A perfectly fine answer either in science or theology, is “I don’t know.” The wrong answer is say something is so that is not, though fine to give opinions with qualifications.
2 Likes
I do agree with that. I would hope that this means that it is more than adequate for a reason such as myself to say, I take the Bible literally where it is written as such, and say I don’t fully know when it comes to the interpretation of the science given that the Bible very specifically states we are not to put worldy things before the heavenly?
1 Like
No, Adam. It’s simply the basic rules and principles of accurate and honest weights and measures. It’s experimental physics 101. It’s the very first thing you learn in the very first practical class in the very first term of an A level physics course. And there’s nothing “atheist” whatsoever about it. Accurate and honest weights and measures are what the Bible itself demands. To dismiss the most basic and fundamental rules of accurate and honest weights and measures as “a huge claim and a foolish one” or something “atheist” is to demand the right to tell lies.
Those are fair questions and I don’t have a problem with acknowledging God as the answer. But that does not give you any right whatsoever to ignore the basic rules and principles of accurate and honest measurement in order to try and make evidence say things about the age of the earth that it quite clearly does not.
1 Like
I get that Jammycakes, however, as my Joy Kuhl illustration clearly proves, what you claim is incorrect. You are attempting to make the claim of rules and principles however that is not the issue here (only you make that an issue, i do not).
The issue here is simply a matter of interpretation. Even the answers to the questions surrounding radio halos and carbon 14 in places they simply should not be are a matter of interpretation and opinion. I have read articles that discredit the YEC science on this, however, even within those articles they admit they have theories that attempt to resolve the dilemmas presented by YEC. These theories are applied from extrapolations from other experiments and computer modelling. The problem i have here is that if the data spat out by a computer is rigged through its own programming (ie that the earth must be old), then that data and especially the conclusions from it is fundamentally flawed (i refer you back again to the Joy Kuhl illustration).
I am not making the claim science is wrong…science only gives us what we program into it…it is simply a tool and the way in which flawed humanity uses tools often breaks them and these tools wear out. Now you may deny that science wears out…i am using that term somewhat liberally as in this context i am making the claim that in time we realise that what we thought was the correct answer is not. We then modify our methods to ensure that the new theory remains accurate and there in lieth the problem here…it is not so simple as 1+1 =2 (despite your claims to that effect). For example, we once believed that the foundation principle of all science was the theory of relatively. Trouble was, that theory denied atheism…now a new theory has. been proposed…the theory of relatively does not applied to the time immediately before the big bang…the conservation of energy and matter is not relevant to the very first moments of the universe. So my immediate question to you is, where is “1+1=2” in that exactly? I know that it may seem unrealistic to use such an argument, however, given that Science has difficulty in explaining God do you see why that argument is relevant?
I have used this before but its always relevant in these discussions:
The Earthly Sanctuary
Inspired by God Built by Moses (how can this be if the first 5 books of the Bible are an allegory?)
King David desired to give God a permanent home instead of a tent - Solomon built the first Temple
Solomons Temple was destroyed in 586 B.C by the Babylonians, rebuilt and then refurbished by King Herod
King Herods Temple was destroyed by the Romans in approx A.D 70 (this is historical fact)
The Sanctuary services initiated by Moses continued for at least 1300 years up to the time of Christ. If Moses’ entire historical account is an allegory, where did the buildings, their contents, the ongoing accounts of their existence, and the Sanctuary services come from?
- How do we explain that the entire Sanctuary Service goes back to the fall of man…in that it points towards the coming of the Messiah and his crucifixion in around A.D 31 in fulfillment of Gods statement to Eve (recorded by Moses) that one of her offspring would crush the serpents head (biblically this is talking specifically about salvation and redemption).
- If Moses writings are an allegory and given all of the above, how do you explain Exodus 20: 11For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, but on the seventh day He rested. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy.
- How do you reconcile the idea that whenever a New Testament writer makes reference to Mosaic writings, it has to be immediately discredited as coming from an individual with zero scientific knowledge, given that said individual was inspired by God to write in the first place? Are you honestly able to rationalise that an omnipotent, all powerful, everlasting God made a mistake or told the apostle a porky?
- How do you rationalise that Christ himself made a number of references back to the 10 commandments…the very same literal tablets of stone where the Mosaic law was first written down?
