I had to stop and think about that a while, but I think I agree.
1 Like
I fail to see why you refuse to allow God to reign sovereignly though providence. I answered as directly as your short-sighted question allows.
It is not an excuse because it is reality. Science is important to everyone… because it is about reality.
I guess that precludes your enjoying our providential God as your providing Father as much as you might, speaking of relationship. But I can be glad you’re his child anyway.
1 Like
Fix your eyes on Jesus, not the storm(s). I know who is in charge, and so should you.
Lets just say that my view of Him is different to yours but my appreciation of Him is no different.
No matter how it is accomplished we both agree that God watches over us.
It would be inappropriate to finish with God Bless. I know He does
Richard
If you do not appreciate his storms (his disciplinary storms too), then our appreciation is definitely different, maybe not in degree, but in comprehensiveness.
Don’t push your luck (oops)
Richard
I didn’t say comprehension. Shall we talk about altruism. 
Oh yeah, was that luck in the strict theological sense of the word? 
This VFA vs VFB is pretentious nonsense. There are only human beings here, so all views are views from below. Scripture, written in human languages by human beings are likewise views from below. I refute all pretentions by human beings that they can ever speak for God, and the use of scripture doesn’t change this in the slightest. Yes I believe the Bible is the word of God but no I do not accept the claim that this means it grants anyone a view from above or allows them to speak for God. Nor will I accept this use of an imagined VFA or mystery as a rug under which you can sweep rational inconsistencies. Arguments which are irrational and inconsistent are simply meaningless.
It is like claiming that because an author has a spirit then even though he uses pen and paper to write a book, the book has become a non-physical entity. This simply isn’t true. With the Bible, humans are the pens and human language is the ink. So since God used human beings to write the Bible in human languages the Bible consists entirely of views from below. No human being will ever have access to a view from above. This is why salvation is a work of God alone and never an accomplishment of human beings.
1 Like
It’s just a useful convention to distinguish between science and theology, to distinguish between the methodological and the metaphysical, that’s all. It’s not projecting or presuming any authority – it’s merely descriptive.
You didn’t object when it was first presented the other day, and in fact participated, The Two Views (and a mix).
That should be/should have been the place to complain, I would have thought.
2 Likes
It only exists in your mind and the mind of the person who invented it That it has been given any credence at all is a sign of the generosity of this forum rather than a proof of its existence.
To claim that it is not only a thing, but also that everyone should agree with it is the height of arrogance.
Richard
My first reaction to nonsense is to simply ignore it… like random noise. There are a lot of things competing for our attention. But when I see people using it as building blocks for arguments then I start paying attention and investigate to see if there is anything to it. I only participated in the other discussion when I saw something worth commenting on.
Science is objective and theology is subjective. Science is based on written procedures giving the same result no matter what you want or believe and thus there is a reasonable expectation that others should agree. Theology is based on reason from premises accepted by choice/faith and thus provides no basis for a reasonable expectation that others should agree.
I do not acknowledge this use of the word “metaphysical” as meaningful any more than this distinction between VFA and VFB. Metaphysics is simply the philosophical study of the nature of reality. This other popular usage looks like empty rhetoric to me.
1 Like
He’s been battering me with metaphysics and methodology for weeks now.as if the type of viewpoint can affect what is acceptable or not. So that you can include God if you are talking one way and ignore him if you are talking another way. The net result of all this mumbo jumbo is that he can believe that God controls all the minute changes of Evolution but still argue Survival of the Fittest (et al) as controlling factors. And when I object it is me who does not understand.
Richard
We come from opposite directions. I am a scientist who found value in religion. While it is true science affords some objectivity which provides a reasonable expectation that others should agree, it can only do that because of severe restrictions.
Life is far more than the objective observations of science. It requires subjective participation, where what we want and believe is important… even central. Life is all about imposing our own order on reality and without belief there is no perception.
But the point is that we cannot ignore this subjective aspect of our existence… not that we should follow whatever desires pop into heads blindly. Indeed we quickly learn that our desires can mislead us rather badly and we would do well to find wiser passions and pursuits. So I often claim that heart’s desire most often leads us into hell, while heaven requires embracing God’s desire for us.
But while this wisdom of religion is more important, its truth is more subtle – found beneath the surface. Thus efforts to make religion into the surface replacing science can only be self-defeating. Furthermore putting religion in opposition to science will only damage its credibility.
There is no putting God under a microscope. You cannot find God that way. God is concerned with our beliefs and desires, which is precisely what the objectivity of science excludes. So there is no objective access to God, and no place for God in the work of science. In that respect, you are not wrong if you think science is of little importance by comparison.
On the other hand, opposing and excluding science will not serve any good purpose. Being ultimately superficial doesn’t make it any less true or real. You cannot ask people to look underneath or beyond the surface unless you first acknowledge and accept that surface reality.
You and I agree that evolution is not control – the very opposite of design. I see that as a good thing because I cannot believe or support this controlling God Dale stubbornly insists upon. But that is where our discussions end in confusion. Why would you see this aspect of evolution as a bad thing, unless you also want to insist upon this controlling God also? It seems the disparity between our ways of thinking are even more profound, where you will deny any consistency between cause/means and effect/result.
1 Like
I don’t see any point in quibbling about a couple of simple labels. If you want to make a big deal about them (too late, you already have ; - ), that is certainly your prerogative. Science we view from below, methodologically, only the physical realm. When discussing theology, we include the ‘heavenly’ view from above and talk about God and the spiritual realm.
1 Like
Because you cannot have two controls. If God is working at the bottom Survival can and would work against it. If Survival is a factor then any view of God must incorporate it not ignore it.
I have said elsewhere that I cannot give a valid answer as to how God fits into evolution. I am not going to claim evolution as a total fallacy. All my faith can do is claim that there are aspects of Creation where God is but neither I nor anyone else can discern it, at least with certainty. What I refuse to do is try and polorise my views and claim they can work together. I cannot ignore God for the sake of promoting science.But neither will I claim God into a place where He does not sit comfortably due to scientific knowledge.
Richard
Do you mean the VFB? 
Don’t conflate them.
So you are pushing the controlling God same as Dale? This logically follows when you insist on control only in the hands of God. There is no control in evolution – far from it. There is only the freedom of living organisms to look for their own way to survive. God created the rules – the way it all works. And He did it this way because he values that freedom of living things to make their own decisions.
Why should you promote science? There is no need. Science is just a human activity like any other – like football for example. Such activities enrich our lives. But putting religion in opposition to science is no less foolish (rather much more so) than putting religion in opposition to football.
I can only acknowledge your ability to speak of your own comfort and not of any ability to speak to the comfort of God.
I doubt Richard has any more interest in “VFB” than I do. I believe He was speaking of God working inside evolution.
That is not what I said.
I dd not say that either
I have said that
Are you trying to misunderstand me?
I said nothing bout sitting in God’s place or His comfort. I said that I would not insert God into science. The comfort refers to the restrictions of science not anything about God.
Thank you
Richard
That’s a great comparison!
2 Likes