Evidence for God from Science

Canuckster1127 wrote:

waynepii wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:And again, use any such website to see the error of your thinking. The Bible didn't teach the earth was flat (from a literal perspective), nor did it teach the earth is the center of the universe (from a literal perspective). Actually, it was the prevailing wordview of in both cases that caused the Bible to be read as such, rather like is happening today with TE.

Did the Church not threaten Galileo with excommunication for his views on heliocentrism? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Ga ... ontroversy.

Yes the Church did. There was more involved in terms of internal politics at the time, but that was the stated reason Galileo was threatened with excommunication and it was the reason he bowed to the pressure and recanted his position.

So the Church (mis)interpreted the Bible for its own purposes?

The Roman Catholic Church of that time not only had issues of Biblical interpretation surrounding Galilieo but also matters of internal politics related to those under whom Galileo held patronage, and of course, the whole matter was very public and Galileo was a very famous person.

I don't have a need to defend the Roman Catholic Church in this matter. I think it's fair to say however, that the whole situation surrounding Galileo was complex and involved many other things than just concern over hermeneutics and submission to Church authority. There were personality conflicts, posturing for current and future power and Galileo himself had no small number of enemies that he'd accumulated over the years because he was not a particularly humble man with regard to his own brilliance and importance and he wasn't afraid to make that known and had stepped on toes that welcomed the opportunity to take him down a peg.

All that said, the Roman Catholic Church actually issued an apology to Galileo in the 1990's under John Paul II including an acknowledgement that he'd been unfairly treated and that his position was correct. See? If you're patient enough eventually an apology can come .... (apologies to my friend Byblos, whom I love by the way .....)

Is it reasonable then to say that some care is warranted in Biblical interpretation?

BTW I did not intend this as a "tangent" to the thread topic but rather was intended as en pointe. If a case is to be made that Christianity precludes evolution, I would ask for evidence that the Bible interpretation used to arrive at that conclusion is the correct one.

waynepii wrote:Is it reasonable then to say that some care is warranted in Biblical interpretation?

BTW I did not intend this as a "tangent" to the thread topic but rather was intended as en pointe. If a case is to be made that Christianity precludes evolution, I would ask for evidence that the Bible interpretation used to arrive at that conclusion is the correct one.

I think it is reasonable to say that care is warranted in Biblical interpretation.

Again, "evolution" is a loaded word. It has a narrow definition scientifically and then it has a broader definition philosophically and the two are confused routinely.

That broad definition effectively embraces a position of defining reality by that which is material and physical only and precluding the supernatural. That is what is incompatible with Christianity.

The narrow definition of the word in the scientific sense where evolution is a change in the frequency of alleles within the gene pool from one generation to the next, is not incompatible with Christianity. Science by definition can only deal with the physical. It cannot answer "why" at the highest level. It's equipped to answer "how" most effectively and only when that "how" can ideally be observed directly and then that which is inferred in the past based upon present observation.

That broad definition effectively embraces a position of defining reality by that which is material and physical only and precluding the supernatural. That is what is incompatible with Christianity.

Precluding the supernatural is kinda' incompatible with religion, wouldn't you say?

waynepii wrote:

That broad definition effectively embraces a position of defining reality by that which is material and physical only and precluding the supernatural. That is what is incompatible with Christianity.

Precluding the supernatural is kinda' incompatible with religion, wouldn't you say?

In General yes, although there are some religious systems where that's less of an issue than with Christianity, some variants of Buddhism for example.

Canuckster wrote:The mindset and intent of the human author in a passage of scripture is important. However, when you add plenary inspiration to the mix you also have to allow for the possibility that the guidance of the Holy Spirit is communicating through the context of the author, the culture, the vocabulary etc. something that is beyond the full understanding or comprehension of the human author. In fact, if that weren't the case, it wouldn't by definition be "revelation."

Don't you have it backwards, Bart?

If something can't be comprehended or understood, then it cannot be considered revelation. We say something is revealed when something was not previously known is now made known. But if it was not known to Moses, then it was not revealed to him, and thus not revelation.

