Ah exactly…and cant that testing be scientific? We could test historically, we could test socially…have you looked into neurotheology? One idea is that prayer has a real measurable impact on the brain neurologically and indeed having a relationship with God really changes us in scientifically measurable ways.
I just thought that because the book was mentioned here, its important that i make an effort to read it even though i may or may not agree with the writers ideas, im sure i will learn things from his experiences that i hadnt thought of before.
Also, remember the novel To Killa Mockingbird…
“You never really know a person until you see things from his point of view, to get into his shoes and walk around in them”
i hope my quote is right…its been 40 years since i read the novel in high school but its impact on me remains. I know the book isnt about religion and science however, racism exists with many masks…im trying to walk around in others shoes here to better understand them.
1 Like
hard question to answer because i natively agree that faith cant be tested scientifically. Having said that, the “fruits of our faith” i think can be.
This is new territory beyond even the fruits of faith test i think.
In terms of AIG, I wasnt aware of the AIG position on this. Maybe ive read it but didnt actually take their view in im not sure. There is a lot of stuff that AIG preach that i ignore. Despite the fact that they are quite interesting, you have to remember i am SDA and we delve very deeply into biblical theology and there is a lot of cross linking in our denominations theological views. So where AIG theology is not well founded and i see the “rednecks” shining through, my eyes glaze over and i move on.
As ive mentioned to another responding here, i was recently introduced to the idea of Neurotheology. The idea that a relationship with God changes us in ways that can be tested. Ive heard John Lennox claim that we can test faith in measurable ways, usually he gets scoffed at.
Steve [author steve],
in your book you say
“John Locke saw human nature as a blank slate - neither good nor bad”
“Jacques Rousseau, mthmake of the noble savage, saw human nature as basically good, blaming evil and violence on societal influences.”
“The Bible, history, and science prove Locke and Rousseau wrong”
If i look back on my children when they were very young, i have to say that at that age, they are any but evil or violent, nor do they exibit any such behavioural tendencies…quite the opposite actually (which agrees with both Locke and Rousseau). So in my personal experience with 5 kids, i have to dissagree completely with your statement there.
Some might then attack me with biblical theology on this (ie that the bible says mankind is born evil). However, that is not what i think the bible actually says. It says that we are born under the umbrella of the wages of sin is death and that we are all separated from God, however, even Christ specifically said to those around him “unless you become like little children you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven”. (Matthew 18:3)
I think that Christ statement there says that children are not evil! That would actually be perfectly consistent with Rouseau and Lockes research and claims. Is also something i have noticed in my own personal experience.
How exactly does science prove Locke and Rousseau wrong?
Steve another question…
in your book you say “in the kjv the word humility appears only 8 times”
The thing is, when i do a search on biblehub.com, the word “humble” appears generically in the bible 314 times!
The above doesnt detract from the importance of your discussion about pride as we know the bible states that “pride goeth before a fall”, just that its kinda misleads the reader into thinking humility isnt important biblically and that focus on pride is more important.
The reality is, the very foundation of the Gospel is humility (being humble). Christ (God) humbled himself taking on the form of his own creation and died for their sins on a cross! (phillipians 2:7 and Isaiah 52)
2 Likes
It’s good advice, no matter if you quoted it perfectly or not, or if it is in a church context or not. Thanks for the reminder.
2 Likes
I’m not familiar with it, except as you describe it.
Your description brings many questions to mind, though.
What changes?
What is meant by “a relationship with God”?
Are there other things that cause the same changes?
If so, does that tell us anything about the causes of these changes?
And many, many more…
What would this mean for “scientific testing of faith” if there were other things that caused the same changes?
Are there other things you would want to test? What do you think they might show or how?
What did you think of @SkovandOfMitaze’s points about prayer studies?
I am not sure you answered my question from earlier:
So, I’m bringing it back up.
1 Like
I had not heard of Neurotheology until yesterday in Church.
The sermon was specifically about prayer and how that changes us. However, i think the subject of Neurotheology is broader than that.
Without having read into it yet, i wondered if perhaps anyone here already had insight into this topic given its an area of science rather than theology?
