So it’s a good guess that explains everything else. 
Too many people whom I know regard religious doctrines as things you can select like at a smorgasbord.
Krauss reminds me of something that he and others miss about Christianity: saying “God did it” doesn’t shut down investigation, it opens it up; my mental image is like
Me: Wow, God, You did that!
God: True.
Me: How?!!
God : I leave the explanation as an exercise for the student..
Great clip.
I have used molecular modelling as an example to show our scientific reasoning
/beliefs may not be as realistic as we may sometimes believe. It does not make them less useful, but facts should be the same as what is real. I guess, like so many things, it becomes a subjective judgement on how we consider reality and theory.
Doctrinal matters are both subjective and also reflect a collective view/belief (a church). Yet there is as much debate and scholarly examination as we may find in dealing with scientific theories.
The steps that led to acceptance of plate tectonics is instructive: it took geology, botany, paleontology, and chemistry to really male the case.
That depends – there are several places on Earth where plate motion is smooth and consistent enough that there are cameras recording continuously.
There was a famous one in Hayward California–
Geologists had been measuring the steady movement of that sidewalk and curb for fifty years, until the city “fixed” it, claiming not to have known anything about its notoriety.
My web search skills apparently aren’t good enough to find even one of the spots I was thinking of.
I think it’s still the best I’ve ever encountered.
I should be observed that people before this was discovered were correct on one point of prior understanding: disease was caused by something they couldn’t see.
One wit of a grad student once said to a study group, “Everyone please get out your theological data sets”.
Though evolution has the additional problem that scientists use words that in normal parlance indicate planning and choice.
I tend to say if you don’t believe the Trinity concept then you haven’t really read the Bible as what it is but are imposing an alien worldview on it. The word wasn’t used, but the concept had been noted already in second Temple Judaism; the church didn’t invent it, rather just polished it up a bit – there was an article a while back with a title like “Two Powers, three Persons” that explored this.
The phrase “a sufficiently isolated condition” comes to mind, though I think that was from thermodynamics. Then there was the moment when a student asked about conditions outside the box, and the professor said there are none, there is only the box.
I think it was Gregory of Nyssa who called scripture the “referee”.
I second that!
Great question jpm…
I think that we are starting to see a lot more responses to evolution that indicate it is more a belief than it is science.
For me the real big issue is that individuals claim science is only being conducted when the “result” so to.speak, aligns with evolution.
This has been demonstrated over and over again to be problematic and even false.
I think we should start to treat both science and evolution for what they are…one is a tool (science), the other is one interpretation of the data (evolution)
This is the perennial fantasy of evolution deniers everywhere. They repeat to each other that it’s on the verge of collapsing, and apparently has been for over a century now, and no amount of reality showing the opposite can shake them from clinging to their delusion. Do you ever tire of being so persistently wrong, Adam?
All it demonstrates to the watching world is that truth with facts and evidences is not very important to such groups.
I could use a very nasty word in response to this, it starts with “B”.
The fallacy in your claim is that you are of the “belief” that for the last century… you ignore other world views in their entirety. Contrary to your.claims here, evolution isnt the only PUBLISHED view of origins.
I dont.particularly care if you want to believe otherwise…neither do those who you dissagree with who have published other views.
I actually dont think that these other views are on the verge of collapsing…more and more now, the reverse is the case actually (particularly given the rise for example, of AIG)
So there’s that!
What you have written above is simply an opinion of one faction, however its not the opinion of all the factions (whether minority or otherwise).
For example, not all flat earthers are religious…but they are flat earthers none the less.
A scientific theory is only analogous to a doctrine in that they both strive towards some sort of logical generalization. But if I make a new discovery in science I might win a Nobel Prize. The word for a new discovery in doctrine is heresy.
Because the data aligns with reality, biologists incorporate it into their frameworks and theories. YEC is incompatible with the data, and organizations such as AiG are compelled to falsify and misrepresent facts. That is deception, not interpretation.
On that we can agree.
Richard
Yes, personal experiences are important for individuals because the experiences of others are not enough to convince all. When personal experiences agree with the experiences of others as well as a general explanation of the matter, that gives a credible basis for personal beliefs.
When we discuss about personal experiences, the key point is the interpretation of what was experienced. Personal experiences can be valid data points in both science and theology, the problem with these are that we are not always sure how to interpret the observation. An extraordinary experience might be an illusion produced within the brains or misidentified sensory signals, as in the case of misidentified UFO/UAP observations. An apparent UFO might be a distant large balloon or even reflecting sun light, although the observer would interpret it as an extraterrestrial flying vehicle. Human memory is also unreliable and what is told a long time after the event may differ from the initial observations.
I guess the apparent unreliability of personal experiences is actually unreliability of interpretations about the personal experiences.
