322, per iPadOS Pages. Who’s obsessive.
Sure, I was referring to explaining scientific things, where the OP said God was less and less necessary in his estimation because naturalistic explanations are sufficient.
Oh really? My experience is the opposite. Let’s look at some of these thing you think God is explaining.
on account of, because
because (54), because* (35), definitely because (1), inasmuch* (2), reason (1), since (1), so* (1), why* (1).
I myself, coming from a position of certainty in regard to neither science nor religion, regard science as clarifying the world that has come about. Regarding how the world has come to be at all, its discoveries should inform an adequate theory but cannot possibly hope to spell it out alone. We need insights from every sphere of human experience for that, science and reason included. But never suppose science should rule on what other sources are to be included. That is beyond it purview.
I’m not among the scientific illuminati and I was of the opinion “no God required” before I left elementary school so I find it hard to imagine what it would be like to experience that fear. I’m a humanities guy with a passing interest in science but a growing interest in where God belief comes from. I’m surprised we didn’t pass each other.
But I don’t think the basis for God belief has anything to do with logic or empirical observation either. Do you? What branch of science are you particularly interested in?
So the kind of explanations you are talking about are
explaining why God blessed the seventh day
explaining the etymology of the Hebrew word issah
Adam explaining why he is afraid
So you are not talking about explanation of why the world is as it is but explanations of its own text.
So your answer to Christy’s assertion that her faith has never been based on the idea that God is required to explain things is to say that the Biblical text provides explanations of the Biblical text.
To this I would say you haven’t shown much understanding of what Christy said. So I guess I should try to help you to do so.
I believe this is somewhat a response to the effort of atheists to cast religion in the role of primitive science. This is certainly the case in my own reiteration of what Christy said, that my own faith is not based on God being required to explain things either. Though I would go farther than this to say that I see very little effort on the part of God to explain anything about why the world is the way it is. Thus calling the Bible primitive science is absurd, that is not what the Bible seeks to do at all.
But of course, God also tells us in the bible why the world is the way it is. What He was going to do about it. That He did do something about it. And that’s why I am a Christian. Because God explained things.
“Natural law” is just a term for how God runs His Creation.
Thinking that science shoves God out of the picture has been called the “Absentee Landlord fallacy”; it’s also been called “soft deism”, the idea that the universe is basically a machine that runs without needing God’s attention.
So the “slippery slope” is the result of certain views of God that regard Him as not very involved in the universe. On the other hand there’s the view of the Apostle that God upholds all things, i.e. keeps them in existence continually; all that science does is explains the usual manner in which He does that.
Now perhaps I understand more why you say that.
Perhaps I was reading this as…
Natural law is just a term for God running the universe.
And that is what I was objecting to.
would you also say…
“electrons” is just a term for how God makes atoms interact.
the “heart” is just a term for how God makes the blood flow throughout the body.
“Tact” is politeness and consideration; the word you want is “tack”, which is a form of steering a sailing ship/boat.
No, because those are means and not explanations of broad ranges of phenomena.
So one could say that the heart is what God uses to pump blood, but not that “the heart” is just a term for how God makes blood move.
So when physicist study nature and come up with what THEY call laws and equations for how things work, according to you they are not actually doing anything but understanding how God does things. These laws and equations are just descriptions of God. And when they use these laws and equations to develop technology then they are what? …just learning how to harness God Himself?
I like science because science explains things.
I am a Christian for quite different reasons… like It is the most helpful in pursuing a relationship with God. It connects to the kind of person I want and choose to be. It shows good awareness of the dangers of religion.
Paul gives a pretty good explanation of Christianity in his epistles. Cannot say that is why I am a Christian though it is hard to choose Christianity if you don’t even know what it is.
No – that is a false equivalence.
Same false equivalence.
You mean these laws and equations are not God?
…because that thing/collection which is not God is what most of us are referring to when we talk about the laws of nature.
This thing (“Natural law” is just a term for how God runs His Creation) you say is reminiscent of things Einstein have said. But he WAS undeniable a pantheist.
What I say which I guess is similar to what you mean, is that the laws of nature are designed and created by God. Certainly we have many things similar in human creations because we want them to follow the rules we devise for them.
Perhaps the point you are making is that the laws of Nature are laws of God and not the laws of some pseudo-deity called “nature”. And when we talk of “mother nature” we are not talking about a being, it is just a turn of phrase. In fact here is where you can say quite accurately and effectively…
“Mother nature is just a term for how God runs His creation.”
You would get no objection from me on THAT!
You would get an objection from me.
“Mother Nature” personifies something which is not personal. It permits thinking of “Father God” and “Mother Nature” as perhaps being in a marriage union. Jesus Christ is in a marriage union with the Church, not with nature.
Your objection is incoherent.
Saying it is JUST a term for how God runs His creation is to say that it is NOT any of these things you are blathering about.
If you like we can make that explicit for any child to comprehend…
Mother nature is just a term for how God runs His creation and not a being, entity, or deity of any kind… let alone someone married to our Father in heaven.
…though frankly… I think you protest too much with considerable overtones of misogyny as if the idea of a female deity is offensive. Thus I would strenuously distance myself from such a poisonous version of Christianity by saying God is no more masculine than He is feminine. He is the origin and creator of both masculinity and femininity and not a biological creature of any kind with such biological features. (said with a tone of considerable hatred for something contemptable)
I take it as a secularization and denial of a sovereign Father God, although Christians probably say it thoughtlessly as they do “Good luck!” (in the strict theological sense of the word ).
As a child, whenever my friends and I found ourselves a slipery slope we went and found ourselves some large pieces of cardboard to slide down the slope faster.