Gather round, children. This is a textbook example of how not to speak to a scientist about Jesus.
As I said, there are far too many scientists whose perception of Christianity has been polluted by arrogant and judgmental know-it-alls pointing fingers at them and falsely accusing them of making unjustified assumptions. If you don’t want them to write your church off as an adult version of the school playground, and you as an adult version of the bully who stuffed them in their locker and stole their lunch money when they were twelve years old, the very first thing that you need to establish is that you are not one of them.
I look at it in a more forgiving light. We are all susceptible to “falling in love” with our own conclusions (in scientific circles, “falling in love with your own hypothesis”). It’s a very human blindspot. In the case of modern apologetics, it reads more as Christians trying to justify their own beliefs to themselves than it does an argument meant to convert non-believers. And in full honesty, my own view of modern apologetics could be seriously biased by my worldview.
A more scientific worldview would ask questions like:
What’s your evidence, what are the facts?
How would you know if you are wrong?
How are you limiting personal bias?
How do things break down into the subjective and objective?
The scientific worldview is going to be much more about method than ideology. In philosophical terms, the scientific worldview is more about epistemology than ontology.
I am not sure i follow the question.
I will restate my point…the philosophical drives the search for knowledge, the search for knowledge develops the methods and procedures we use for discovery. I am not sure how this relates to ignoring human nature…i thought my point was, that is human nature!
It appears to me that people here believe that science is what drives philosophy. I simply do not see how that is possible given that science is a mechanism used via cognition to learn and the interpretations we develop are mental processes! I get this feeling that one of the problems with the entire theology here is that science is so fundamental to this world view, it gets stuck in a wheel of circular reasoning such that there is no philosophical only science. I should imagine Socrates (the fictional philosopher created by Plato) would have a big problem with that
I don’t think anyone here is under illusion that the philosophy of science unpins the practice of science. However, I would suggest that folks might be reluctant to discuss it with you as, in the past, any admission of the role of philosophy in science has been taken as some grand ‘gotcha’ moment by YECs. Often followed by cries of ‘assumptions, assumptions’.
Human nature affects how we approach the question of knowledge. We humans are fallible, illogical, and emotionally driven beings. If we want knowledge to be as free from human foibles as possible then we have to understand what those human flaws are and how to best address them. Science tackles this problem by requiring empirical observations and repeatable methodologies.
One of the big pillars of philosophy is epistemology which is the methods by which we acquire knowledge. It makes no sense to say that one thing is true and another is false unless there are rules by which things are judge to be true and false. Science is one possible epistemology out of many. Science is philosophy.
I have no issue with that statement…the problem is, and I have highlighted this before…
“Conclusions”
a judgement or decision reached by reasoning!
The claim of repeatable results is illustrated in YEC investigation…it’s is not a lie that YEC obtain the results they do.
Are you denying:
radio halos in zircon crystals?
Carbon 14 in dinosaur bones?
The above are just two examples…there are more.
See the thing is, the above are real…
It is not fairytale or fabrication. The simple fact is, and it is fact, the difference on how radio halos got into zircon crystals and remain there, and how very old dinosaur bones have carbon 14 in them is interpretation…not the fact they are present.
True, however, it could be argued that not all interpretations are equal. Generally, one does not revise entire systems of thought based on a couple of oddly shaped pieces. The first step is to ask, what is the most plausible reason for these findings based on what we are already know. We all do this. I am sure, when you are presented with evidence that contradicts your Young Earthism, you do respond with “Welp, that’s a death blow, time to revise the whole kit and kaboodle”, right? I suspect you would ask something like “Huh, how can I make sense of this in light of the knowledge I have about Young Earthism”. So, given how much we know already about the vast ancientness of our universe, in my opinion, it is going to take a rather large smoking gun (or guns) to bring about a root and branch revision that compresses all of that evidence into 3-8k years.
These are well explained. I would submit that the issue of Carbon 14 in dinosaur bones and diamonds is so well accounted for and explained by conventional science, that using it as an issue becomes borderline deceptive and manipulative by the young earth science trained people who should know better. That then leads to the science trained people they are trying to witness to to discount the gospel they wish to share, as they have then lost credibility.
The simple fact is, and it is a fact, that, as I keep saying, interpretation of scientific evidence has rules. One of the most fundamental rules is that you MUST fully and correctly account for all possible sources of error. There are no exceptions to this rule, which applies to every area of science, “operational” or “historical,” and it applies whether you are a Christian or an atheist, a “creationist” or an “evolutionist.”
Contamination is a legitimate and possible source of error, and as such it MUST therefore be fully and correctly accounted for before you can claim that anything else is going on.
You CANNOT account for contamination by hand-waving it away as either a “rescuing device” or “just an interpretation.” To hand-wave away contamination as a “rescuing device” or “just an interpretation” is to insist that the basic rules and principles of accurate and honest weights and measures do not apply to you. And I’m sorry, but they do.
you know that is a huge claim to make Jammycakes and a foolish one.
Please explain to me how it is that an atheist may reconcile the big bang FULLY?
Where did the energy and matter come from?
What started it?
When asked this question, even Stephen Hawking could not provide a complete answer…ultimately the answer is “we still don’t know yet”. So the very foundation principle of ALL science interpretation of our existence is missing the anchor point!
As Christians, we have an answer to that question God. It is not a scientific one i don’t suppose but does it need to be? Where things diverge is that after this point, TEism jumps ship…it plays both sides. YEC on the other hand searches for answers that support Christianity, not atheism…so we do not play both sides. I am comfortable with the idea that the science i follow has flaws, has errors, doesnt know…but given that the science atheism follows cant even answer the most basic of all questions (the origin of universal life)…and i can answer that question…I have no problem with any of this. You may call it naive, even stupid, however, if at the end of all of this i find myself “up there” and your find yourself “down here” (waiting for fire and brimstone), I will certainly doubt anyone will worry about proving through science that when you burn its kaput! Philosophically, that is completely irrelevant to the dire situation those who do not believe face if they are wrong. If i am wrong on the other hand, i lose nothing (call it pascals wager, but it doesnt change the binary choice in which only one outcome has eternal life on offer)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.