- How do you account for the literal writing down of 10 commandments given that we know for a fact that the sacrifices were offered by patriarchs long before Moses (Abraham, Noah, Cain and Abel).
I could go on for hours about the huge theological problems your line of thinking creates for Christians…the only reason that the catholic church gets away with its interpretation of this which appears to align TEism, is because the vast majority of its members don’t study…they simply attend mass and think that is all that is required (I am from Catholic background) Those in the church who do study toe the line because they have no choice! Evangelicals (apart from JW’s for example) fortunately are not necessarily bound by such restrictions.
In the most recent PEW research there were less than 45% lol. What do you mean by “many”
No Adam, you don’t get it.
The reason why I make the rules an issue is because the rules in question are the rules of accurate and honest measurement. They are rules for which knowingly or wilfully disregarding them is lying. To say that you do not make them an issue is to say that you consider it acceptable to tell lies.
That is why it is not “simply a matter of interpretation” as you claim. Interpretations of scientific evidence MUST be mathematically coherent and they MUST respect the basic principles of measurement. Interpretations that do not do so are not just differences of opinion; they are lies.
And can we get one thing straight here please. I am not trying to make a case for atheism. I am simply making the case for honest reporting and honest interpretation of accurate information. Nothing more, nothing less.
I addressed these questions here.
These are discussions that are worth happening, but I think it would be better to spin up a separate thread if you want to discuss them, because it’s veering off topic for this thread, which is about how to talk to scientists, and scientifically literate people in general, about Jesus.
That’s why you need to respect the rules of science, Adam. Scientists are people who have spent many years studying the rules in great detail. Their understanding of the rules comes, as I said, from hands-on experience in real-world situations where failing to apply them correctly stops things from working. It is this hands-on experience, and not any kind of philosophical commitment, that tells them that they are not at liberty to disregard the rules just because they result in findings that they don’t like or find philosophically inconvenient. It is because of this hands-on experience that they treat the rules as non-negotiable, will not take you seriously if you disregard them, and will view you as some sort of cult if you start responding to their insistence that the rules be followed with any kind of false accusations of being philosophically motivated, fudging, or making things up.
Remember this: your job as a witness for Christ is to persuade people. You will not persuade people by shouting or preaching at them, especially not if what you are preaching or shouting is laden with misinformation, accusations, willful ignorance or contempt towards the subjects that they have had to master in order to do their jobs. You will only persuade them by demonstrating that you take them seriously, and that you are committed to making sure that your facts are straight.
2 Likes
It sometimes helps to read a Christian apologetics discussion that uses misinformation or baldly states they will not consider information that is contrary to their creed, and mentally substitute another belief system wherever we read “Christian,”–Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, atheism, for example. If we feel the other system is dishonest or dismissive of facts–if we think they will be held responsible before God for this–then we can not only see our own errors, but how others look at us.
It’s painful.
Thanks for this discussion.
In memory of John Bartley, a geology teacher in my community college who kindly, respectfully, and patiently responded to my earnest YEC objections in my sophomore year in 1991, I looked up what had happened to him. He unfortunately passed away in 2011, but he is remembered for being an excellent teacher. May we all learn to discuss difficult subjects with humility and patience as he did, recognizing the difficulty of overcoming fears to discuss accurate weights and measures. I am even more confident now than I had been before, that God is patient, as we all need that to learn.
1 Like
I was intrigued by what 45% might look like so I did a bit of quick Googling:
In 2015, an estimated 6.4 million college graduates were employed in S&E [science and engineering] occupations in the United States. The largest S&E occupations were computer and mathematical sciences (3.1 million), followed by engineering (1.7 million). Occupations in life sciences (631,000), social sciences (570,000), and physical sciences (331,000) combined to about the size of the engineering component. (Source, pg 6)
So, based on the PEW figure of 45% that’s still around 2,970,000 people, which according to ChatGPT is comparable to the population of Chicago.
First of all that’s not the numbers. I was apparently mistaken. It’s actually 51% religious lol. Quite interesting.
Secondly
Do you really think PEW took sample of ALL the scientists in the world? Comon ow.