Jac3510 wrote:

Canuckster wrote:The mindset and intent of the human author in a passage of scripture is important. However, when you add plenary inspiration to the mix you also have to allow for the possibility that the guidance of the Holy Spirit is communicating through the context of the author, the culture, the vocabulary etc. something that is beyond the full understanding or comprehension of the human author. In fact, if that weren't the case, it wouldn't by definition be "revelation."

Don't you have it backwards, Bart?

If something can't be comprehended or understood, then it cannot be considered revelation. We say something is revealed when something was not previously known is now made known. But if it was not known to Moses, then it was not revealed to him, and thus not revelation.

Who said it can't be comprehended or understood? You're extending what I said beyond the initial qualifier of the human author through whom revelation is given. Can you think of any instances in Scripture where the one giving the message was not the one who understood it or understood it fully? In the context of even plenary revelation, it's certainly common that the human author understands the message, but it's not always the case or essential. Prophecy or apoolyptic literature would be easy examples of that, although I'm not suggesting that these passages are that. Revelation by definition implies the guidance and input of God and the Holy Spirit upon the human author to where what that human author writes is more than they would otherwise be able to do in their own power and knowledge, doesn't it?

In the case of Genesis 1 - 2 again, I don't think the purpose of the Book is to give us a handbook of the methods and exact timing of creation. I think the primary purpose is to affirms God's proactive hand in creation, the existance of a plan and purpose that tied Israel as his Chosen nation for the blessing of all nations. That doesn't diminish at all, in my mind that we should take all we can but attempting to read it as 21st century scientific treatise and force it into that context, makes no sense in my mind.

As I stated before, I'm in agreement with you that the text establishes that God created man from dust, probably instananeously and breathed life into him. My faith however is in God and the text, and I don't confuse those (or I try not to anyway) with my understanding or theology. If compelling evidence could be provided to convince me otherwise, I'm open to that. Of course, the interpretation of evidence is open to the same caveat. The interpretation of evidence is not evidence in and of itself, and I think particularly in this area of science there is a real danger of carrying the parameters of science which excludes the supernatural forward into a context where that is not the case.

Who said it can't be comprehended or understood? You're extending what I said beyond the initial qualifier of the human author through whom revelation is given. Can you think of any instances in Scripture where the one giving the message was not the one who understood it or understood it fully? In the context of even plenary revelation, it's certainly common that the human author understands the message, but it's not always the case or essential. Prophecy or apoolyptic literature would be easy examples of that, although I'm not suggesting that these passages are that. Revelation by definition implies the guidance and input of God and the Holy Spirit upon the human author to where what that human author writes is more than they would otherwise be able to do in their own power and knowledge, doesn't it?

I took your statement that revelation could be "beyond the full understanding or comprehension of the human author" as being that there were circumstances in which it could not be understood. Perhaps you would respond by pointing to the word "full," implying that humans could have partial understanding of revelation. But even then, I don't see how that doesn't fall to my question. If something is revealed and only partially understood, then you cannot say that the part that was not understood was, in fact, revealed.

I, for one, believe the apocalyptic literature of the OT was fully understood, to the degree it was given, by its authors. Perhaps there were some aspects of still unrevealed eschatology that they did not see, but that is precisely because it was unrevealed.

In the case of Genesis 1 - 2 again, I don't think the purpose of the Book is to give us a handbook of the methods and exact timing of creation. I think the primary purpose is to affirms God's proactive hand in creation, the existance of a plan and purpose that tied Israel as his Chosen nation for the blessing of all nations. That doesn't diminish at all, in my mind that we should take all we can but attempting to read it as 21st century scientific treatise and force it into that context, makes no sense in my mind.

As I fully agree with this--in fact, I have argued forcefully for this very thing--I don't see the particular reason you bring it up. It is precisely because we cannot read it in a 21st century scientific context--as a scientific treaty--that we cannot look for such means as "dust means stardust."

As I stated before, I'm in agreement with you that the text establishes that God created man from dust, probably instananeously and breathed life into him. My faith however is in God and the text, and I don't confuse those (or I try not to anyway) with my understanding or theology. If compelling evidence could be provided to convince me otherwise, I'm open to that. Of course, the interpretation of evidence is open to the same caveat. The interpretation of evidence is not evidence in and of itself, and I think particularly in this area of science there is a real danger of carrying the parameters of science which excludes the supernatural forward into a context where that is not the case.

