Continuing the discussion from How can the scientific individual believe God exists when Bible claims surrounding the notion of salvation are unscientific?:
Exactly right. Most of us (not just scientists) believe that there is no such thing as multiple truths. Multiple opinions? Of course. So, while there may be many opinions as to the sum of 2+2, there is but one solution to this equation and that solution is an objective truth. All else is opinion.
Cheers,
M
How do you define “scientific individual?”
Obviously you do not mean scientists.
I guess you mean people with some delusion that science provides them the beliefs by which they think and live their life.
How can a scientist believe God exists?
By understanding that science requires objective observation but life requires subjective participation. Thus they know that science cannot provide the beliefs by which they live their life.
Truth is for the narrow minded.
LOL So in a courtroom being asked to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” for you means “be narrow minded, wholly narrow minded, and nothing but narrow minded.” I’d like you to tell the judge that for which you might well be held in contempt – and quite deservedly so.
i just love it when people take a sentence out of context and claim it is false
(Both sarcastic and ironic font)
There are empirical or factual truths that are immutable, but that is nit the whole story.
It is the subjective viewpoint that some people cannot identify or understand. The fact that they tend to be of a scientific bent is more to do with the basis of science than truth.
I meant no offence to scientists as a genre.
The whole point about a judicial court is that people view things from different perspectives both actual and perceived. None are lying but they often do not agree. The knack is to identify which truth applies and which does not. When it boils down to motivation the problem really starts. There is a reason Justice is seen to be blind, but in science blindness would be a severe handicap.
Richard
In reality, there are often consequences. Those of the scientific bent look at an idea, determine what consequences that idea will have if it is true, and then run experiments to see if those consequences exist. If, for example, the universe began as a super hot and dense ball of energy and matter which then expanded we can predict what consequences that would have. One of those consequences is a universe wide source of light that was produced as the matter in the universe transitioned from hot, opaque plasma to hot, transparent atoms with nuclei and electrons. That light should resemble black body radiation, and in this time period should be found in microwave region of the light spectrum. So do we see this predicted source of light? Yep, sure do. It’s called the cosmic microwave background.
Blinding yourself to the data is actually a big positive in scientific methodologies. One of the most well known examples are double blind clinical studies where neither the scientists nor the participants know if they are in the experimental or placebo group, and the blind is only removed once the analysis pipeline has been developed on test data.
As to a court of law, DNA evidence is a good example of objective evidence. DNA evidence is only allowed if a sample can be supplied to defense. If the defense team is able to show results that differ from what the prosecution is putting forward then there is a real debate to be had. However, this rarely happens, but it is still a good example of how objectivity is useful.
You are not responding to my thoughts at all you are just stating yours.
The point is not how science or scientific methodology works, it is about what science does not include or recognise. More than that, it is about the way of looking at things as being scientific even if they are not. IOW there must be a right or wrong solution. (black & white) The idea that there could be two valid answers is unthinkable.
Richard
Science doesn’t include subjective opinions, that much is true. Subjectively, it isn’t unthinkable for there to be more than one valid answer. For example, it is entirely valid for one person to claim that the Rolling Stones are better than the Beatles, and for another person to claim the exact opposite.
Even in science it is entirely possible for two different theories to make the same predictions within a given data set. The goal would be to figure out under what conditions we could differentiate between the two theories.
More importantly, Truth with a capital “T” does not exist in science. All conclusions and theories are tentative and are assumed to be incomplete at some level. As the old saying goes, all models in science are wrong, but some are useful.
Reminds me od med school, where they said half of what we are teaching is wrong, we just don’t know which half. Not a lot has changed, but hopefully we have learned a bit more now than then. We still make the best judgements we can given the information available.
So why are people imposing the scientific view onto theology and/or biblical understanding. Theology is not a science. It does not have to abide by the same rules and criteria.
There seem to be those who treat the Bible as scientific data with the same precision in terms of “what the text says”. Scripture was never meant to be treated this way. Faith is not about precision, or right and wrong.
Well maybe there is wrong, but right is less definable.
Richard
Which one is right? or wrong? Does it matter?
" First, I say it seems to me that your Reverence and Signor Galileo act prudently when you content yourselves with speaking hypothetically and no absolutely, as I have always understood that Copernicus spoke. For to say that the assumptions that the Earth moves and the Sun stands still saves all the celestial appearances better than do eccentrics and epicycles is to speak with excellent good sense and to run the risk whatever. Such a manner of speaking suffices for a mathematician. But to want to affirm that the Sun, in very truth, is at the centre of the universe and only rotates on its axis without traveling from east to west, and that the Earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves very swiftly around the Sun, is a very dangerous attitude and one calculated not only to arouse all Scholastic philosophers and theologians but also to injure our holy faith by contradicting the Scriptures….
. . .
Third, I say that, if there were a real proof that the Sun is in the centre of the universe, that the Earth is in the third sphere, and that the Sun does not go round the Earth but the Earth round the Sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and we should rather have to say that we did not understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true."
Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615
Biblical interpretations can be changed, but the facts of the universe can not be changed. If there is conflict between an interpretation of the Bible and the facts of the universe, then the obvious choice (at least to me) is to change the Biblical interpretation.
You have said yourself that there are no facts in science. Everything is waiting to be confirmed or denied by the next piece of research, data or theory
The point being that you hold science above faith and scripture and are derogatory to those whose faith will not accept all your science.
(And the condescending “believe what you want” is still an insult)
Perhaps some people can live with the paradoxical dichotomy of science and Scripture? Do you or anyone else have the right to try and destroy that faith? (Just for the sake/sanctitude of being right.)
How long have you/we been discussing (arguing) with Adam or others who take faith more seriously than science?
Richard
Talk about shooting the messenger! Good grief, Richard! Sure, it’s been noted that all things are provisional and tentative to varying degrees - though some things are so-well established that their “provisionality” separating them from “facthood” is in all practical terms non-existent. The earth is round … and ancient too. (I know you probably don’t dispute all that - which is why I’m using them as examples). These are facts … wouldn’t you want a faith that can deal with them without denying them? Some don’t - and choose to live in la-la land instead. But if they live there, they should expect to be condesended to by those who know facts when they see them. It comes with the territory. Once shown that somebody lacks understanding of something, and they will be spoken to as one who needs to gain understanding. It wouldn’t just be @T_aquaticus but hopefully anybody and everybody here who believes there are such things as truth and reality. Any faith that can’t learn to live with truth and reality is probably not a faith worth pursuing.
I don’t believe I have ever said that there are no facts. I have said that there is no Truth with a capital T in science. I will agree that theories are held tentatively, but facts are not. The purpose of theories is to explain the facts.
I don’t hold to any of those positions. I have great respect for faith, and I have beliefs that I hold through faith. I don’t view them as being lesser or greater, just different.
What I don’t have much respect for is those who ignore facts.
Don’t you?
I’m not one to ignore reality because it might contradict someone’s beliefs.
It’s Adam’s misrepresentation of reality that I criticize.
Clearly my verbal eloquence has left me. It is not about shooting the messenger, it is more “leave them be.” Ignorance really can be bliss. Do we have the right let alone obligation to overturn that ignorance or naivity?
Richard
St. Augustine certainly had an opinion on the matter:
“It is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel [unbeliever] to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn … If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well, and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books [Scriptures], how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?”
–St. Augustine, “The Literal Meaning of Genesis”
Don’t you have an opinion of your own? I wasn’t asking Sunday Gustine, I was asking you.
And I was no talking specifically about someone mouthing off ignorance and expecting you to take notice’
I was talking about forcing people to confront something that they had not considered relevant and in doing so causing more harm than good. You can mouth off @adamjedgar as much as you like he has heard it all before. You might consider it willful ignorance but he has put himself out here.
Richard
Im seeing a pattern there which i dissagree with…that science appears ro be its own entity (if you will).
Science is simply a tool, it doesnt know or do anything without “us”…because we invented it.
God clearly earbashed Job about that in chapter 38…
2“Who is this who obscures My counsel
by words without knowledge?a
3Now brace yourselfb like a man;
I will question you, and you shall inform Me.c
4Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding.
5Who fixed its measurements? Surely you know!
We havent a clue if our science is even right…the only thing we can be sure of is that it appears to fit when the dots are joined. This doesnt mean its right though…not in the slightest and thatis because the very basic knowledge of exactly how God did it remains unknown. We are extrapolating by working backwards…this requires some significant assumptions.
I think St. Augustine hit it on the head.
I’m not going to peoples houses, forcing their eyes open like in Clockwork Orange, and forcing them to read posts on BioLogos. I assume people are here of their own free will and have decided for themselves to read these posts.
This reply is not directed at @RichardG but at the nature of the debate.
Speaking just for myself (a former practicing research scientist) I had to justify my PhD thesis before a thesis committee composed of 5 faculty members, three of whom thought I had wandered too far afield. Upon reflection, a stern lecture from my thesis advisor, and another 6 months of additional work, I was able to convince myself that I hadn’t done a particularly good job the first time (my wife and friends still thought I was pretty smart tho’). At my next (and final defense) the professors who trashed my thesis the first time, trashed it again, but acknowledged I had covered by bases well and merited the degree.
What are we to make of this? I think the first is that we should acknowledge that just because one sincerely believes in a thing doesn’t validate the belief. In scientific research what one believes to be true is, in fact, an opinion. And, if one can get broad agreement on what you believe by people who are credible in their field then one’s opinion becomes interesting.
What counts is whether one’s arguments persuade those who disagree.
As I am sure you are aware, the same type of thing happens in the peer review process. Sometimes you get reviewers who you simply disagree with, and it can be pretty frustrating.