I was hoping to avoid getting into the above simply because my answer to that (which is denominationally yes) would create tension and might detract from your ideas on the notion that faith could be tested scientifically.
John Lennox says that he believes we can test faith (if i understand him corretly)…although my understanding is that he may be referring more to social testing. We know that social change can be tested scientifically, however, i was wanting to look at other areas where we could scientifically prove (if you like) that faith is logical and real.
Im thinking scientific areas such as:
mathematics
physchology
social sciences
archeology
historical
physics
chemistry
biology (not evolutionary)
engineering
astronomy
etc
note we already have lots of science about all of the above…im talking about how that existing stuff might be used to string together a logical presentation for a kind of scientific proof of faith.
It would still consider miracles and all those things that one would not normally claim can be tested scientifially…but what if in fact we sort of can produce enough science results from the various areas of study that mathematically probability might then be used to show a high correlation?
I had forgotten when you first mentioned it that I had read this BL article about it a while back. As grandiose as the author makes the idea sound, he concludes that the discipline can tell us about ourselves. He makes no claim about the discipline providing information about the actual content or target of faith, really faiths.
Fair enough. My purpose in asking, however, is not to argue whether I think your perspective is correct or not, but to understand better how you are looking at things. We can leave it.
We both need to be more clear about what we mean here, I think.
I think you probaby don’t mean wanting to prove “faith” as “belief”, that is that you don’t intend to prove that people can hold some sort of faith or belief, or what that believing is from the side of the person.
Although, looking at the effects on humans of faith and any other form of belief (including non-religious) and resulting practices and the effects of those – those are observable in many ways and so could be studied. Many have been already.
and
Specifically what would you examine and study in order to do this? Can you get down to the nitty gritty? Or can you get to a specific question you would seek to explore that uses things that can be observed? If you can’t observe the things directly and must rely on examining it indirectly (rather like determining the existence of stars one cannot actually see, for example) you will need to be able to determine your results aren’t caused by something else. Etc. etc.
What would you test in such a way?
In a different direction, have you looked for attempts that have already been made and read about them? Did they succeed? If not, where did they go wrong?
The tricky thing with success in your quest, though, is the problem of ongoing research. What happens if you develop a hypothesis, test it, and then someone else repeats your study and finds it faulty? Or explainable in other, better ways?
I thought i would add an update on this book.
I am now at page 32.
After having a few grumblings with Steves initial presuppositions, now ive gotten into the book, i am thoroughly enjoying it.
I was worried i may have to put up with constant attacks on the historicity of the biblical narrative. However thus far i am pleasantly surprised in that Steve has quite beautifully managed to avoid such attacks instead focusing on his title. This has really drawn me in as i worried this approach might not be possible.
I have to say, this book for me is enticing…im really looking forward to where it leads.
I partiularly love this statement Steve makes about the lesson we can draw from the fall of Adam and Eve…
Their eyes were, of course, not opened, but they believed they had been. They were less like God than ever, but they believed just the opposite. Their moral compass was permanently demagnetized, but they trusted in their newfound “knowledge” of good and evil. Thus, they could decide for themselves between right and wrong. Rather than the anticipated glory, they were stricken with guilt and shame.
.
Thus far as a YEC who is highly suspicious of anything coming from “the opposition” I have to say im loving this book Steve. I expect to take a lot away from your efforts here even though there will be areas where we dissagree.
ill start a new topic.
1 Like
I must preface what I am about to say; by putting out there that I was, until I retired, Employed at a State Health Laboratory for almost 40 years. I have been involved in the Lay Ministry of some kind for at least 20 years. I was a commissioned member of the Lutheran Laity.
Again drawing from both wells at almost the same time. Yes, it is quite true that some things in the Bible and other resources “can” be explained through “science”.
Should they? Probably not. And it isn’t an intelligence issue (present-day). The Bible was written at a time when few people (except maybe the Arabs) knew enough about science to not be dangerous. With a few exceptions, the points in the Bible are not based, on or grounded in science. They are a selected text method of explanation of pre-Christian and post-Christian “events” and “ideals” that in the end run are rather strictly designed to derive an even more specific life choice or response.
