Superbia: The perils of pride and the power of humility

Faith & Science Conversation
,
1

Continuing the discussion from Why do people try to make scripture talk science?:

In Steves book he makes the following statement…

I believe the Old and New Testaments are given to us by God through human intermediaries and convey reliable truths about the nature of humanity.

How does Steve manage to know reliable truths are being conveyed?

Surely he isnt suggesting that we know because we work backwards in deduction there because if that is the claim, then how did those who wrote those words know what they were writing was reliable?

It certainly wasnt through scientific testing was it!

Perhaps im missing something here however, given the quote above is in the first section of his book…its a foundational statement that i think is hugely problematic!

For one, are we going to honestly make the claim faith is scientific? Thats absurd!

2

It is his presupposition that guides how he understands scripture. Just like you and I have our own unique presuppositions.

Only for someone with a different set of presuppositions.

3

I am pleased and honored that you have chosen to read my book. Let’s continue this conversation after you have finished it.

Blessings,

Steve

1 Like
4

will do Steve. Im hoping that you dont mind me be demanding in my questions…im a bit of a “hammer thrower” when venting my academic frustrations.

My aim in reading your book is to further my own journey in “Bridging the gaps” (the title of another thread on these forums).

I have been thinking about the last sentence in my previoius post (that faith being scientific is absurd).

What if we could show that faith is scientific? I know that sounds outrageous, but…

5

If it were scientific, would it be faith? Or just known fact? Or mybe disprovable hypothesis?

1 Like
6

I agree with your questions Kendel. I sense that you feel that if we were able to prove scientifically it might actually detract from Christianity (part of its drawcard is the mystery of faith and conversion).

What are your thoughts on the idea of scientifically explaining faith? I honestly hadnt thought of the idea before, however, i have had a number of non christians scoff that faith in God is a silly fairytale and not real.

So i wonder if an element of scientific methodology, research and analysis might actually be a good thing?

7

I did not read the previous discussion that this splintered from/continued from. But was just curious is the superbia a reference to the sci fi musical play or is it literally just “Pride: The perils of pride?”

8

As others have probably mentioned, one reason why it’s so hard to claim that the Bible contains these scientific mysteries that were not known back then, but revealed later on through science is because anytime something may be kind of right that was impossible for them to have known there are mountains of the stuff that is wrong.

Take the “big bang” of Genesis 1. There idea of the “big bang” is completely wrong.

For one they start off with their universe full of water. Before stars, before anything, the universe was chaotic water. Then God is hovering above the water and separates light from darkness, even though the sun was not created until a few days later. The stars that were created, they believed were moving around across the sky being pulled by angels. The reason why they believed the stars were being moved around is because they thought the earth was stationary. They also thought the earth was flat, plate shaped, resting on pillars with a dome over it that angels opened and closed windows to allowing space water to pour inside.

It’s not prideful to be be aware that this is just simply wrong. It’s not factual at all. It’s not prideful to be aware that even before we knew this, many took genesis 1-2 as not literal because of textual clues.

The other big issue is that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 for example are two separate and different origin stories. They were edited and written by different people from different times with different beliefs. Much like many other places in the Bible like 1 Samuel 16 and 17.

So when we know it got so much wrong, it’s hard to take a very ambiguous statement within one of the mythological ancient traditions as correct. To say “god said let there be” and equate that to the scientific understanding of the Big Bang is just serious misrepresentation.

9

Hi Steve,
a comment/question about the following in your book:

*Christianity also maintains that God reveals Himself through two books: the Bible and the book of nature. Science is the process for interpreting that book of nature. Since God cannot err or deceive, all His revelation is infallible, both Scripture and nature. They do not contradict,

Note the following text:

To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, `You must not eat of it,’ "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.

Wouldnt you agree that the Bible claims the earth dramatically changed after the fall of Adam and Eve and as such, using the premise that the earth is the same after expulsion from the garden in order to form a moden scientific thesis is fundamentally flawed in the first place?

To illustrate, if i added 330kj of energy to 1 litre of water @20 degrees C, it will increase its temperature to 100 degrees C right, but what if the temperature of the water was not 20 degrees to begin with or the ambient temperature around the beaker of water changed whilst i was boiling it?

You would argue that science has factored that into the creation and flood equations already, however, all that does is attempt to down-scale the importance of the change in environment around the beaker of water. What about if i played the scaling game and up-scaled and considered the events surrounding Noah flood?

Lets say 1,000 large volcanoes all erupted at the same time, by how much do you think that would affect our global environment? What about 10,000 volcanoes? What about 100,000 volcanoes?

The bible specifically states:
In the six hundredth year of Noah 's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.

Now i dont know about you, but when an underground water pipe bursts, lots of rock and soil are usually ejected into the air with it. Imagine if the cause of that water burst were volcanic activity!

What i am getting at is:

  1. The bible specifically says, the earth changed…and i think its quite obvious, it changed dramatically in a relatively short period of time.