I've seen you say this many times before, and while I appreciate the spirit of it, I think it is perhaps a bit misguided. I fully recognize that any given interpretation of a text may be incorrect, but unless you believe that a text's meaning cannot be known, then there is little use in distinguishing between believing the text and believing a theology. All we mean by the latter term is the ideas that we take from the text. In the strictest sense, you cannot believe the text itself. You can only believe the ideas that you take from it. The words, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" just that: words. It is the idea that they convey--the proposition truth--that is to be believed.

It may sound humble to proclaim that your interpretation of the text is not to be confused with the text itself, but I carefully and respectfully submit to you that it is not. It is, rather, an excuse to maintain agnosticism. I would challenge you that there are things you do unequivocally believe, such as that Jesus rose bodily from the dead. If someone said that the resurrection was only spiritual, would you then label your own belief in the bodily resurrection a mere theology that is no more valid than the other? Of course not. But if you claim one theology is more valid than another, then you are assuming that the text can be known more fully in one way or another. Thus, you are saying that one interpretation is "less" interpretive than the other.

Further, this goes to your entire claim itself. You tell me that you do not confuse your theology with the text itself. And yet, you expect me to interpret the text you have provided and in that manner discover the idea that you have in your head. You expect me to understand your statement (and presumably, to believe that you meant it). Yet, if it is true, then on what basis do I believe my interpretation of your own statement is in any sense valid? If I make a hard distinction between the text and my interpretation of the text, then on what basis can I say that I believe any text, be it yours or Moses?

It goes, then, to the question of objectivity. The great offense in objective truth is that you can point to it and tell another with all dogmatism that they are wrong. I believe the Bible to present objective truth. It can be known, Bart. If I misunderstand it, it is not because I am incapable of it. It is because I have the wrong method of interpretation. The question has arisen here whether or not the dust in Genesis 1 could be stardust. I argue it could not for methodological reasons, the same you already cited. The Bible is not a scientific treaty and thus should not be treated as such.

So, again, while I appreciate the spirit of humility of this claim, I believe that, if applied consistently, it will render all knowledge, both sacred and secular, completely and totally impossible.

I took your statement that revelation could be "beyond the full understanding or comprehension of the human author" as being that there were circumstances in which it could not be understood. Perhaps you would respond by pointing to the word "full," implying that humans could have partial understanding of revelation. But even then, I don't see how that doesn't fall to my question. If something is revealed and only partially understood, then you cannot say that the part that was not understood was, in fact, revealed.

That's interesting but again extending the statement beyond the context of the statement I made which referred to Moses in the case of Genesis. Moses was not an eye witness. He was conveying what he was inspired to write. The revelation we are speaking about specifically is the creation account. We've agreed below that the contextual purpose of that passage is not primarily one of mechanics. The question is whether God intended by the language used to provide enough about the mechanics for us to understand that God instantaneously created man from the dust of the ground and breathed life into him. We've both agreed that that is the case. The difference in our opinions appears to be one of degree. You appear to believe this is certain. I believe it is likely, but am qualifying my statement that as this understanding is secondary to the primary purpose and context of the passage, that I'm willing to allow that I may be wrong in my understanding without diminishing the passage or diminishing from the inspiration or inerrancy of the passage. Further, I'm not particularly motivated or concerned about whether someone else agrees with me or not on this point, again because not only is the point secondary to the primary purpose of the passage but also the issue itself, as I believe we've already agreed, is not cardinal nor tied to an issue that would impact either one of us eternally or preclude us from being in fellowship with one another. Given that, I contend that the issue of revelation that you're raising here is tied to a hypothetical assumption that either you or I can be certain of what Moses thought and what God intended in terms of this secondary issue. If you believe you have a basis to be sure of this then, we just simply have to disagree. I don't presume to have that certainty and I'm neither embarrassed nor ashamed to confess that and accept that it simply may not be as clear as what I might otherwise wish it were.

I, for one, believe the apocalyptic literature of the OT was fully understood, to the degree it was given, by its authors. Perhaps there were some aspects of still unrevealed eschatology that they did not see, but that is precisely because it was unrevealed.

