We would first have to ask how we should define reality. For many of us, we look at evidence first and then arrive at conclusions. This isn’t the case for everyone. For some, they start with the conclusion and then arrange reality so that it fits the conclusion.
What I think we are really talking about is objectivity, reason, and logic. Those concepts also contain empiricism and the scientific method within them. I think the first step would be accept that every single one of us could be wrong. We are all fallible. So how could we figure out if we are wrong? What evidence would it take to change our minds?
At the same time, there has to be room for faith within this paradigm. I think it would also be important to define both the importance of faith and the importance of being open minded (not that those are opposites). Humans are a crazy mix of emotions, biases, reason, and logic. If we are going to make sense of our world then I think we we have to embrace everything that makes us human and understand how each fit into the world we find ourselves in.
I wonder, if (suggest that) it’s also appropriate to add a thoughtful discussion of the interplay of hermeneutics and concept of reality here. Of course, this makes the discussion much messier, but potentially more fruitful.
I see evidence across this forum that the overall understanding of, and even vocabulary for, hermeneutical methods is quite limited for most individuals. Typically I have noticed more dichotomies, which usually look something like:
“Grammatical-historical method (stupid/ignorant/wrong/evil)” opposed to “Whatever method I prefer (clever/enlightened/correct/good)”
“Fundamentalism (stupid/ignorant/wrong/evil)” opposed to “Whatever concept I hold (clever/enlightened/correct/good)”
We (I’m included here) need a better, more nuanced vocabulary that reflects an understanding of the goals of various hermeneutical methods, the subtle differences between them, where those differences lead AND the interplay between hermeneutics and our concepts of reality.
I have just walked away from the denomination I’ve been in my whole life, because of culture war issues (in which I include YEC/AIG) and their effect on interpretation of Scripture and concept of the Gospel. I’ve left a church lead by sincere, godly men, whose thinking is constrained by a desire to do right by God’s Word, and an inability to see how that can happen outside of the limitations of the G-H method.
In their case, as well as ours, a lack of subtlety in hermeneutical concepts promotes the use of false categories and dichotomies. People who see no alternative to G-H, which also allows for a high view of Scripture, will probably continue to maintain their attachment to it (G-H); abandoning it is simply too dangerous. Likewise, if the only alternative to “My View” is stupid/ignorant/wrong/evil, there is no room for understanding the broader world of hermeneutics or the value of different approaches, and finally, the options that would meet the need of the current G-H fundamentalist, who would like to see better how real reality integrates with a high view of Scripture.
It’s much easier to claim that the spot you parked in is not a metered parking spot, no matter what the reality of laws or signage may say. Or you can take it a step further and claim that you did not consent to be under those laws, which I believe is the strategy taken by the Sovereign Citizen movement.
the reason for leaving the church is a problem of puberty, the clash of morality. Science is jut used as a tool to undermine the “authority” of the church as a relict of ignorance based on believe in magic fairy tales and wishful thinking, not observed reality. And if God speaks to you, in modern language so does science. “Science tells us” “the language of science”… we have subconsciously accepted to personify science.
The title of the thread is fairly useless as science is the systematic study of reality so to be anti science is promoting ignorance of reality. The problem a lot of Christians have with science is that it puts in question the validity of the claims of materialist Christians who are an oxymoron in themselves. The materialistic interpretation of scripture is where a lot of them leave the narrow path. The wish for becoming an eternal self instead of becoming one with God again is probably the worst of them
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
27
I wonder if you could break this down some? Materialist Christians could refer to those in the sway of prosperity preaching or perhaps it links to what you say here:
I think this is sometimes the perspective of those who internalize science to dismiss the importance of feeling, intuition and even conscience in favor of elevating cognition to explain the experiential as “nothing but” biological noise in the machine they view our bodies to be.
But be that as it may I especially resonate with this last sentiment though I’m not quite sure we make the same sense of it.
I see talk of a personal afterlife as a preference for perpetuating the differences which set us apart rather than returning to the eternal around which the particular circumstances of our life have congealed to give us the perspective we have. If you mean becoming one with God again to mean wiping away just that which sets us apart, I agree entirely.
Without pointing to one of the many comments, I’m in favor of maintaining the moniker Science, Scientist, Scientific. While science is getting some bad press lately, mainly from people who don’t seem to understand it or have an alternative agenda, the term “Reality” drifts too close to “Certainty.” The Apostle Paul loved the word, “Hope.” While the loudest voices are pushing against science, time, innovation, and climate change will eventually bring less attention to “know nothing” and more attention to paradigm shifts.
That is not correct. Never once in my in my study for a masters degree in physics and beyond has the word “reality” even been mentioned. And I think it obvious that physics comes closer to the study of reality than any other science. But no, the study of reality, IS NOT the subject of physics or science in general. By the very nature of scientific methodology science concerns itself with things which can be tested and physics with things that can be measured. Never once is the question of whether this can capture reality ever even considered. That is simply the presumption of those accepting a naturalist philosophy which should never be equated with science.
Nevertheless this conclusion is correct even if the reason for it is wrong. The division into the objective and the subjective is crucial here. There is little doubt that science has provided the one reliable way of getting at an objective study of reality. The addition of that one word “objective,” makes a huge difference. For even if science never speaks of reality in general, it has provided the only way we know of getting beyond the fundamentally subjective nature of our access to reality to an aspect of reality which is demonstrably objective. Thus without presuming this to be the sum total of reality, we can assert science does study the only portion of it which we can be assured is objective.
And to know oneself objectively to be a sinful person… There are many things that I may be convinced of, but not being radically to the root corrupted and in need of a salvation apart from my own righteousness, not a chance.
Logic is perfectly capable of drawing conclusions about things which not even real. And since logic relies upon the acceptance of premises there is no way in which its conclusions are objective unless the premises can first be established as objective truths.
I don’t see any way in which you can establish such a conclusion objectively. The closest you can come is to establish that some of your habits are demonstrably self-destructive.
In general I do not think any of the things of religion are objective. I simply refute the idea that reality is purely objective. One of the things I say quite frequently is that science consists of objective observation but life requires subjective participation, therefore science is utterly inadequate for the living of our lives and that is where religion comes in.
This question is confusing to me because I thought that is what I just explained in my post above. Can you explain to me why the post above does not answer this question for you? Maybe I am not understanding the question in quite the way you intend.
Thus the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions. Logical coherence is a necessary condition for reality but not sufficient.
Really? I never heard such a claim. There is a difference between saying something is possible and saying that we do not know. This is something we do not know. We know no reason why it should be concluded that such a thing is impossible. And I certainly see no reason why it is in any way similar to claiming they were once a married bachelor. In fact, I think your premises for that must rather complex, highly subjective, and from your own personal philosophy.
Sounds like a very different meaning of infinity than what any scientist would understand by your question. They will certainly take the meaning to be numerical. And what do you know about the numerical meaning of infinity? Are aware that there is more than one numerical infinity?
I am aware the natural and real numbers cannot be put in a one to one correspondence. That doesn’t mean there is a numerical difference between them, at least not one that I have been able to see.
That is exactly what it means, and there are higher orders of infinity than those two. What do you think the word “numerical” means? Though I suppose we have different words, but they are synonyms.
The order of a set defines the number of elements a set is having . It describes the size of a set. The order of set is also known as the cardinality. The size of set whether it is is a finite set or an infinite set, said to be set of finite order or infinite order, respectively.