  2. downscaling in order to explain away the above change as well as the effect of Noahs flood can also be up-scaled to show what potentially could happen if 1,000 or more volcanoes erupted during and for years after the flood.

The above agree with your statement God does not lie. However, the statement you make which i have quoted above appears to me to be leading readers down a pathway of ignoring Genesis 3:17 and Genesis 7.

When us humans reveal stuff about ourselves, do we not tend to talk about our actions, goals, achievements. Im just wondering how it is that you do not consaider that given we use real world examples in defining ourselves, how it is that God having done the same is a lie given you do not have the beaker of water starting point or surrounding environmental conditions at the time of Creation, after the Fall of Man, and Noahs flood?

anyway, i shall read on.

10

Another issue is that thorns and prickles evolved on plants, like ancient ferns, several hundred million years before fruits evolved. Which makes it hard to say they developed because of sin after Eve and Adam disobeyed for.

1 Like
11

I don’t think it says that in this verse.
Adam was in the garden, where livin’was easy, but the world outside the garden was different where life was hard. and it was already that way or there would be no need for a garden. Weeds were not weeds until you had to grow crops. Thorns did not prick the skin, until you had to pick the blackberries. It might be that birthing was not painful, until you had to start giving birth, something that seems to have happened in Eden.

3 Likes
12

I like how you take the first part of this literally but then ignore the second part because there are no literal windows (or anything you could call windows) in heaven.

1 Like
13

No. I would not. What changed was our relationship with God.

Genesis 3:17

There is no such thing as curses, just as there are no gods such as Baal and Asherah, and the mention of these in the Bible should not be taken as Biblical support for their existence. It is just speaking in terms that these ancient people understood. What was changed was their relationship with God and they had to live by their own efforts rather than making God (and others) responsible for everything as they did when they blamed God (and snake) for their failure with regards to His command to them.

Yes and the Bible says the earth is supported by pillars and can never be moved.

Yeah the Bible CAN be read like a comic book full of all sorts of magical things never seen in actual life, for which we might put in on the shelf next to Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter. But it doesn’t have to be read that way, and I do not.

14

You seem to be of the belief that morality is best explained through sicence…that we evolved morality. I have to reject that notion…humility is not a result of evolution. I do not see bible support/referencing for it.

Christs death in atoning for sin only became necessary when Adam and Eve sinned.

Next question…

You state in your book

The recorded experiences of the human species constitute the subject we know as History.

But you do not agree with that statement. There are multiple Bible writers who cite creation, the flood, destruction of Sodom and Gomorah, and the Exodus as history. Some of those writers are Moses, Matthew, Luke, and the first bishop of the Christian church (Peter). Note Matthew and Luke are recording Christs own words when they refer to Moses writings.

See matthew 24 (also Luke 17)
38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark. 39And they were oblivious, until the flood came and swept them all away. So will it be at the coming of the Son of Man

The names days, dates, times, places, people…it even says exactly how old individuals within its pages are when certain events occured in their lives. To me that IS recording history.

Btw, have you seen the research on human skull growth with age? The prediction was that if a human skull continued growth for 500 years, our skulls would look a more like Neanderthals. Im not deeply immersed in this idea personally, but it (the research modelling) is there nevertheless and we do have Neanderthal skulls that are strangely similar to the modelling predictions.

1000014185
10000141851920×1599 156 KB

15

You seem to be confusing myth with history. Many people refer back to myths. We know for sur that a global flood never happened. There is 0% evidence to support and tons that go against it.

There is a word tossed around often, contextual analysis. It’s contextual analysis and it’s used to highlight the approach of breaking down a complex idea.

So you mentioned Moses and the Exodus.

One of the first things to do is to understand the genre and literary devices used in the story. So an obvious answer would be is exodus history or is it mythicized history? Does it contain hyperbole? Does it contain tropes common in that time, place and culture.

One bit of evidence for something being mythicized is that it contains lots of supernatural elements and contradictory information.

Well there is definitely a lot of supernatural aspects to the story and common tropes.

For one Moses just happens to use a basket ( same word for ark ) to escape destruction in water. Moses hears a voice in a bush in the wilderness that is on fire. Moses preforms signs and wonders before the Egyptians and Hebrews. The Egyptians also preform magic. A angel of death / god kills a bunch of kids and etc.

We also need to first see does it contain history that is not probable. Well consider the fact archeology does not show and proof of million+ people wandering around Egyptian land at this time. There would be evidence, but it’s just not there.

Another thing is the various inaccuracies in it. Sure could be due to translation issues, or just time and copying errors and so on.

This is a list of various different , and non harmonious, things with exodus compared to other books. Some have legitimate solutions, and some don’t.

https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ex/contra_list.html

Just seems like it was not treated as history as much as a story told through mythicized history.

16

First, let’s make sure we’re speaking the same language. Why do you mean by “scientifically explaining faith.”