I simply disagree with you on this. I certainly don't adhere to a verbal dictation form of revelation where the writer is disconnected from the Holy Spirit or is simply serving as a scribe. However, I believe that there can be and often is an element beyond what the human author can understand and that in some cases this may be based in the fact that the subject matter is perhaps something, like for instance, an immutable characteristic of God, or prophecy in terms of specific fulfillment, apocalyptic literature in terms of the specific symbolism. I think that can be true particularly in terms of looking back to pre-history or to the future where the subject is specifically outside the direct experience and observation of the human writer.

As I fully agree with this--in fact, I have argued forcefully for this very thing--I don't see the particular reason you bring it up. It is precisely because we cannot read it in a 21st century scientific context--as a scientific treaty--that we cannot look for such means as "dust means stardust."

I realize that that example (star-dust) was in this thread, but as I didn't make that statement not attempt to defend it, I don't feel the need to answer this. I simply felt that making the statement I did helped to qualify and clarify what I was attempting to say. Because I chose to do that doesn't mean that I'm making a statement or implying that I think you would disagree.

I've seen you say this many times before, and while I appreciate the spirit of it, I think it is perhaps a bit misguided. I fully recognize that any given interpretation of a text may be incorrect, but unless you believe that a text's meaning cannot be known, then there is little use in distinguishing between believing the text and believing a theology. All we mean by the latter term is the ideas that we take from the text. In the strictest sense, you cannot believe the text itself. You can only believe the ideas that you take from it. The words, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" just that: words. It is the idea that they convey--the proposition truth--that is to be believed.

MIsguided? We've agreed I believe that the mechanics of the creation in this passage are subordinate to the primary purpose and theme.

It may sound humble to proclaim that your interpretation of the text is not to be confused with the text itself, but I carefully and respectfully submit to you that it is not. It is, rather, an excuse to maintain agnosticism. I would challenge you that there are things you do unequivocally believe, such as that Jesus rose bodily from the dead. If someone said that the resurrection was only spiritual, would you then label your own belief in the bodily resurrection a mere theology that is no more valid than the other? Of course not. But if you claim one theology is more valid than another, then you are assuming that the text can be known more fully in one way or another. Thus, you are saying that one interpretation is "less" interpretive than the other.

Jac, you have no idea what my motives are in this regard. Further, extending this out to a presumption of "agnosticism", when the element of the passage we are discussing again is secondary is quite a leap, don't you think. Presumed certainty in that context may be for some comforting or appear to be a virtue by affording a greater apparent reliance upon the text, but I quite honestly, without apology or a desire to present some form of false humility, believe it is better to err on the side of allowing for a spectrum of possibilities particularly when the issue is secondary to the primary context of the passage.

Further, this goes to your entire claim itself. You tell me that you do not confuse your theology with the text itself. And yet, you expect me to interpret the text you have provided and in that manner discover the idea that you have in your head. You expect me to understand your statement (and presumably, to believe that you meant it). Yet, if it is true, then on what basis do I believe my interpretation of your own statement is in any sense valid? If I make a hard distinction between the text and my interpretation of the text, then on what basis can I say that I believe any text, be it yours or Moses?

Correspondingly would it be any less a presumption on yours or anyone elses part, to confuse your theology with the text itself? You appear to be expecting me to go beyond agreeing with you as to what the implications of this passage are to now agreeing with you as to the certainty that you appear to have as to the "truth" of your understanding. I don't apologize for seeking in my understanding of scripture to try and be as self-aware as I can be to my blind-spots, assumptions, biases, etc. Certainly there is a danger in being so open minded that one's brain's slide out. I'm not advocating, nor do I believe I ever have advocated a backing away from cardinal doctrines which I cherish and embrace. Historically however, as we discussed in this thread, there is indeed a strong example in the case of Galileo of the established church of that day erring greaviously through the unwillingness to accept a refutation from the realm of nature that illustrated what was ultimately a misinterpretation of scripture. It is no virtue, in my estimation to take on elements of certainty where the text itself doesn't support it. Presumed certainty for it's own sake or to attempt to make the Scripture speak more authoritatively to an issue than it really does, makes no sense to me.