Currently there are roughly 8 million scientists in the world. If PEW did take questions from ALL of them apparently 4 million of them are theists. Which is unlikely to believe
I’ll respond further later when I got time with some further studies and graphs
Also take note that in many countries religion and tradition are one and the same.
90% of Greeks consider themselves Greek Orthodox. Go to any church and you can see even the most “religious” there behaving with an atheistic behaviour even inside there.
I have heard people actually blaspheme inside the church while ATTENDING liturgy.
Apparently there are people in countries that lack the intellectual capability of actually separating religion and tradition. And there are many of them.
In the US not so much and it makes me glad. But in some other Christian countries that are historically tied with this or Italy and here Greece these are inseparable. So some scientists might have answered possitive by this logic. And I trust there would be many of them
There are Greeks who haven’t even read the Gospel. Never ever. Period.
There are many who don’t even know about the trinity. 40% of religious Greeks if youll ask them they will think The Father and The Son are not even the same. The will say The Father is God but The Son is not. They are literally sectarians without even knowing lol
We would expect to find detectable levels of carbon 14 in dinosaur bones that are millions of years old. We would also expect to find radiohaloes in metamorphic rock that is millions of years old due to the mobility of radioactive elements.
So why do YEC’s bring these up?
2 Likes
Because they haven’t any hands-on practical experience of how science actually works perhaps?
This is another thing that everyone needs to remember when talking to scientists. Remember that science is a very practical and hands-on activity that they do for a living. In other words, make sure that you properly understand the mechanics of science before you attempt to tackle the philosophy of science.
This is something that never ceases to amaze me. In discussions about science and faith, evangelists and apologists always seem very keen to wax lyrical about the philosophy of science while being absolutely tone deaf to the mechanics of science. They’ll all too happily talk the hind legs off a donkey about such things as assumptions, presuppositions, worldviews, methodological versus philosophical naturalism, falsifiability, Karl Popper, and all the rest of it, but they don’t seem to have the slightest bit of awareness that science is actually conducted in laboratories, that it involves measuring things, that it starts off with studying evidence, that it is constrained by basic rules and principles, that it is mathematical and technical in nature, or that you learn these things through actually putting them into practice.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard the expression “methodological naturalism” used in any context where people are actually doing anything science related in any way, shape or form. I can’t even remember having heard it when I was studying science at university. It only ever seems to crop up when people are arguing about creationism or Intelligent Design. Certainly you never hear such discussions in software engineering forums. A search of Hacker News for “methodological naturalism” returns a grand total of zero hits. Zero. A search of Physics Forums turns up two pages of results, but almost every single one of them is on a post discussing creation versus evolution. Physics Stack Exchange? Again—bupkis. Ditto Biology Stack Exchange, Earth Science Stack Exchange, Astronomy Stack Exchange. The silence is deafening.
It always seems that this is the very first thing that I have to address when discussing science and faith. But it also seems to be the one thing that evangelists and apologists seem to be the least able—or the least willing—to actually get to grips with. It seems at times that when they talk about science and when everyone else talks about science, it’s almost as if we’re talking about two completely different subjects.
2 Likes
A Physics 101 class and lab would cure a lot of YECs’ misconceptions about science. They talk a lot about science without ever having done even the most rudimentary bit of it.
2 Likes
I have always felt that psychological projection plays a large role. People from the evangelist/apologist ranks come to the discussion with theological and ideological baggage, so they assume others are in the same position. They view science as an institution that is pushing some sort of worldview or ideology in the same way they are. This just isn’t the case. They are quick to label all scientists as atheists, all the while forgetting about the many scientists who are believers. It’s the old tactic of dragging something down in the mud with you, and beating it by being the better mud wrestler.
1 Like
No kidding. It’s like scientists want to pretend philosophy has nothing to contribute to understanding reality.
I thought I asked you a good question about whether it’s a good or bad idea to talk with scientists about the possible statements that can explain the universe.
4 Likes
That’s really good! Thanks for bringing it to my attention
Weinberg appears truly naive that reality could be a great paradox. Which is why it is helpful to consider what the possible statements for the universe are.
I would say that Weinberg couldn’t have cared less if people thought he was naive since their opinions weren’t relevant to the actual science.
1 Like
Dreams of a Final Theory was published in 1994, so it can be assumed the author did not witness the cosmic web at the time of writing the book.