As you think about that, it might be valuable for later to keep in the back of your mind if anyone already attempts or has attempted to do this.

17

I was thinking of using a variety of scientific…um, whats the word??? Hmmm…i cant think of the word, can i use “areas of scientific study”?

To show that faith isnt based entirely on mythical fairytale.

You know how atheists largely say that the bible is just stories and that Christ didnt really exist…those kinds of things (i wasnt meaning anything to do with YEC vs TEism) Christian science supporting the notion of God. I kinda like the idea that we can find common ground to witness ro unbelievers.

Im a history kinda guy obviously so theres that, however, i want to scientifically answer the claim the bible is a myth and its just copying other nations and religions.

18

I have never seen science used to convincingly or accurately prove faith. It’s impossible to prove or disprove if Yahweh, Baal, Thor or some tentacle monstrosity covered in eyeballs that moved between multiple universes exist or don’t exist. Closest we can do is to test individual claims to show if what a person is saying is most likely true or not. So if someone says they can lay hands on someone and heal them, I can take them to a hospital or rehabilitation center and see if they can heal someone with cancer or a broken leg immediately and instantly. Or I could write down the names of like 20 patients with stage four cancer and give them 10 names to pray for randomly and see if those 10 have significantly better chances of surviving and so on.

Or if someone claims the earth is young we can look at the scientific evidence available. Or if they claim they had past lives and they remember them. We could try to question them on it though this is difficult unless you are an expert on that person, time or culture. But if you are, so could they also be.

But things like saying you felt the Holy Spirit sent you to this or that place and you ran into something and helped them. You can’t prove if it’s a coincidence, self fulfilling prophecy or something divinely inspired.

1 Like
19

I’ve tried to pull all the bits of our back-and-forth here into one place for myself as well as anyone else who would benefit. My responses to you have been pretty far apart.

Responding in order to the bits I bolded above:
Hmmm. No. I don’t think that describes what I have on my mind. I don’t seek the mystical or mysterious.
I love the plea: “O help my unbelief.” I need that as much as the dad who begged for it.
But, as my friend @Klax pointed out some time ago, in the next verse, Jesus did just that. He healed the man’s son, and helped the father’s unbelief in the same instant. Later in the NT, we are blessed for believing without having seen. I’m glad for that part. But I wouldn’t mind something a great deal more concrete.

I honestly gave up on the idea of proving The Faith as a kid or a teen. I remember talking about it with my sister, when we were probably in junior high school. So my expectations for success in subjecting faith to scientific enquiry have been non-existent for a long time. There is also the enormous question of what aspects of the faith one would subject to scientific enquiries.

This brings me to a question for you, Adam, as I try to understand where you’re coming from. You are quite clear that faith is not scientific or can’t be proved by science. Do I understand you right? But much of what you say sounds similar to things from AIG or the ID folks, who are trying to make a connection between science and faith.
Rather than saying that the Bible and science agree, are you saying that if we read and understood properly, the Bible accurately describes the physical world and its history as it does humans, human nature, humans’ relationship to God, each other and the law, etc? And finally, because the Bible accurately describes all these things, it is our responsibility to submit our understanding of all these things to such a reading of the Bible?

The term “disciplines” comes to my mind, but that might not be the right term outside of academia. Wikipedia recommended to me “Branches of Science.”

I’m not really worried about what atheists say. Most of the atheists I know, who might be most the people I know outside of church, have the decency to treat me with my beliefs with as much respect and kindness as the next person. I do them the same courtesy, and a great many of them are people I love. I am much, Much, MUCH more concerned about all the reasons christianity in the U.S. (the branch of the church I know) give atheists to continue to give wide berth to a church building or any outspoken Christian.

I used to be really annoyed by the “works righteousness” of the book of James. Now it strikes me as probably our best apologetic. At least evidence that even we believe what we say we believe.
Who should take on the burdens that Jesus imposes on Christians, if the Christians themselves won’t, thus demonstrating their own unbelief. Who else should focus on the lordship of Jesus in their lives, if the Christians themselves won’t submit to anything that doesn’t fit in the categories of our desires.

I think as a history kinda guy you have a lot going for you, particularly concerning the NT. You might enjoy some of NT Wright’s comparisons of the work of a historian with the work of a scientist. He gives a description of the work of the historian, sometimes comparing it to the scientific method, starting here: https://youtu.be/pnNV22LspVE?si=lhTo31U3uWFNn9iA&t=841. He ends the section about 7.5 minutes later with this:

Once we allow for the difference in subject matter, history is fully scientific in its method without collapsing into that odd thing called naturalism.

1 Like
20

Good luck with the book, Adam.
Based on the bits you quoted from the author’s description of the book (related to psychology and the sexual revolution), I am not impressed. Imprecise language, vague claims, inaccurate descriptions of the matters in question burden the reader with misinformation, rather than informing the reader or making sound arguments.

There’s already too much work to do in the world. Better ways to spend your time.

Better things to say about faith and Jesus.