If you open the door to science when talking Sola Fide; it gets really weird really fast. And you have to be able to come up with satisfactory theoretical explanations for what you are calling “science”. You can’t get away with “it’s in there”. There are extremely good and valid reasons why most, if not all, scientific papers, have “peer review”.
As I said, it gets weird really fast.
Was Adam and Eve, diploid, was Jesus? If Mary didn’t contribute any chromosomes; did God create both sets?
If we acknowledge from Scripture that there were two tracks of humanity; The Seth line, and the Cain line, in a place in some translations called Nod, away from his father and mother.
Does that mean were not “all” descended from Adam and Eve?
There is a big reason for the somewhat Protestant doctrine of “Sola Scriptura”. Scholars and pundits, scribes, and storytellers have labored for thousands of years to get it right. Preach simply what is in the Bible, and nothing else.
And what you do preach, be prepared for questions; and never ever never say to someone: “It’s in there”.
If all those men (and perhaps a few women) thought that something was important to be put in the text, it would have been there.
ab uno disce omnes,
Ken
3 Likes
Probably because he lets the Bible be what it is rather than trying to cram it into a modern worldview.
Well, it certainly wasn’t because they had the notion that to be true the scriptures they knew had to be 100% scientifically reliable!
Some claim it’s been done, that what we call “faith” is a phenomenon resulting from certain operations in the brain, and that we have no more choice whether to have faith than whether to like hot peppers, that both are determined by factors we don’t control.
And yet Hebrew scholars back before we had telescopes even concluded that what was in Genesis told us that the universe started out smaller than a grain of mustard (i.e. the smallest thing possible), that it expanded unfathomably rapidly and was filled with fluid, that as it expanded the fluid thinned until it was thin enough that light could shine and so God commanded light to exist.
That’s no after-the-fact claim, it’s conclusions drawn from the Hebrew back before Galileo.
It can’t be said to be wrong when it isn’t making any claims to be wrong about.
No, because God tells us that the creation declares His glory and praises Him, which informs us that it wasn’t all that messed up.
1 Like
Actually it doesn’t necessarily say those appeared because of sin, just that they would have to deal with them because of sin. It’s a not uncommon view that God was describing the conditions outside the Garden and the curse came from having to live outside the Garden.
That’s how YEC works – they pick and choose what to take as science and what to ignore. Then they add science fiction, like the whole bit about volcanoes.
You keep making that claim but have never supported it beyond just saying so. One of the great lessons I got in grad school was to never try to make an ancient text say more than is realy there, and that applies to the Bible as well.
So you would agree that Tom Clancy and John Grisham’s books are history? They meet your qualifications!
- Myth was how ancient people said, “These are things that are really true”.
- It’s a fact that the Bible copies things from other nations, for example that Moses used the Egyptian creation story for the opening Genesis Creation story. It was a way of saying, no, your god didn’t do that, he’s (or they’re) bogus!
The fascinating thing to me is that though I have witnessed several miracles, not a single one was something that was sought or planned; all the “Be healed now!” stuff I witnessed was fake (interestingly, there was a paper when I was in grad school that some of these “healers” actually didn’t know they were faking it).
1 Like
That’s pretty darned close to how a rabbi I knew in grad school explained it!
1 Like
No. The story is definitely painting the picture that thorns and so on arose because of sin. Just like it was claiming the world had a dome over it, and claimed birds before land animals and angiosperms before sharks and that giant sea serpents lived in water and angels got ladies pregnant who gave birth to giants. There myth was scientifically inaccurate and those who think otherwise just don’t really have a good grasp of science.
“humility is not a result of evolution”
Was humility or humanity meant?
There is plenty of physical evidence to support that the physical origins of humanity took place through evolutionary processes.
Humility, on the other hand, is much more complex and intangible. Although one can say that the neural structures that enable humility were physically built through an evolutionary process, that doesn’t mean that one would have that attitude, just a capacity. Is humility evolutionarily advantageous? One can imagine situations in which it could provide biological advantages or disadvantages. As Steve Gould noted with regard to many such scenarios, proving that such imagined scenarios actually led to a particular feature is rarely possible, especially when there isn’t a straightforward biological function for the feature.