It goes, then, to the question of objectivity. The great offense in objective truth is that you can point to it and tell another with all dogmatism that they are wrong. I believe the Bible to present objective truth. It can be known, Bart. If I misunderstand it, it is not because I am incapable of it. It is because I have the wrong method of interpretation. The question has arisen here whether or not the dust in Genesis 1 could be stardust. I argue it could not for methodological reasons, the same you already cited. The Bible is not a scientific treaty and thus should not be treated as such.

Objectivity in this regard only has meaning if it is objective truth drawn from the text itself. Far too often, what I see in the case of proclaimed objectivity is a form of eisogesis that values certainty over ambiguity with issues like this and believes it is a virtue to make a secondary application above and beyond the primary context of the passage. Call me a mystic. Call me wishy washy. Call me whatever label others might wish to apply, but it is no virtue in my book to push back mystery and ambiguity on items where I don't believe the Scripture speaks directly or clearly. Everything we need in matters of salvation is to be found in Scripture, and many more areas are touched upon as well, but I would prefer to remain silent and allow for multiple possibilities on non-cardinal issues where the Scripture is not direct than to assert something dogmatically.

So, again, while I appreciate the spirit of humility of this claim, I believe that, if applied consistently, it will render all knowledge, both sacred and secular, completely and totally impossible.

I correspondingly appreciate your concern and believe respectfully that there is a tendency in these concerns to perhaps fall into the establishment of false dilemmas and the construct of all or nothing type thinking in areas that fall outside of cardinal doctrines. Don't misunderstand me. I think that there can be certainty on non-cardinal issues. Just because something is non-cardinal in terms of doctrine doesn't mean it is unimportant or that Scripture isn't clear on many things. It's unfortunate I suppose that it's not enough that we agree on 95% of what we've discussed and that it appears I'm willing to question my own understanding to where I'm open to further considerations and even a changing of my mind were I to be presented with sufficient evidence. I see strong probability that our understanding is correct and true. It's not an unimportant issue. It's not however cardinal nor can I from the text itself make a case to move beyond my annoying ambiguity to your apparent certainty. Frankly, I'd find it comforting and intellectually satisfying to have your certainty on this issue. Ambiguity isn't easier. It is however, more reflective of where I am and so respectfully, we're just going to have to rejoice at how much we agree upon in this issue and accept one another for where we are coming from.

blessings,

bart

Bart, rather than make an unduly long post by line by lining, let me just summarize (and let me know if I missed anything important):

1. I don't think the mechanics of Genesis 1 are secondary. I think they are the primary means by which the theological truth is revealed. Let me ask you a question - as I know you believe the actual historicity of the biblical stories cannot be compromised without compromising the message, is the historicity of the Genesis 1-2, with specific reference to the way in which Moses described the events happening, is any less important to conveying the primary theological point?

2. I appreciate and recognize your disagreement in the second point. Another question: would you give me a specific example of something that you think the writer did not understand when he wrote it? I would rather discuss this in specifics rather than vague generalities to be sure that I don't misunderstand or misrepresent your position.

3. With reference to my general argument against your caution that we not confuse our interpretations of the text with the text itself, here I want to take special care because the chances of offense are obviously much greater. Now, we've continually distinguished between cardinal and secondary doctrines in our discussion. Let me just ask you plainly, which will be a great help to me in understand your position and perhaps in explaining my own: by what means do you distinguish a cardinal doctrine from a secondary doctrine? Would you explain your view on the relationship between those two terms, both in terms of their relationship to their source (which I presume to be Scripture) and their relationship to one another?

Thanks much!

Can a Darwinist be a Christian?

For Ken Miller, that is possible so I don't see it to be impossible the other way around, despite the illogicalities associated with it.

I thought Christianity was primarily related to the New Testament and that Christ's ministry largely replaced the Old Law (ie the Old Testament laws). Am I mistaken?

Wayne, that doesn't mean the Old Testament is invalid or false. The law was the first covenant and established God's realtionship as creator and man's relationship to God as broken. The law showed the need for a redeemer. THe fact that the New Testament established a new covenant, that of JEsus Christ, does not invalidate the truths that are found in the Old, merely that we are not under the Covenant of the LAw. We still view the Old Testament as infallible.