If many persons tell about similar kind of religious experiences, the personal experiences are more likely to be accepted as something real. There is still the possibility that the experiences tell about a generality in the way how brains interpret sensory signals, rather than something extraordinary in the external reality. Even that would be something real that can be used as a data point that needs to be explained (interpreted) and could increase our understanding about humans and the world.
If the experiences of multiple persons agree with a general explanation (hypothesis, theory or doctrine), the personal experiences easily become evidence supporting the general explanation, both in theology and science.
The problem here is the difference between believing someone else and experiencing it yourself. Second hand experiences, no matter how convinced the teller, are still just another form of belief. I could real off any number of personal experiences of claimed “miracles” that I have either witnessed or even instigated, but they rely on you believing me and accepting my understanding of the events.`
Scientific data is usually attained under controlled conditions that can be duplicated. A “miracle” will have unique conditions that are unlikely to be duplicated. Often a “Miracle” is based upon circumstance or the improbability of the coincidence. Such things do not sit well with the scientific approach.
Let’s admit it, the scientific approach will always have trouble accepting data that is perceived as emotional, or coincidental, or just blind faith. While someone looking for faith will grasp at anything that they can believe in.
Richard
I agree that there is a great difference between personal experiences and something others tell. I usually encourage contacting God and experiencing the answer personally, which reflects a belief that God listens and is likely to respond to those who earnestly seek Him. My belief is that we can approach God through our Lord Jesus Christ. When contacting God, it is good to remember that He decides if He answers, and the answer may be ‘no’ or ‘wait’ as well as ‘yes’. 
‘Miracle’ is a problematic term in the sense that the use of the word is diverse. For some it means something that happens against the natural laws, for someone else it can mean an unlikely chain of events that bring an answer to a prayer, while a third person could stress that we are miracles.
The scientific approach to the question of ‘miracles’ depends much on what definition we give to the word ‘miracle’. If we are speaking about a unique happening, the best that science could say is that the case is an outlier among the data points. That does not tell why the case is an outlier. If the word is used in a sense that demands repeatability, for example can prayer heal all or most people, the word is used in a sense that resembles a natural law or a slot machine. I would say that kind of experimental approach is not studying miracles.
Saying nothing did it as Krauss supposes to be a possibility also shuts down investigation
The answer to that is yes and no. There are so many factors involved. Which is why it cannot be guaranteed. That, also does not sit well with science, especially as such variables as faith cannot be quantified, or measured.
Richard
That could be an apt comparison here. I think you would agree that we probably understand the large brushstrokes with respect to molecular modeling. Where it breaks down is in the complex interactions between molecules. Having worked with proteins in the past, I certainly have firsthand experience with the gap between models, predictions, and reality. At the same time, protein modeling has improved quite a bit over the last 2-3 decades with Alphafold being the latest iteration for predicting protein folding:
Theology and doctrine have some of these same features. There is a model, but there is wiggle room in the specifics.
Would you agree that those debates typically refer to scripture as the most important source for determining who is correct?
I don’t think measuring faith is the issue here. Rather, it appears to be rather difficult to construct a falsifiable hypothesis. For example, if we have a prayer group and a non-prayer group and the medical outcomes are the same for both groups, would this falsify the efficacy of prayer? I think most Christians would say it doesn’t (which I am not arguing against).
You are also correct that there are many factors involved. For example, does the act of having people with you praying for your recovery improve your mental health, therefore helping you heal better than you would if you were stressed out? Perhaps. How would you test the variable of supernatural intervention? God only knows.
On the flip side, there are scientific studies that use human experiences as data points, but the unreliability of the data is always acknowledged. For example, a clinical trial for a pain medication would include patient reported pain levels (e.g. on a scale from 1 to 10). Clinical trials for psychoactive drugs would include patient reported experiences and mental health. So it would be wrong to say that science completely excludes human experience, but the fallibility of human experience is also used to weigh the data.
There are also cultural influences to consider. The UFO/UAP example might be an apt one. In a culture where UFO sightings are a thing, does this prime people to interpret a strange observation with a possible alien spacecraft? Perhaps.
There is evidence that there is a mental side to healing although I am not aware of a specific scientific study, or even if such a thing could be studied.
For a healing to be considered miraculous it would be both instantaneous and uncalled for medically. A student at my college was healed of scarlet fever after the medical prognosis was several weeks. Of course there is always the doubts about the original diagnosis and so on. The Christian Union were convinced, if no one else was.
Christian healing is a very grey area even within the faith. I would not consider myself a healer but I have healed (or rather God has healed through me)
Nevertheless, it is my word (and the recipients) against all others, and I am nobody.
Richard
In case you are curious, this looks like a decent paper:
If nothing else, this is support for the importance of community within a congregation.
I don’t feel the need to challenge your beliefs, and a faith based belief in miraculous healing is certainly a valid part of Christian theology. It is found throughout the New Testament.
Your graciousness is appreciated. Let’s admit it, there are some, if not many here who doubt my Christianity let alone anything else.
Richard
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