Asserting that “The story is definitely painting the picture that…” seems to adapt the creation science insistence on a literalistic reading. Is Genesis 1 intended to tell anything about sequence? Given other ancient Near Eastern examples of the seven day metaphor and the different sequences in Genesis 2 and Ps 104, probably not. Several different interpretations are proposed for the cryptic passing reference to sons of God and daughters of men. Certainly the Bible makes use of myth, but is it scientifically inaccurate or simply not talking about science at all?
Science in the background in the Bible is reasonably accurate. It depicts the geography, biota, etc. of the ancient Near East. Apart from the occasional miracle which is highlighted precisely because it is an exception, basic physical laws are in operation, e.g., gravity is the same (contrary to the implications of one of Setterfield’s ridiculous attempts to salvage his false claims about decaying speed of light).
Although several miracles do have possible “natural” components, insisting on a highly implausible “scientific” explanation is unreasonable, just as denying that God could have used physical means is unreasonable. For example, God sending fire to Elijah’s altar could perhaps have been a very precisely aimed lightning strike; the account is too vague to say much more than that. But claiming that the water that Elijah had poured over the altar was really lighter fluid is not credible; “black gold” is black and technology to refine hydrocarbons was far in the future.
2 Likes
I have to respond to this as its ridiculous…
Have you ever seen a manmade fountain?
You are playing games with figures of speech!
So no, i ve not ignored the second part at all…all YEC claim it rained in addition to sub surface water bursting fourth in the flood. Its your doctrine that denies the Genesis flood, not mine.
Id suggest familiarising yourself with the literary practise by researching some more modern historical use of it:
The “Wind of Change” speech was an address made by British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan to the Parliament of South Africa on 3 February 1960 in Cape Town
We could play games with this all day. For example, “clouds of heaven”. Does that mean heaven is only a few hundred or thousand feet above us in earths atmosphere? Obvously not, but it also does not mean we (ie Christians) can deduce scientifically that because of the use of this literary technique that there is no biblical heaven and that is the game you are in effect playing here.
Another favourite you should he more familiar with…“pillars of the earth”. Im supposing because of the non literal assignment to such biblical statements by your side…the earth doesnt exist now because that is the correlation you are drawing from the “windows/floodgates of heaven” literary technique (if one is to remain consistent that is)
Now that your claim there has been falsified, im not going to waste anymore time on this nonsense.
.
You can’t be wrong about science if you aren’t making scientific claims.
But their cosmology, if you insist that Genesis addresses that science, was observationally sound: look around with your eyes and walk a distance on the ground and the conclusion is that it is flat; climb a hill in a river-deposit plain and the horizon is a circle; look up and around and there’s blue that seems the same distance away everywhere
That’s no more true than claiming that it tells us that in Eden Adam didn’t sweat. This is no novel suggestion; the idea that the thorns and thistles were natural outside the Garden has a long heritage. One scholar – I forget whether Jewish or Christian – long ago noted that Adam’s task was to have been to tame the “wilderness” outside the Garden, and the curse was that Adam no longer had the ability to do so as intended, so the ground was cursed in that its destiny of “garden-ness” was stolen from it. Either view can be argued for from the Hebrew.
1 Like
And the fact that the first Creation story follows the sequence of events in the Egyptian story, but in the Egyptian version it all happened in a day. There’s even a Mesopotamian version where creation was all carried out in a single morning.
Not merely not talking about science, it doesn’t care about science – there is no evidence anywhere in the scriptures that scientific knowledge was considered important or that (significantly) it would even be considered to fall into the category we call “truth”.
That is such a load of crap it amazes me that anyone with a decent education would fall for it – but then I stop and think and realize that by “decent education” what I really mean is “has taken and passed a senior-level, calculus-based physics course”.
For anyone who wants to know more about Setterfield’s fiasco: The Decay of c-decay
Lightning strike is too quick. Maybe a GRB? (gamma ray burst)
Hey, Jesus turned water to wine; if you just skip everything in wine except the alcohol . . . . 
1 Like