire department and police department because they do not prove God?
And prove God according to who? Some people see the proof of God in science just as others see it in their children and even in the fire department or police department. But it is deranged to think we shouldn’t place a high priority on any of these things just because we think they don’t prove God.
Frankly I don’t think anything proves God. And that doesn’t bother me in the slightest. You know why? Because MY religion teaches us that we must have faith. That is what Christianity teaches.
I would say the first, second, and third premises of Iddings Bell are so far from sensible that they must be specifically concocted to foster an anti-science fundamentalism.
Calling something Aristotle invented (350 years before Jesus) “fairly new” is quite bizarre.
And this is another very strange claim. There was never any divorce of science from human experience and no change in science had anything to do with industrialization, which was always worldwide rather than something which happened in America. The claim betrays an extremely provincial attitude.
This reminds me of similar bizarre premises by Karl Marx about production that it would spiral out of control till the economy collapsed. Since these lack a similar sort of sensibility as we see in Iddings Bell, I think Marx also concocted them to fabricate His predictions of doom. But it is obvious that production will not do any such thing because it is run by people seeking to make a profit. Likewise, Iddings Bell’s notion of anybody understanding everything is a total fantasy. This was never the case – our understanding of the world has always been a collective thing and the data of science only increases our collective understanding of the universe.
In summary, I would say this helps to understand the anti-science insanity of creationism as a product of an intentional effort to warp Christianity into something opposed to science. And the thinking is as warped and full of deception as the work of Karl Marx.
1 Like
So what. You do not use a Beethoven symphony to measure for cutting a two by four either. Does it concern you that you are putting your tape measure first? Science is infused with measurement. Radiometric dating is measurement. Genetic phylogenic trees are measurement. The cosmic microwave background is measurement. It is not the fault of the science that the results are not to your liking.
1 Like
That has a nice ring to it. I had to look up Travis Perkins, but a lumberyard is a fitting image.
It has been said here but I will repeat it: why must science and faith be seen as in opposition? Just because we cannot prove God through science does not mean any more than that. The Bible seems to imply that proof would kill faith because faith requires that you do not have proof. As long as God is in the realm of faith people have the choice to not believe. If God was proved then the choices would be much more serious and game changing.
Science is just what we understand about the universe, and we admit to having a bigger coastline of questions then the area of knowledge. So Faith can sail happily on the ocean beyond knowledge until, or unless Science can remove that ocean, which is probably impossible.
Richard
It’s a chain of builders’ merchants and home improvement stores that is quite well known in the UK. They sell a lot of timber, hence the sawmill reference. Not sure what the US equivalent would be.
2 Likes
Yes, I saw. Home Depot, Lowe’s and Menards come easily to mind for the U.S. Lots of others, and some are more regional.
Why are we talking about a quote from 90 years ago as if it describes the modern context of the discussion?
An agnostic theist is not a Christian. Christianity is credal and requires minimally affirming the faith claims of the Apostle’s Creed, which is derived from the Bible. There is no way to arrive at “I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son Our Lord, Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried” via scientific deduction or logic.
3 Likes
I don’t think we have to accept some 5th century bullet point in order to be a Christian. Like I don’t have a specific reason to believe Mary was or was not a virgin versus being a young unwed woman. Just like the woman they hyperlink Mary too in the Old Testament does not require me to think she was a virgin.
It also depends on what do they mean descended into hell. Most Catholics seem to believe that the infernos is a place of everlasting eternal conscious torment and ect…
You need to believe the apostles creed, and their 5th century writer’s interpretation, in order to be accepted in enteral by Catholics but it’s not necessary to say “ if you don’t think Mary was a virgin then you are not Christian.”
As for agnostic theist it depends again. An agnostic is someone who says they are or are not certain if God is real. Agnostic theist vs gnostic theist and agnostic atheist vs gnostic atheist and ect…
So I can say I’m a agnostic theist because I choose to believe in a god, specifically Yahweh of the Tanakh and gospels , even though I can’t actually prove it or say with completely certainty. I can also say I’m a Christian, because the god Yahweh that I believe in says Jesus has a son and his son is Jesus Christ and I choose to place my faith in him.
But none of it requires me to accept what some Roman’s said 1500 years ago about events that happened 500 years before that anymore than I have to accept any other “biblical” creed.
