Give me your best shot, Iâm braced. Iâm more than happy to read an essay.
2 Likes
I would like to interject at this point in the discussion something which has occurred to me recently. I believe that God is infinite. I know that my understanding, just like all other human understanding, of God is finite. And guess what those two things together mean? What fraction of the totality of God is all human understanding of God - including all understanding that anyone who ever lived or will live has ever experienced?
Mathematics of infinity are very clear: The total human understanding of God is mathematically indistinguishable from 0% of the total understanding of our infinite God! So there is room for different interpretations that seem incompatible to both be correct.
What about what God has revealed about Herself? (Careful before you discount what I am saying, because I used a different pronoun than what you KNOW has been revealed to you! Maybe He did reveal a finite part of Himself as female to some other person!) The truth is that God could have revealed a different finite view of Himself to each person. The fact is that He has chosen to use us to spread our understanding of who He is, and we then end up with some large groups of people with similar understandings.
I do believe that God did know what He was doing when He created this world, and knew that we would end up with many different religions. I do not know why God would have allowed that to happen in His world. I do, however, believe that He does love everyone, with love that is truly infinite. At this point I have no choice but to trust in God, to accept that my understanding of who He is, how He put this world together, and why He did what He did, is mathematically indistinguishable from 0% of His understanding of what He did and why.
That does take the capability of claiming that I have the only true way of understanding God right off the table. I have struggled some with this, and have finally concluded that I donât have any responsibility for what any other person believes. But I do have a responsibility to tell people what I believe, not to convince them to believe the same, but to offer them the opportunity to see if my understanding helps them improve their own understanding.
Back to facts: I came from a YEC background, now believe (but donât know for sure) that the universe is very old. The truth is that there is no way to know for sure when or how God created this universe. We have to decide what we want to believe about whether God would have inserted all the evidence suggesting an old earth into the young earth, if that is what He did. And at the bottom line, if we can accept that God could have done creation either way, and we just donât know all the reasons God had for putting this earth together, then we can perhaps agree that it doesnât really matter which way God created the world, not nearly as much as it matters that we both believe that God did create the world.
The evidence we do have (e.g. cosmic microwave background) shows that the universe began to expand from a very small point ~13.8 billion years ago. You also need that large amounts of time for the starlight from those distant galaxies to reach us. In those galaxies we observe histories that span long time periods, such as galaxies in the midst of crashing into one another or black hole jets that are millions of light years in length.
That would have to include almost the entire fossil record if we are talking about a 6-10k year old Earth. In my experience, most Christians balk at the idea of God creating a false fossil history for the Earth.
For the record, I am not a Christian, but I was for the first 20 odd years of my life. God creating a false history for no apparent reason is something that goes against the character of the God I was taught about.
It is worth noting that the fake history idea was already tried back in the 1800âs, and it didnât go over very well. Phillip Gosse wrote a book entitled âOmphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knotâ in 1857, omphalos being a Greek reference to Adamâs bellybutton (would Adam have been created with a scar from an umbilical cord he never had?). The reaction from the Christian community wasnât great. Here is one reaction:
3 Likes
Jerry, I actually think I agree with some of what you said. That being said, I donât know if it follows that 1) because God is infinite, and 2) because we canât understand God that it follows that 3) in ALL cases different incompatible interpretations can both be correct because we donât understand God.
This could be possible in some cases (God saving people of different religions with different viewpoints, for example), but I donât think it can be possible in all. Like if God says âdonât worship this demon that requires you sacrifice babiesâ can the people who worship the demon and sacrifice babies be like âwell we donât understand God, so itâs possible that we both have incompatible views that are simultaneously correct.â? The point being that I think there are moments of Revelation where God gives a truth about how things are or how they should be and we shouldnât discard them because we donât have an understanding of an infinite God. Mathematics could be described as infinite, but I donât think we have reason to suggest that 1+1=2 and 1+1=3 could both be true BECAUSE we donât understand more than ~0% of it.
For my bacterial friend, it seems perfectly obvious to me that in spite of the evidence that youâre describing, it does actually come down to a baseline âbeliefâ that is based on âfaith.â Maybe we have good evidence, but it is a faith-based belief, insofar as everything is. Would you agree? And if so, how do you differentiate it from âreligiousâ belief? My gut says itâs more reliable or more rational, but I have no idea how to differentiate it from religious belief, other than evidence that is also a faith-based belief. Help pls, one and all.
1 Like
If conclusions based on mountains of observable evidence are to be considered âfaithâ then that word has lost all meaning.
I differentiate faith from scientific conclusions by the reliance on empirical evidence. We donât need faith that a certain species existed in the past. We have their fossils. We donât need faith that galaxies are billions of light years away. We can measure the distance. We donât need faith that rocks are millions or billions of years old. We can measure their age.