Those who disagree also need to demonstrate they are persuadable. For example, I don’t think we should conclude the evidence for a globe Earth is poor just because there are Flat Earthers who aren’t convinced by it.
certainly the two are essential of that there is no doubt
However, I do not agree that faith and science are necessarily a dichotomy. I take a far more positive approach to the issues at hand, that we can find solutions to the perceived objections, that science can fit the bible (thing is, we cant change the bible)
Its Gods direct revelation to us via his patriarchs/prophets/kings/Messiah/Apostles.
In the ANE realm, it demonstrably is a dichotomy. I can say demonstrably because ANE regularly reinterprets, re-translates, re rewrites scripture in order to make the bible understanding fit with what science apparently says is true historically. The thing is, science doesn’t say anything, it doesn’t interpret anything…we do, and we are good at jumping on bandwagons that suit our ideas…we form collectives of like-minded individuals, we even form entire cultures around such beliefs. Interpretations are the source of beliefs…even for the scientist.
For me, the problem there is that the idea of science is absolute, this is a modern approach that presents some seriously deficient theological problems…it causes enormous inconsistencies within the Christian religion that is made even worse when some of the best scientific minds make the following statements:
Charles Darwin
Stephen Hawking
We cannot ignore the following facts:
Christ clearly says “as in the days of Noah, a flood come and swept them all away” (directly referencing Genesis 6 and 7 claim that “all living things that creepeth on the earth were wiped out” …it clearly says of humanity, that it was only Noah and his immediately family who were on the ark that survived.
Christ makes reference to the Genesis flood account as a global event in the same context as he is talking about the Second Coming as a global event.
A localised flood event is not supporting the kind of worldwide event the Second Coming is prophesied to be. So for the Christian, it is impossible to ignore that evidence of faith despite what some naturalists choose to assemble in an alternative world view.
The overriding biblical theme is quite clearly global/universal:
God creates a world and Mankind (global event)
God destroys life on this planet because of corruption. The corruption is global, not local)
God sends His own son to provide an avenue for salvation for all mankind (global, not local)
God even told us he was going to do this in Genesis Chapter 3 (global, not local)
God foretells us of the Second Coming in Luke 21 (clearly global, not local)
A new Heaven and New Earth in Revelation 21 (clearly global/universal…not local)
The bible is full of local stories/experiences, that is certain. However, these stories are to teach global/universal truths and the difference here is that they are being cited in such a way as to make it easy for us to know that they are local/individual events. A common reading of language demonstrates quite clearly to us that we know the difference. God does not demonstrate in the bible the notion that he is intent on not being able to understand; there is always an interpreter who resolves that dilemma for us at the appropriate time. The thing is, the bible canon was completed 1500 years ago…there is not further translation beyond its pages.
I will finish with quote from Fred Hoyle - particularly love the first one…the idea that God has the capacity to play with and even make a laughing stock of what humanity considers are immutable laws of reality.
Fred Hoyle highlights the stupidity in human reasoning here I think:
To God, science is insignificant. To ANE it is a pedastool. As a YEC, i do not face that dilemma. My science fits the bible without inconsistency in theology (which is inherent in the bible story and history). The Bible is already Gods revelation in human language…it quite explicitly explains that…the notion of ANE that it must be reinterpreted is not only wrong, its antibiblical.
Google AI summary of how we know the Bible does the interpreting
- The Principle of Context:
- The Bible is a cohesive body of literature with a clear narrative and overarching theme. Understanding a particular passage requires considering its context within the broader biblical narrative, including its historical, cultural, and literary setting.
- This means that understanding a verse in isolation can lead to misinterpretations. By comparing and contrasting different passages on the same topic, one can gain a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of the Bible’s teachings.
- The Use of Repetition and Amplification:
- The Bible often repeats key concepts or themes in different contexts, providing a more thorough explanation and emphasizing the importance of these ideas.
- By comparing these different repetitions, one can gain a deeper understanding of the meaning and application of these concepts.
- The Role of Jesus as the Interpreter:
- In the New Testament, Jesus is presented as the ultimate interpreter of the Old Testament. He explains the Old Testament prophecies and laws, demonstrating how they apply to the new covenant and his own person and ministry.
- This suggests that the Bible should be understood in the light of Christ, and that the Old Testament foreshadows and finds fulfillment in the New Testament.
- The Authority of Scripture:
- The Bible claims to be God’s Word and therefore infallible. This implies that the Bible is capable of accurately conveying God’s message and that its teachings are consistent and reliable.
- If the Bible were not capable of self-interpretation, it would undermine its own authority and trustworthiness.
- The Role of the Holy Spirit:
- The Holy Spirit is believed to guide believers in understanding the Bible. The Holy Spirit helps believers to discern the true meaning of the text and to apply it to their lives.
- The Holy Spirit’s role in guiding believers in understanding the Bible reinforces the idea that the Bible can be understood through careful study and prayerful contemplation, rather than relying solely on personal interpretations.
“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.