If we allow hell to be death and the infernos to be hades I can better accept it. I’m not opposed to Mary having been a virgin, I just don’t think it’s concretely in the story or required to have a solid stance. I could see Mary having been a victim, keeping it silent, Jospeh was going to leave her and ect… God intervened. As mentioned before neither of us thinks God had sex with Mary. But that does not mea the only alternative is a magical pregnancy anymore than a magical mud man and rib woman.
There is a point of honesty where you should check whether your set of beliefs fit some definition of the religion. But the Apostle’s creed was never agreed to by any ecumenical council. Thus I think the minimal standard for an honest judgment of whether you are a Christian is agreement with the creed of Nicea 325 AD. (BTW it does not include the virgin birth)
At most I will only say that I am agnostic with respect to objective knowledge of the existence of God because I don’t believe that is possible.
1 Like
Doesn’t the Nicene Creed say that Jesus was incarnated of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary?
The virgin birth is central to Christianity inasmuch as it makes Christ divine. If Mary had Jesus from conventional sex it changes both her status and the nature of Christ. and makes the whole faith based upon a lie.
Richard
Not for me. It changes literally nothing.
Jesus was not born magical. Jesus got all power and authority from God. Jesus had no power of his own. He was given it by Yahweh, his father and god, and he was even able to had some power off to the apostles.
Mary was just a mother. She was not a mother set apart. She gave birth to the son of god. But we see sons of god applied to people and even angels.
So let’s try it this way. This is the verses in question.
Matthew 1:22-25
New American Standard Bible
22 Now all this took place so that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet would be fulfilled: 23 “Behold, the virgin will conceive and give birth to a Son, and they shall name Him Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.” 24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, 25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he named Him Jesus.
The first thing to notice is that they are using a quote from the Old Testament. This is the quote from the Old Testament.
Isaiah 7:10-16
New American Standard Bible
The Child Immanuel
10 Then the Lord spoke again to Ahaz, saying, 11 “Ask for a sign for yourself from the Lord your God; make it deep as Sheol or high as heaven.” 12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, nor will I put the Lord to the test!” 13 Then he said, “Listen now, house of David! Is it too trivial a thing for you to try the patience of men, that you will try the patience of my God as well? 14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and she will name Him Immanuel. 15 He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. 16 For before the boy knows enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be abandoned.
Was that a virgin that got pregnant back then also?
How did the virgin get pregnant back then? Was it also by God? I mean they had the same name “ Emmanuel “ applied to them that means “ god is here “.
If that was not a virgin, and simply meant young woman than why does it change in meaning with Mary?
Many as well in vs 25 it says he kept her a virgin!!! But no it does not actually say that. It says “ he did not have sex with her until she gave birth to a son”
https://biblehub.com/text/matthew/1-25.htm
So no where does it say she’s a virgin.
There is also no theological reason to think Jesus was not a human given power and authority by god and there is no reason that Jesus could not have been a incantation despite having two human parents. It also was a concept they were familiar with. Many at that time, who knew that their emperor was born of two human parents, also believed they had a god as a father and they themselves were that god on earth. So they had a worldview that already included this concept.
Sure, you can interpret the creeds how you like, but it’s hard to be a Christian without reference to them. Believing in God is not Christianity. Christianity has Christ in it, and you don’t get there from science.
I think Laura’s point holds. There is a different between claiming agnosticism as your religious worldview and claiming to be agnostic about specific Christian claims.
Agreed, I should have used the Nicene Creed. I was thinking at the time that the Apostle’s Creed was even more basic.
3 Likes
I guess since I don’t hold the creeds in any significant light they just don’t play a role in my faith. The creeds could have completely disappeared and it would not affect my faith. Same as the positions held by Sadducees or Pharisees are not pivotal for my own faith.
For me all a creed is ultimately is nothing more or less than the opinions a handful of people slander on. Much like “ what we believe “‘sections on some website.
Or ask the pope. He has zero influence in my life. His opinion means nothing more to me than the opinion of street preacher screaming does. I mean every christian claims their beliefs are based on the Bible and almost every belief has a tradition and scholars behind it. But if the pope, or some creed from a specific place and time is really important to you then it is. Just like the KJV is super important to some.