What is to stop someone from saying that the Universe was created 5 minutes ago, complete with a false history and fake memories? How are we to even believe that Jesus existed since it could be a fake history in our 5 minute old Universe? Once you go down the road of a fake universe with a fake history it ends up in some really wonky territory.
I will also note that through Christian history observable facts have taken precedent over biblical interpretation. For example, Cardinal Bellarmine (head of the Inquisition) wrote an interesting letter in the runup to Galileoâs trial for his Heliocentric heresy. Here are a couple snippets:
Or to quote Galileo:
âIt is surely harmful to souls to make it a heresy to believe what is proved.ââGalileo Galilei
2 Likes
Hmm. I donât know. The mountains of observable evidence you mention are based on the faith-based claim of the intelligibility of the universe. And I donât know if just because everything requires faith at its core that you can say it has lost all meaning.
It seems like both have a presupposition problem or a faith problem, if you want to put it that way. The difference is where does the presupposition occur: at the foundational level (if youâre the scientist) or the empirical level (letâs say for the sake of argument, if youâre a YEC). What I always run into is, why is the presupposition at the foundational level better than the empirical one? Is it just because of practicality?
What are your thoughts? Again, my gut says obviously less presupposition is better, but I donât know if it IS less presupposition. Confused.
Hi, Call: No, I did not say that in all cases different incompatible interpretations can both be true! And I agree that we should not discard any moments of revelation that we feel are from God, just am saying that what God has revealed to me is not the whole truth about God.
And, for the record, I do tend to agree with T_aquaticus that what God has put into His creation is more reliably something that God âwroteâ than something that some human tells me is âGodâs Word, a direct revelation from God.â By this I mean that everything we think is direct from God is based on belief, not on knowledge that it came directly from God - I know this holds for me, and it must hold for anyone else who has not actually spoken directly with God Himself.
However, we do not have anything even close to a complete understanding of what God did when He created this world, nor do we have an understanding of more than mathematically equivalent to 0% of all the reasons why God either made this world exactly this way or let it evolve to exactly this situation.
I am quite certain that God put us into this world, at least in part, so that we can experience things that we will never experience in Heaven. I do not know why He has chosen to let each of us experience every little thing that has happened to us, but I trust Him to be allowing these things to happen to me in such a manner that the whole package will turn out to be good for me.
And, to the point of this thread, my belief that what God put into His creation, as commented by T_aquaticus also, is most likely true does not tell me that the YEC belief, starting from a different point of view, cannot possibly be the way it really happened. If I grant even a small possibility that the YEC person I am talking with is correct, then I can begin to build a bridge, asking him or her to grant me the same possibility, with the note that what we do not agree on does not matter as much as those things we do agree on.
1 Like
The universe is intelligible. If it wasnât you wouldnât have the technology you have now. You wouldnât be able to cross the street if the universe was not intelligible. After all, how could you trust your own eyes that the road is clear of cars?
What presuppositions are you talking about? Is it a presupposition that the Earth is the third planet from the Sun? Or is that an empirical fact? Do facts even exist in your view of the universe?
It seems that you have to do away with the possible existence of facts in order for your ideas to work. Itâs like a philosophical frontal lobotomy. You have to hack out facts, human reasoning, and logic in order to protect a belief from scrutiny.
2 Likes
The mountains of observable evidence are based on observation and measurement. Yes, the observations and measurements have to be interpreted, but those interpretations are governed by rigorous rule-based frameworks that have demonstrated that they work as described by being put to the test in situations where the consequences would be obvious, far-reaching and potentially dangerous if they didnât.
4 Likes
Hi Jerry! Thanks! That clears some stuff up. I thought you said that because we didnât understand God that different incompatible interpretations could be true. I think my main point was that if 1) youâre going to assume that you are getting a some kind of revelation from God, and 2) if youâre going to assume that itâs true, then 3) saying that you have no understanding of the infinity of God is not an excuse to validate something that goes against your revelation. I think that was my only point. But I donât think youâre disputing that. Other than that I think I agree with everything else you said. 
I donât want to belabor this point, but surely we agree that none of your examples prove that the universe is intelligible. They donât really prove anything, theyâre just a string of experiences that we have. I agree with you wholeheartedly that the universe seems intelligible, but it is a faith claim. Hume brought the hammer down on that one a long time ago.
My point is that the scientist makes the presupposition that the universe is intelligible. Thatâs a faith claim. I love that faith claim. I agree with it and think itâs true! From that we get the empirical facts that you describe. The YEC makes the presupposition that the Bible is correct and that empirical facts have to bend around that. Thatâs also a faith claim. I canât see anything that makes me think that the former faith claim is more rational than the latter. After all, every single bit of corroborating evidence to support the former is already based on the idea that the universe is intelligible, and every single bit of corroborating evidence for the latter doesnât matter anyway because evidence is irrelevant to the faith claim being made. I donât know.
I think your last point is the best point, which is that none of us act like the universe isnât intelligible. We act as though facts, human reason, and logic are real and achievable things. So if youâre a YEC you canât get away with saying âwell you have a faith-based belief system as wellâ because everyone is in agreement (or at least acts like theyâre in agreement) that the universe is intelligible.
Sorry. Rambles and reflections. 
1 Like
Hey Jammy!
Yep, I think everything you said is true, but note that the process of observing the evidence and measuring the evidence is itself based on the assumption that you can intelligible-ize(?) the universe. The idea that you have the capacity to interact with âuniverseâ and learn stuff from that interaction. Thatâs the faith claim Iâm talking about. Even the consequences you mention make that same assumption. Again, I want desperately to say that this assumption is better than the YEC assumption, I just canât figure out how to other than saying that the YEC multiplies assumptions (belief in the Bible [for example] AND belief in the intelligibility of the universe). In fact that just might be the best answer for it.
Then what would prove the intelligibility of the universe?
When someone claims that seeing the Sun in the sky is a faith claim I stop taking them seriously.
Or to put it another way, the presuppositions used in science are the very same ones you use when you cross the street. If you think the ability to see moving cars coming down the street is a faith based claim, then you will probably think the same of science, or anything really.
1 Like
- There are several ways, IMO, to make the same point:
- The universe is intelligible, rational, or makes sense.
- That assumptionâand I think it is an assumption, because it canât be provenâis necessary. Why? Because the alternative, that the universe is unintelligible, irrational, or doesnât make sense, would suggest that everyone should fold up their tents and just get drunk.
2 Likes
Thank you, Terry, for your succinct summary. I think thatâs right.
Yeah, the main thing, aquaticus, is that I donât think there really is any way of proving the intelligibility of the universe. Saying you see the sun in the sky literally is a faith claim, and I think I could get us there very easily. And while it seems like a stupid thing to say that itâs faith-based doesnât make it any less of a faith claim.
NOW, your last point (and Terry points this out too) I think is the delineating factor between YEC and the scientist. The scientist (in theory) only makes the intelligibility presupposition, and the YEC makes intelligibility AND the revelation presupposition. I think thatâs enough to say that YEC is certainly less critical⌠I donât know if itâs enough to get science off the hook from being a religion⌠I guess Iâll have to figure out what religion means⌠Based on what you mentioned before, maybe religion is just âbelief system that is not based on empirical evidenceâ and science is âbelief system that utilizes empirical evidence?â Iâll have to ruminate on that oneâŚ
YEC makes the additional presupposition that what we see in the universe can be ignored if it contradicts their interpretation of the Bible.
If science is a religion then the word âreligionâ doesnât mean anything. What wouldnât be a religion? Itâs just like your definition of faith which would have us believe that seeing the Sun in the sky is a faith based belief.
One of the main differences, IMHO, is the difference between objectivity and subjectivity. As I have heard many Christians say, at the core of their beliefs is a relationship that they personally experience (i.e. a subjective experience). It isnât something they can evidence in an objective sense like you can objectively demonstrate the existence of the Sun in the sky. Christian faith isnât built on an objective list of observations like we see in science, at least from what I have understood from my conversations with Christians.
I am also not saying that one is better than the other. They are just different. Science and Christian faith operate differently.
You couldnât even do that because you have no reason to believe that fermented beverages will be intoxicating on any given day.
1 Like
I am quite sure that interpretation of the bible is another important aspect of the YEC belief: It is not specifically written in the bible how old the world is. To conclude that the bible says the world is young requires substantial interpretation of the bible. And the YECs I grew up with would not allow any questioning of their interpretation of what the bible said.
1 Like
This is mirrored by YEC organizations as well.
âNo apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field of study, including science, history, and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture obtained by historical-grammatical interpretation.ââAnswers in Genesis
1 Like
Re-reading: I wasnât trying to say I/we have no understanding of God! The understanding we have is critical to our relationship with God! The point is that we need to recognize that our understanding is only partial, as long as we are finite, and that allows God to provide different partial revelations if He so chooses (and I am near 100% certain that He does so choose; that is the only possibility that I can find that fits with the ideas that God loves everyone, and God knows what He is doing).
1 Like
Well yes, but itâs a perfectly reasonable assumption. After all, the alternative is believing that everything we see in the world around us is an illusion.
Young earthists view the concept of âassumptionsâ as a get-out clause to let them reject anything and everything about science that they donât like. But it doesnât work that way. In order to challenge assumptions behind a scientific theory, as well as stating what the assumptions are and making sure that it really does make the assumptions that youâre claiming that it makes (spoiler alert: with YEC argunents, a lot of the time it doesnât), you have to explain how the assumption could have been violated in such a way as to produce the same end result that we see in reality.
4 Likes